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.

    • Pxtl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      489 months ago

      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@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          109 months ago

          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.

            • Pxtl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              69 months ago

              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

          • @barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

  • TwoGems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    129 months ago

    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.

  • @Korkki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Lemminary
      link
      fedilink
      English
      179 months ago

      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

    • @realharo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      109 months ago

      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?

    • @TheBlue22
      link
      English
      89 months ago

      Tankie spotted, deploy the reaper drones

    • @hazelnot
      link
      English
      89 months ago

      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?

        • @DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          109 months ago

          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.”

          https://apnews.com/article/twitter-npr-state-affiliated-media-label-dea3e04905e423f7a8df9ba077d421f3

          • @Weslee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            79 months ago

            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

            • @Tatters@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              39 months ago

              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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                19 months ago

                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

            • @DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              29 months ago

              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”.

          • @MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            39 months ago

            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…

    • 👁️👄👁️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      39 months ago

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

    • @AdamantRatPuncher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      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.

  • VinceUnderReview
    link
    English
    19 months ago

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