Russia, China, Iran state media see boost on X after removal of ‘state-affiliated’ labels

The accounts of several Russian, Chinese and Iranian state media outlets saw a 70 percent increase in engagement on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, after it removed labels identifying them as “state-affiliated,” according to a new report released Tuesday.

The recent analysis from NewsGuard, which analyzes media trends and disinformation, found that 12 state media accounts from the three countries saw the number of likes and reposts on their content jump from 2.93 million in the 90 days before X removed the “state-affiliated” labels to 4.98 million in the 90-day period afterward.

Russia’s RT, which was already receiving substantially more engagement than the other state media outlets before the label’s removal, saw interactions with its posts nearly double in the three months after the change, jumping from 1.3 million to 2.5 million.

Iran’s PressTV similarly saw its engagement increase by about 97 percent, rising from 215,000 to 425,000 interactions after X’s removal of the “state-affiliated” label, according to NewsGuard.

Russia’s TASS also saw a 63 percent increase in engagement, receiving 493,000 interactions in the three months after the change, while engagement with posts from China’s Global Times rose by 26 percent to 314,000 interactions.

vinceman,

Wait, what about CBC News? Can someone confirm what it says for me?

AdamantRatPuncher,

you’d rather be on the darknet than on twitter x now.

possiblylinux127,

Do people still use “X”?

TwoGems,
@TwoGems@lemmy.world avatar

That was why Musk was likely asked by foreign governments to buy Twitter, and how he spoke to Putin. He is completely compromised. Any one of us would probably be held liable for something involving collusion with foreign hostile governments, but we have to baby our billionaires afterall.

Thorny_Thicket,

I somehow doubt it’s just the label. They were most likely downranked in the algorithm too. This wouldn’t make any sense otherwise.

Korkki, (edited )

So State labelled media was basically just keep wrong narratives under wraps, keep people away from them and shaft them down the algorithm where nobody would see it unless they went especially looking for it. It never had anything to do with “state media” since no western state media got the label, never had anything to do with lies, disinformation or propaganda either, since what is wider media these days anyway. It had everything to do with not following the Euro-Atlantic narrative and god forbid letting the designated “enemy countries” voice their side of the story. Why there is so much Twitter/X hate rn. in the media is because the western global ministry of truth fears losing grasp of the narrative if too much freedom is introduced.

I want to hear no bullshit here about how this was actually ever good and necessary and why we need narrative control for “democracy” and for protection of the fragile minds of the plebs who don’t know any better than to believe Russian and Chinese lies.

Edit: Oh right fediverse is has sizeable portion of assmad X refugees who now hate X and Musk and left when the people they don’t like got to post again. I must have struck a nerve Explains partly the dislikes. The others I guess are the unironic censorship supporters on a free speech platform, for various reasons.

Beardsley,

Uh…what

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Meth.

Beardsley,

Ah, that checks out. Thanks, Satan’s Maggoty Cum Fart!

TheBlue22,

Tankie spotted, deploy the reaper drones

hazelnot,

So instead of labeling Western propaganda as well, the solution is obviously to not label any propaganda whatsoever so people can be lied to by both sides?

kescusay,
@kescusay@lemmy.world avatar

Well. That’s certainly a take.

DogMuffins,

Which western state media met xitter’s definition of state-affiliated?

MasterBlaster,

NPR. I shit you not.

casmael,

I’m so confused by this

MasterBlaster,

Think of it this way: freedom is a threat to his business model.

DogMuffins,

You know NPR was literally included in xitter’s definition of “state-funded with editorial independence” until Musk shat himself right ?

NPR does receive U.S. government funding through grants from federal agencies and departments, along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The company said it accounts for less than 1% of NPR’s annual operating budget. But until Wednesday, the same Twitter guidelines said that “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the United States, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.”

apnews.com/…/twitter-npr-state-affiliated-media-l…

MasterBlaster,

I heard about it. I am a fan of Marketplace. It’s just insane that he tried to silence it after all that free speech bullshit he sprouted, while he removed the notice on media literally owned by authoritarian states. He’s a wingnut. Up is down, good is bad, etc…

Weslee,

I think most people who live in the UK can tell you the BBC is extremely bias - they might not be controlled by the gov directly, but the people in charge are very pro right wing

DogMuffins,

A quick search says that BBC is regularly accused of bias in both directions. Australia’s ABC is definitely accused of both.

Regardless. The policy doesn’t say anything about bias. It’s simply “editorial independence”.

barsoap,

The left will shout bias when the BBC ignores reality. The right will shout bias when the BBC reports reality.

RobotToaster,
@RobotToaster@mander.xyz avatar

Because the BBC has a a neoliberal, economically right wing while socially liberal, bias.

Tatters,

I live in the UK and I disagree with you. Assuming this right wing bias is true, how does it evidenced itself in the BBC’s programming and news coverage? Because I don’t see it. Especially their news, which seems very even-handed to me.

Weslee,

I stopped paying for and watching the BBC a few years ago, before I cancelled there was so much conservative coverage, they were inviting way more members of the Tory party onto the news

realharo,

and god forbid letting the designated “enemy countries” voice their side of the story

But they could still do that. The only difference is, more people knew who the story was coming from.

Why do you want them to be able to obfuscate the source?

Maajmaaj,

Now I’d be wrong as hell if I said you write like a Russian just to stir some shit up

Lemminary,

the Euro-Atlantic narrative

the western global ministry of truth

I’ve never lol’d harder in my life. Please tell me that their halls look at least half as cool as the Ministry of Magic in Westminster

cedarmesa, (edited )
@cedarmesa@lemmy.world avatar

💀

mojo,

What is something these state accounts posted that actually was worth reading lol. I get my propaganda from TikTok and YouTube already, thanks.

AdamantRatPuncher,

hate X and Musk and left when the people they don’t like got to post again

that’s a huge generalization right there. You can’t tell what users whom you didn’t even know were doing, besides it’s their freedom to hop out of a platform if they please if you believe it is your freedom to read and trust that content.

Sanctus,
@Sanctus@lemmy.world avatar

The propoganda must flow.

solidgrue,
@solidgrue@lemmy.world avatar

Truth clouds observation

mayo,
@mayo@lemmy.world avatar

Couldn’t label NPR as state sponsored so removed the label entirely?

Pxtl,
@Pxtl@lemmy.ca avatar

Other way around. Musk’s backers wanted the state media label gone, so he applied it to legit sources so it would be destroyed by the outcry.

zephyreks,

Musk wasn’t wrong in applying the state media tag to NPR/BBC/CBC. At the end of the day, they are funded by the state.

Pxtl,
@Pxtl@lemmy.ca avatar

There’s a difference between state-funded and partisan state media. And technically all major newspapers in Canada get some funding from the government, for example.

zephyreks,

State funding describes a conflict of interest, whether perceived or actual.

Pxtl,
@Pxtl@lemmy.ca avatar

There’s an ocean of difference between “funded by a democratic country and operated through an arm’s length organization” and “funded by a totalitarian dictatorship to be an apparatus of the state”.

the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron”

– Dril

zephyreks,

Does that claim remove the existence of conflict of interest?

barsoap,

They didn’t label e.g. DW, which very much is state-fundend, not public, media. They’re not even allowed to broadcast within Germany: Not only is it state TV, on top of that it’s federal state TV. Broadcasting in Germany is prerogative of the states, the federation plain and simply doesn’t get to do it.

Disclosing ownership/financing structures of media outlets is never a bad thing. DW is in every way whatsoever Germany’s foreign propaganda outlet, it has some very clear editorial lines aligning it 110% to German foreign policy. That it also has better journalistic integrity than the BBC not to speak of Radio Liberty or any large privately-financed broadcaster is another topic.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • tacticalgear
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • everett
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •