Good point. Maybe the original report should’ve been linked there rather than the CIA mouthpiece reporting of it. I’ve never seen this laboratory and they should not automatically be trustworthy just because they are from an university, since it is not peer-reviewed, but let’s analyse their claims.
Summary from their report:
H3. INORGANIC, CHINA STATE-SPONSORED
Most Likely Scenario
The majority of the evidence that we have identified is consistent with the hypothesis of a state-backed influence operation.
The timing coincidence between the removal of a Chinese state-sponsored IO by Twitter in July/August 2019, and the start of the HKLEAKS campaign, is an indicator tilting the analysis towards HKLEAKS being backed by the Chinese government.
Javascript code used by HKLEAKS contained Mandarin words and acronyms in Hanyu Pinyin spelling, typical of mainland China.
Some doxxing used privileged information, only available to the Hong Kong and/or Chinese authorities.
It is possible that the campaign also benefited from some degree of organic engagement by sympathetic online communities.
First and last one are just opinion based on the three in the middle. First actual one is just about another “operation” of spammers on twitter that “originated in the PRC”. Although they claim in the summary that they were “state-sponsored” both they and their source on that (which is the Australian govt btw) provide only as evidence that they have spammed against people who are generally hated by patriotic Chinese people like Guo Wengui. In all honesty, to me it just seems like they assume it is state sponsored because the tweets are in Chinese and coming from China, and even the “timeline” is not that much of a certainty with a 3 week gap between both events for a riot timeline of around 3 months. China has a lot of people with very high approval for their own government, and there is no listed evidence there besides the “coincidence” for both of them being the same group, let alone being handled by the same shadow branch of the government.
Second one is just bizarre, obviously if the campaign is coming from mainlanders it is going to use mainlander lingo. Again, that only narrows it down to being made by mainlanders (possibly even mainlanders that participate in Hong Kong), and does not implicate the government.
The last one is the best smoking gun they have, but that could also be a leak and there’s no evidence presented to determine any intentional participation from the actual government. Their main source on this. They also link to this facebook post as a “other reports”, not sure what is up with that. I’ll admit that the reported response by the agency doesn’t help their case, but I haven’t dug into that and it is not an admission of guilt either.
So in conclusion, I see very little evidence in the report itself that it was state-sponsored other than trusting blindly the Aussie govt or assuming that because something is from the mainland it is made by the government. They don’t even include their shy “Most likely scenario” assessment in their conclusion, and it is only in a random box in the middle of the report.
I still stand by my words that this is basically “something that happened in China happened in China, therefore is the fault of the government” kind of nonsense. Feel free to correct me though.
I’ll leave you with a Weibo post from one of the alleged spam accounts which I found really recognisable for Westerners. I wonder what that’ll mean for northwestern countries. Is the USA sponsoring disinformation campaigns on twitter during protests and riots?
In the past four months, rioters in Hong Kong have blocked the subway, the airport, the roads, surrounded the government headquarters, stormed the police station, destroyed public and private property, insulted the national flag and national emblem, attacked journalists and tourists, exposed the identity of police officers and their family members recklessly, incited sexual harassment of the wives of the police, and bullied the police’s children who were still in kindergarten. These illegal acts are shocking and outrageous! Today’s Hong Kong is devastated, and Chinese people all over the world are heartbroken and find this unacceptable!
Kudos for the well-reasoned reply. I see your points and now agree that it is difficult to draw conclusive links based on opinion. I also agree the third point would likely be the smoking gun here and is most concerning. It’s hard to prove or disprove, though. As you said, it could be a leak. I suppose if leaks become regular or frequent, it would be another matter though. We’ll see. Fair points though, thanks.
Good point. Maybe the original report should’ve been linked there rather than the CIA mouthpiece reporting of it. I’ve never seen this laboratory and they should not automatically be trustworthy just because they are from an university, since it is not peer-reviewed, but let’s analyse their claims.
Summary from their report:
H3. INORGANIC, CHINA STATE-SPONSORED
Most Likely Scenario
The majority of the evidence that we have identified is consistent with the hypothesis of a state-backed influence operation.
The timing coincidence between the removal of a Chinese state-sponsored IO by Twitter in July/August 2019, and the start of the HKLEAKS campaign, is an indicator tilting the analysis towards HKLEAKS being backed by the Chinese government.
Javascript code used by HKLEAKS contained Mandarin words and acronyms in Hanyu Pinyin spelling, typical of mainland China.
Some doxxing used privileged information, only available to the Hong Kong and/or Chinese authorities.
It is possible that the campaign also benefited from some degree of organic engagement by sympathetic online communities.
First and last one are just opinion based on the three in the middle. First actual one is just about another “operation” of spammers on twitter that “originated in the PRC”. Although they claim in the summary that they were “state-sponsored” both they and their source on that (which is the Australian govt btw) provide only as evidence that they have spammed against people who are generally hated by patriotic Chinese people like Guo Wengui. In all honesty, to me it just seems like they assume it is state sponsored because the tweets are in Chinese and coming from China, and even the “timeline” is not that much of a certainty with a 3 week gap between both events for a riot timeline of around 3 months. China has a lot of people with very high approval for their own government, and there is no listed evidence there besides the “coincidence” for both of them being the same group, let alone being handled by the same shadow branch of the government.
Second one is just bizarre, obviously if the campaign is coming from mainlanders it is going to use mainlander lingo. Again, that only narrows it down to being made by mainlanders (possibly even mainlanders that participate in Hong Kong), and does not implicate the government.
The last one is the best smoking gun they have, but that could also be a leak and there’s no evidence presented to determine any intentional participation from the actual government. Their main source on this. They also link to this facebook post as a “other reports”, not sure what is up with that. I’ll admit that the reported response by the agency doesn’t help their case, but I haven’t dug into that and it is not an admission of guilt either.
So in conclusion, I see very little evidence in the report itself that it was state-sponsored other than trusting blindly the Aussie govt or assuming that because something is from the mainland it is made by the government. They don’t even include their shy “Most likely scenario” assessment in their conclusion, and it is only in a random box in the middle of the report.
I still stand by my words that this is basically “something that happened in China happened in China, therefore is the fault of the government” kind of nonsense. Feel free to correct me though.
I’ll leave you with a Weibo post from one of the alleged spam accounts which I found really recognisable for Westerners. I wonder what that’ll mean for northwestern countries. Is the USA sponsoring disinformation campaigns on twitter during protests and riots?
Kudos for the well-reasoned reply. I see your points and now agree that it is difficult to draw conclusive links based on opinion. I also agree the third point would likely be the smoking gun here and is most concerning. It’s hard to prove or disprove, though. As you said, it could be a leak. I suppose if leaks become regular or frequent, it would be another matter though. We’ll see. Fair points though, thanks.