CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Twitter: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Wall Street Journal"
m (Text replacement - "CNN" to "CNN") |
m (Text replacement - "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Wall Street Journal") |
||
| Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
After a number of high-profile hacks of official accounts, including those of the [[Associated Press]] and ''[[The Guardian]]'',<ref>{{cite web |date=April 30, 2013 |title=Twitter Warns news Organisations Amid Syrian Hacking Attacks |url=http://descrier.co.uk/technology/2013/04/twitter-warns-news-organisations-amid-syrian-hacking-attacks/ |access-date=April 30, 2013 |publisher=Descrier}}</ref> in April 2013, Twitter announced a two-factor login verification as an added measure against hacking.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rodriguez |first=Salvador |date=May 23, 2013 |title=Twitter adds two-step verification option to help fend off hackers |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-twitter-two-step-verification-hackers-20130523,0,5416038.story |access-date=June 10, 2013}}</ref> | After a number of high-profile hacks of official accounts, including those of the [[Associated Press]] and ''[[The Guardian]]'',<ref>{{cite web |date=April 30, 2013 |title=Twitter Warns news Organisations Amid Syrian Hacking Attacks |url=http://descrier.co.uk/technology/2013/04/twitter-warns-news-organisations-amid-syrian-hacking-attacks/ |access-date=April 30, 2013 |publisher=Descrier}}</ref> in April 2013, Twitter announced a two-factor login verification as an added measure against hacking.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rodriguez |first=Salvador |date=May 23, 2013 |title=Twitter adds two-step verification option to help fend off hackers |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-twitter-two-step-verification-hackers-20130523,0,5416038.story |access-date=June 10, 2013}}</ref> | ||
On July 15, 2020, a [[2020 Twitter bitcoin scam|major hack of Twitter]] affected 130 high-profile accounts, both verified and unverified ones such as [[Barack Obama]], [[Bill Gates]], and [[Elon Musk]]; the hack allowed [[bitcoin]] scammers to send tweets via the compromised accounts that asked the followers to send bitcoin to a given public address, with the promise to double their money.<ref name="Statt">{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=July 15, 2020 |title=Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, Apple, and others hacked in unprecedented Twitter attack |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/15/21326200/elon-musk-bill-gates-twitter-hack-bitcoin-scam-compromised |access-date=July 15, 2020 |website=The Verge}}</ref> Within a few hours, Twitter disabled tweeting and reset passwords from all verified accounts.<ref name="Statt" /> Analysis of the event revealed that the scammers had used [[social engineering (security)|social engineering]] to obtain credentials from Twitter employees to access an administration tool used by Twitter to view and change these accounts' personal details as to gain access as part of a "[[smash and grab]]" attempt to make money quickly, with an estimated {{USD|120,000}} in bitcoin deposited in various accounts before Twitter intervened.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Conger |first1=Kate |last2=Popper |first2=Nathaniel |date=July 17, 2020 |title=Hackers Tell the Story of the Twitter Attack From the Inside |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/technology/twitter-hackers-interview.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200717210005/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/technology/twitter-hackers-interview.html |archive-date=July 17, 2020 |access-date=July 17, 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Several law enforcement entities including the FBI launched investigations into the attack.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=McMillan |first1=Robert |last2=Volz |first2=Dustin |date=July 19, 2020 |title=FBI Investigates Twitter Hack Amid Broader Concerns About Platform's Security |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-investigates-twitter-hack-amid-broader-concerns-about-platforms-security-11594922537 |access-date=July 7, 2020 |work= | On July 15, 2020, a [[2020 Twitter bitcoin scam|major hack of Twitter]] affected 130 high-profile accounts, both verified and unverified ones such as [[Barack Obama]], [[Bill Gates]], and [[Elon Musk]]; the hack allowed [[bitcoin]] scammers to send tweets via the compromised accounts that asked the followers to send bitcoin to a given public address, with the promise to double their money.<ref name="Statt">{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=July 15, 2020 |title=Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, Apple, and others hacked in unprecedented Twitter attack |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/15/21326200/elon-musk-bill-gates-twitter-hack-bitcoin-scam-compromised |access-date=July 15, 2020 |website=The Verge}}</ref> Within a few hours, Twitter disabled tweeting and reset passwords from all verified accounts.<ref name="Statt" /> Analysis of the event revealed that the scammers had used [[social engineering (security)|social engineering]] to obtain credentials from Twitter employees to access an administration tool used by Twitter to view and change these accounts' personal details as to gain access as part of a "[[smash and grab]]" attempt to make money quickly, with an estimated {{USD|120,000}} in bitcoin deposited in various accounts before Twitter intervened.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Conger |first1=Kate |last2=Popper |first2=Nathaniel |date=July 17, 2020 |title=Hackers Tell the Story of the Twitter Attack From the Inside |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/technology/twitter-hackers-interview.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200717210005/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/technology/twitter-hackers-interview.html |archive-date=July 17, 2020 |access-date=July 17, 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Several law enforcement entities including the FBI launched investigations into the attack.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=McMillan |first1=Robert |last2=Volz |first2=Dustin |date=July 19, 2020 |title=FBI Investigates Twitter Hack Amid Broader Concerns About Platform's Security |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-investigates-twitter-hack-amid-broader-concerns-about-platforms-security-11594922537 |access-date=July 7, 2020 |work=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> | ||
On August 5, 2022, Twitter disclosed that a bug introduced in a June 2021 update to the service allowed threat actors to link email addresses and phone numbers to twitter user's accounts.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Twitter confirms zero-day used to expose data of 5.4 million accounts |url=https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/twitter-confirms-zero-day-used-to-expose-data-of-54-million-accounts/ |access-date=August 11, 2022 |website=BleepingComputer}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=August 8, 2022 |title=Twitter Confirms Data Breach That Exposed Data Of 5.4 Million Users; Attackers May Still Have Data |url=https://www.news18.com/news/tech/twitter-confirms-data-breach-that-exposed-data-of-5-4-million-users-attackers-may-still-have-data-5709259.html |access-date=August 11, 2022 |website=News18}}</ref> The bug was reported through Twitter's [[bug bounty program]] in January 2022 and subsequently fixed. While Twitter originally believed no one had taken advantage of the vulnerability, it was later revealed that a user on the online hacking forum [[BreachForums|Breach Forums]] had used the vulnerability to compile a list of over 5.4 million user profiles, which they offered to sell for $30,000.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Paganini |first=Pierluigi |date=August 5, 2022 |title=Twitter confirms zero-day used to access data of 5.4 million accounts |url=https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/134087/data-breach/twitter-zero-day-data-leak.html |access-date=August 11, 2022 |website=Security Affairs}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Carter |first=Dylan |work=[[The Brussels Times]]|title=Twitter admits to data breach exposing contact info for 5.4 million accounts |url=https://www.brusselstimes.com/business/269326/twitter-admits-to-data-breach-exposing-contact-info-for-5-4-million-accounts |access-date=August 11, 2022 }}</ref> The information compiled by the hacker includes user's screen names, location and email addresses which could be used in [[phishing]] attacks or used to deanonymize accounts running under pseudonyms. | On August 5, 2022, Twitter disclosed that a bug introduced in a June 2021 update to the service allowed threat actors to link email addresses and phone numbers to twitter user's accounts.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Twitter confirms zero-day used to expose data of 5.4 million accounts |url=https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/twitter-confirms-zero-day-used-to-expose-data-of-54-million-accounts/ |access-date=August 11, 2022 |website=BleepingComputer}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=August 8, 2022 |title=Twitter Confirms Data Breach That Exposed Data Of 5.4 Million Users; Attackers May Still Have Data |url=https://www.news18.com/news/tech/twitter-confirms-data-breach-that-exposed-data-of-5-4-million-users-attackers-may-still-have-data-5709259.html |access-date=August 11, 2022 |website=News18}}</ref> The bug was reported through Twitter's [[bug bounty program]] in January 2022 and subsequently fixed. While Twitter originally believed no one had taken advantage of the vulnerability, it was later revealed that a user on the online hacking forum [[BreachForums|Breach Forums]] had used the vulnerability to compile a list of over 5.4 million user profiles, which they offered to sell for $30,000.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Paganini |first=Pierluigi |date=August 5, 2022 |title=Twitter confirms zero-day used to access data of 5.4 million accounts |url=https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/134087/data-breach/twitter-zero-day-data-leak.html |access-date=August 11, 2022 |website=Security Affairs}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Carter |first=Dylan |work=[[The Brussels Times]]|title=Twitter admits to data breach exposing contact info for 5.4 million accounts |url=https://www.brusselstimes.com/business/269326/twitter-admits-to-data-breach-exposing-contact-info-for-5-4-million-accounts |access-date=August 11, 2022 }}</ref> The information compiled by the hacker includes user's screen names, location and email addresses which could be used in [[phishing]] attacks or used to deanonymize accounts running under pseudonyms. | ||
| Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
=== Suspect and contested accounts === | === Suspect and contested accounts === | ||
{{See also|Deplatforming|Twitter suspensions}} | {{See also|Deplatforming|Twitter suspensions}} | ||
In January 2016, Twitter was sued by the widow of a U.S. man killed in the [[2015 Amman shooting attack]], claiming that allowing the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] (ISIL) to continually use the platform, including direct messages in particular,<ref name="verge-revisedisillawsuit">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/30/12717178/twitter-isis-lawsuit-direct-message-revised-complaint|title=Revived lawsuit says Twitter DMs are like handing ISIS a satellite phone|website=The Verge|access-date=August 31, 2016|date=August 30, 2016}}</ref> constituted the [[Providing material support for terrorism|provision of material support to a terrorist organization]], which is illegal under U.S. federal law. Twitter disputed the claim, stating that "violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear".<ref name="wsj-isistwitter">{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/01/14/lawsuit-blames-twitter-for-isis-terrorist-attack/|title=Lawsuit Blames Twitter for ISIS Terrorist Attack|work= | In January 2016, Twitter was sued by the widow of a U.S. man killed in the [[2015 Amman shooting attack]], claiming that allowing the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] (ISIL) to continually use the platform, including direct messages in particular,<ref name="verge-revisedisillawsuit">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/30/12717178/twitter-isis-lawsuit-direct-message-revised-complaint|title=Revived lawsuit says Twitter DMs are like handing ISIS a satellite phone|website=The Verge|access-date=August 31, 2016|date=August 30, 2016}}</ref> constituted the [[Providing material support for terrorism|provision of material support to a terrorist organization]], which is illegal under U.S. federal law. Twitter disputed the claim, stating that "violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear".<ref name="wsj-isistwitter">{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/01/14/lawsuit-blames-twitter-for-isis-terrorist-attack/|title=Lawsuit Blames Twitter for ISIS Terrorist Attack|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=January 16, 2016}}</ref><ref name="wsj-twitterliable">{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/01/15/can-twitter-be-liable-for-isis-tweets/|title=Can Twitter Be Liable for ISIS Tweets?|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=January 20, 2016}}</ref> The lawsuit was dismissed by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]], upholding the [[Section 230]] safe harbor, which dictates that the operators of an interactive computer service are not liable for the content published by its users.<ref name="wsj-twitterliable" /><ref name="verge-section230isis">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/10/11950098/twitter-isis-lawsuit-safe-harbor-terrorism|title=Twitter is not legally responsible for the rise of ISIS, rules California district court|website=The Verge|access-date=August 11, 2016|date=August 10, 2016}}</ref> The lawsuit was revised in August 2016, providing comparisons to other telecommunications devices.<ref name="verge-revisedisillawsuit" /> The second amended complaint was dismissed by the district court, a decision affirmed on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 31, 2018.<ref name="fields-v-twitter-appeal">{{cite web |last1=Smith |first1=Milan D. Jr. |title=Fields v. Twitter, Inc. |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-17165/16-17165-2018-01-31.html |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |access-date=May 24, 2024 |date=January 31, 2018}}</ref> | ||
Twitter suspended multiple parody accounts that satirized Russian politics in May 2016, sparking protests and raising questions about where the company stands on [[freedom of speech]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/twitter-suspends-russian-satirical-accounts-raising-free-speech-questions/571146.html|title=Twitter Suspends Russian Satirical Accounts, Raising Free Speech Questions {{!}} News|website=The Moscow Times|date=June 2016 |access-date=June 2, 2016}}</ref> Following public outcry, Twitter restored the accounts the next day without explaining why the accounts had been suspended.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/02/twitter-unblocks-darthputinkgba-spoof-russia|title=Twitter unblocks spoof Putin account after widespread criticism|last1=Times|first1=The Moscow|last2=network|first2=part of the New East|date=June 2, 2016|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=June 2, 2016}}</ref> The same day, Twitter, along with Facebook, Google, and [[Microsoft]], jointly agreed to a [[European Union]] code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal [[hate speech]]" posted on their services within 24 hours.<ref name="guardian-euhatespeech">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code|title=Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=June 7, 2016|date=May 31, 2016|last1=Hern|first1=Alex}}</ref> In August 2016, Twitter stated that it had banned 235,000 accounts over the past six months, bringing the overall number of suspended accounts to 360,000 accounts in the past year, for violating policies banning use of the platform to promote extremism.<ref>{{cite news|first=Elizabeth|last=Weise|title=Twitter suspends 235,000 accounts for extremism|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/08/18/twitter-suspends-235000-terrorism-extremism/88955432|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date=August 18, 2016 |access-date=November 20, 2016}}</ref> | Twitter suspended multiple parody accounts that satirized Russian politics in May 2016, sparking protests and raising questions about where the company stands on [[freedom of speech]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/twitter-suspends-russian-satirical-accounts-raising-free-speech-questions/571146.html|title=Twitter Suspends Russian Satirical Accounts, Raising Free Speech Questions {{!}} News|website=The Moscow Times|date=June 2016 |access-date=June 2, 2016}}</ref> Following public outcry, Twitter restored the accounts the next day without explaining why the accounts had been suspended.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/02/twitter-unblocks-darthputinkgba-spoof-russia|title=Twitter unblocks spoof Putin account after widespread criticism|last1=Times|first1=The Moscow|last2=network|first2=part of the New East|date=June 2, 2016|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=June 2, 2016}}</ref> The same day, Twitter, along with Facebook, Google, and [[Microsoft]], jointly agreed to a [[European Union]] code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal [[hate speech]]" posted on their services within 24 hours.<ref name="guardian-euhatespeech">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code|title=Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=June 7, 2016|date=May 31, 2016|last1=Hern|first1=Alex}}</ref> In August 2016, Twitter stated that it had banned 235,000 accounts over the past six months, bringing the overall number of suspended accounts to 360,000 accounts in the past year, for violating policies banning use of the platform to promote extremism.<ref>{{cite news|first=Elizabeth|last=Weise|title=Twitter suspends 235,000 accounts for extremism|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/08/18/twitter-suspends-235000-terrorism-extremism/88955432|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date=August 18, 2016 |access-date=November 20, 2016}}</ref> | ||
| Line 358: | Line 358: | ||
According to documents leaked by [[Edward Snowden]] and published in July 2014, the United Kingdom's [[GCHQ]] has a tool named BIRDSONG for "automated posting of Twitter updates" and a tool named BIRDSTRIKE for "Twitter monitoring and profile collection".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28306819|title=GCHQ leak lists UK cyber-spies' hacking tools|work=BBC News|date=July 15, 2014|access-date= July 16, 2014}}</ref><ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1217406-jtrigall.html#document/p4 "JTRIG Tools and Techniques"]. Retrieved July 16, 2014.</ref> | According to documents leaked by [[Edward Snowden]] and published in July 2014, the United Kingdom's [[GCHQ]] has a tool named BIRDSONG for "automated posting of Twitter updates" and a tool named BIRDSTRIKE for "Twitter monitoring and profile collection".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28306819|title=GCHQ leak lists UK cyber-spies' hacking tools|work=BBC News|date=July 15, 2014|access-date= July 16, 2014}}</ref><ref>[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1217406-jtrigall.html#document/p4 "JTRIG Tools and Techniques"]. Retrieved July 16, 2014.</ref> | ||
During the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]], [[Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Other reactions|Twitter suspended a core group]] of 1,000 "fake" accounts and an associated network of 200,000 accounts for operating a [[disinformation]] campaign that was linked to the [[Chinese government]].<ref>{{cite web|first1=Makena|last1=Kelly|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=Facebook and Twitter uncover Chinese trolls spreading doubts about Hong Kong protests|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812621/twitter-facebook-china-hong-kong-protests-information-operation-disinfo|date=August 19, 2019|website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=Hong Kong protests: Twitter and Facebook crack down on "deceptive" accounts linked to China|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hong-kong-protests-twitter-facebook-crack-down-on-deceptive-accounts-linked-to-china/|publisher=[[CBS News]]|first=Ramy|last=Inocencio|date=August 20, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Information operations directed at Hong Kong|url=https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/information_operations_directed_at_Hong_Kong|website=Twitter Blog|date=August 19, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=China cries foul over Facebook, Twitter block of fake accounts|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-twitter-idUSKCN1VA0RQ|work=[[Reuters]]|date=August 20, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=China Resists Charge by Twitter, Facebook of Disinformation Effort|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-resists-charge-by-twitter-facebook-of-disinformation-effort-11566339132|website= | During the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]], [[Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Other reactions|Twitter suspended a core group]] of 1,000 "fake" accounts and an associated network of 200,000 accounts for operating a [[disinformation]] campaign that was linked to the [[Chinese government]].<ref>{{cite web|first1=Makena|last1=Kelly|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=Facebook and Twitter uncover Chinese trolls spreading doubts about Hong Kong protests|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812621/twitter-facebook-china-hong-kong-protests-information-operation-disinfo|date=August 19, 2019|website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=Hong Kong protests: Twitter and Facebook crack down on "deceptive" accounts linked to China|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hong-kong-protests-twitter-facebook-crack-down-on-deceptive-accounts-linked-to-china/|publisher=[[CBS News]]|first=Ramy|last=Inocencio|date=August 20, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Information operations directed at Hong Kong|url=https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/information_operations_directed_at_Hong_Kong|website=Twitter Blog|date=August 19, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=China cries foul over Facebook, Twitter block of fake accounts|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-twitter-idUSKCN1VA0RQ|work=[[Reuters]]|date=August 20, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=August 28, 2019|title=China Resists Charge by Twitter, Facebook of Disinformation Effort|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-resists-charge-by-twitter-facebook-of-disinformation-effort-11566339132|website=The Wall Street Journal|date=August 20, 2019}}</ref> | ||
On June 12, 2020, Twitter suspended over 7,000 accounts from Turkey because those accounts were fake profiles, designed to support the Turkish president, [[Recep Tayyip Erdoğan]], and were managed by a central authority. Turkey's communication director said that the decision was illogical, biased, and politically motivated.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ankara reacts to Twitter's move to suspend accounts|url=https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ankara-reacts-to-twitters-move-to-suspend-accounts-155608|website=Hürriyet Daily News|date=June 13, 2020}}</ref> Turkey blocked access to Twitter twice, once after voice recordings appeared on Twitter in which Erdoğan ordered his son to stash away millions of dollars and another time for 12 hours in the aftermath of the [[2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake|earthquake of February 2023]], when Erdoğan blamed the people for a disinformation campaign as they criticized the Government for their lack of help.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Burga |first=Solcyre |date=February 15, 2023 |title=How Turkey's Earthquake Response Failed Its People |url=https://time.com/6255634/earthquake-turkey-syria-erdogan-rescue/ |access-date=February 17, 2023 |magazine=Time |language=en}}</ref> | On June 12, 2020, Twitter suspended over 7,000 accounts from Turkey because those accounts were fake profiles, designed to support the Turkish president, [[Recep Tayyip Erdoğan]], and were managed by a central authority. Turkey's communication director said that the decision was illogical, biased, and politically motivated.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ankara reacts to Twitter's move to suspend accounts|url=https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ankara-reacts-to-twitters-move-to-suspend-accounts-155608|website=Hürriyet Daily News|date=June 13, 2020}}</ref> Turkey blocked access to Twitter twice, once after voice recordings appeared on Twitter in which Erdoğan ordered his son to stash away millions of dollars and another time for 12 hours in the aftermath of the [[2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake|earthquake of February 2023]], when Erdoğan blamed the people for a disinformation campaign as they criticized the Government for their lack of help.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Burga |first=Solcyre |date=February 15, 2023 |title=How Turkey's Earthquake Response Failed Its People |url=https://time.com/6255634/earthquake-turkey-syria-erdogan-rescue/ |access-date=February 17, 2023 |magazine=Time |language=en}}</ref> | ||
| Line 395: | Line 395: | ||
====Public figures==== | ====Public figures==== | ||
[[Jonathan Zittrain]], professor of Internet law at [[Harvard Law School]], said that "the qualities that make Twitter seem inane and half-baked are what makes it so powerful."<ref>{{registration required|date=February 2011}} {{Cite news| first=Noam | last=Cohen | title=Twitter on the Barricades: Six Lessons Learned | date=June 20, 2009 | work=[[The New York Times]] | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/weekinreview/21cohenweb.html?_r=1&hp | access-date = June 21, 2009 }}</ref> In that same vein, and with Sigmund Freud in mind, political communications expert Matthew Auer observed that well-crafted tweets by public figures often deliberately mix trivial and serious information so as to appeal to all three parts of the reader's personality: the id, ego, and superego.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Matthew |last1=Auer |title=The Policy Sciences of Social Media |journal=Policy Studies Journal |year=2011 |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=709–736 |doi=10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00428.x |s2cid=153590593 }}</ref> The poets [[Mira Gonzalez]] and [[Tao Lin]] published a book titled ''Selected Tweets'' featuring selections of their tweets over some eight years.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thefader.com/2015/06/08/mira-gonzalez-tao-lin-twitter-interview-with-juliet-escoria|title=Mira Gonzalez And Tao Lin's Selected Tweets Is Deeper Than It Seems|publisher=The Fader|date=June 8, 2015|last=Escoria|first=Julia|access-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> The novelist [[Rick Moody]] wrote a short story for Electric Literature called "Some Contemporary Characters", composed entirely of tweets.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Rick Moody's Twitter Short Story Draws Long List of Complaints|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/12/01/rick-moodys-twitter-short-story-draws-long-list-of-complaints/|date=December 1, 2009|work= | [[Jonathan Zittrain]], professor of Internet law at [[Harvard Law School]], said that "the qualities that make Twitter seem inane and half-baked are what makes it so powerful."<ref>{{registration required|date=February 2011}} {{Cite news| first=Noam | last=Cohen | title=Twitter on the Barricades: Six Lessons Learned | date=June 20, 2009 | work=[[The New York Times]] | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/weekinreview/21cohenweb.html?_r=1&hp | access-date = June 21, 2009 }}</ref> In that same vein, and with Sigmund Freud in mind, political communications expert Matthew Auer observed that well-crafted tweets by public figures often deliberately mix trivial and serious information so as to appeal to all three parts of the reader's personality: the id, ego, and superego.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Matthew |last1=Auer |title=The Policy Sciences of Social Media |journal=Policy Studies Journal |year=2011 |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=709–736 |doi=10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00428.x |s2cid=153590593 }}</ref> The poets [[Mira Gonzalez]] and [[Tao Lin]] published a book titled ''Selected Tweets'' featuring selections of their tweets over some eight years.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thefader.com/2015/06/08/mira-gonzalez-tao-lin-twitter-interview-with-juliet-escoria|title=Mira Gonzalez And Tao Lin's Selected Tweets Is Deeper Than It Seems|publisher=The Fader|date=June 8, 2015|last=Escoria|first=Julia|access-date=January 6, 2021}}</ref> The novelist [[Rick Moody]] wrote a short story for Electric Literature called "Some Contemporary Characters", composed entirely of tweets.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Rick Moody's Twitter Short Story Draws Long List of Complaints|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/12/01/rick-moodys-twitter-short-story-draws-long-list-of-complaints/|date=December 1, 2009|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=May 19, 2012|first=Steven|last=Kurutz}}</ref> | ||
Many commentators have suggested that Twitter radically changed the format of reporting due to instant, short, and frequent communication.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Impact of Twitter on Journalism {{!}} Off Book|url=https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/2c19b182-83df-4168-b61b-158d993e8de2/the-impact-of-twitter-on-journalism/|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=PBS LearningMedia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Chamberlain|first=Craig|title=How has Twitter changed news coverage?|url=https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/267046|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=news.illinois.edu}}</ref> According to ''[[The Atlantic]]'' writers Benjamin M. Reilly and Robinson Meyer, Twitter has an outsized impact on the public discourse and media. "Something happens on Twitter; celebrities, politicians and journalists talk about it, and it's circulated to a wider audience by Twitter's algorithms; journalists write about the dustup." This can lead to an argument on a Twitter feed looking like a "debate roiling the country... regular people are left with a confused, agitated view of our current political discourse".<ref>{{Cite web|date=February 12, 2020|title=Twitter Is Not as Important as Journalists Make It Seem|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2020/02/twitter-is-bad-for-the-news/605782/|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=The Atlantic}}</ref> In a 2018 article in the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'', Matthew Ingram argued much the same about Twitter's "oversized role" and that it promotes immediacy over newsworthiness.<ref name="Ingram-2021">{{Cite web|title=Do journalists pay too much attention to Twitter?|url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/journalists-on-twitter-study.php|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref> In some cases, inauthentic and provocative tweets were taken up as common opinion in mainstream articles. Writers in several outlets unintentionally cited the opinions of Russian [[Internet Research Agency]]-affiliated accounts.<ref name="Ingram-2021" /><ref name="Luk">{{Cite web|title=Most major outlets have used Russian tweets as sources for partisan opinion: study|url=https://www.cjr.org/analysis/tweets-russia-news.php|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref> | Many commentators have suggested that Twitter radically changed the format of reporting due to instant, short, and frequent communication.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Impact of Twitter on Journalism {{!}} Off Book|url=https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/2c19b182-83df-4168-b61b-158d993e8de2/the-impact-of-twitter-on-journalism/|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=PBS LearningMedia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Chamberlain|first=Craig|title=How has Twitter changed news coverage?|url=https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/267046|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=news.illinois.edu}}</ref> According to ''[[The Atlantic]]'' writers Benjamin M. Reilly and Robinson Meyer, Twitter has an outsized impact on the public discourse and media. "Something happens on Twitter; celebrities, politicians and journalists talk about it, and it's circulated to a wider audience by Twitter's algorithms; journalists write about the dustup." This can lead to an argument on a Twitter feed looking like a "debate roiling the country... regular people are left with a confused, agitated view of our current political discourse".<ref>{{Cite web|date=February 12, 2020|title=Twitter Is Not as Important as Journalists Make It Seem|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/letters/archive/2020/02/twitter-is-bad-for-the-news/605782/|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=The Atlantic}}</ref> In a 2018 article in the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'', Matthew Ingram argued much the same about Twitter's "oversized role" and that it promotes immediacy over newsworthiness.<ref name="Ingram-2021">{{Cite web|title=Do journalists pay too much attention to Twitter?|url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/journalists-on-twitter-study.php|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref> In some cases, inauthentic and provocative tweets were taken up as common opinion in mainstream articles. Writers in several outlets unintentionally cited the opinions of Russian [[Internet Research Agency]]-affiliated accounts.<ref name="Ingram-2021" /><ref name="Luk">{{Cite web|title=Most major outlets have used Russian tweets as sources for partisan opinion: study|url=https://www.cjr.org/analysis/tweets-russia-news.php|access-date=January 31, 2021|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref> | ||