Orlando Sentinel

Twitter says 200 accounts tied to Russia

Dems criticize level of cooperatio­n from internet giant

- By David S. Cloud

WASHINGTON — Twitter said Thursday it had found around 200 accounts linked to Russian interferen­ce in the 2016 election, a further sign that Moscow secretly employed multiple social media platforms to influence American voters.

The company said in a statement that 22 accounts were closed after they were found to be linked to separate Facebook pages previously shown to have spread Russian-bought ads during the presidenti­al campaign that focused mostly on social issues like race, guns and immigratio­n.

An additional 179 Twitter account were “related or linked” to the Facebook pages, Twitter said, adding that it closed “the ones we found in violation of our rules.”

Twitter’s disclosure­s, a week after a similar statement by Facebook, came in response to growing criticism of the company from members of Congress for not providing details about how Moscow might have used their platforms, ostensibly to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton.

Company executives on Thursday briefed members and staff of the House and Senate intelligen­ce committees on their findings in a closed-door meeting. But several Democratic lawmakers said the company’s presentati­on left many questions unanswered.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate intelligen­ce committee, was even more critical, calling Twitter’s disclosure­s “deeply disappoint­ing” and “frankly inadequate on almost every level.”

Twitter has remained mostly silent in public until now about Russia’s use of its site. Like Facebook, the company revealed few details about the content of the tweets linked to Russia.

Rep. Adam Schiff, DCalif., said much of the informatio­n Twitter provided on Russian-linked accounts was derived from Facebook’s analysis and did not address whether the tweets were targeted to particular voters in an effort to sway their choice for president.

“It is clear that Twitter has significan­t forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign,” he said in an interview.

“Additional analysis will require a far more robust investigat­ion into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign and whether any of the targeting on Twitter suggests the possibilit­y of assistance or collusion with any U.S. persons,” Schiff said.

“Twitter’s probably more important than we know,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, DCalif., another member of the House committee. Compared to Facebook, “they’ve been, frankly, less cooperativ­e so far.”

In a statement, Twitter said it “deeply respects the integrity of the election process, which is a cornerston­e for all democracie­s.”

It said the company is “in dialogue” with congressio­nal committees investigat­ing Russian interferen­ce in the U.S. campaign.

Use of social media was part of a broad effort by the Kremlin to influence the presidenti­al election, U.S. intelligen­ce agencies said in a January report.

Since the election, tweets from Russia have continued to promote divisive subjects, according to the Alliance for Securing Democracy, an initiative of the German Marshall Fund, a Washington think tank.

Its monitoring of 600 Twitter accounts linked to Russia showed that 25 percent of the stories promoted by those accounts in the last week had a strong antiAmeric­an theme, while around 15 percent criticized Hillary Clinton.

Like Facebook, Twitter has given its informatio­n to special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading a criminal investigat­ion into whether any of Trump’s aides coordinate­d with Russian authoritie­s during or after the campaign. Trump has denied any collusion.

Executives from Twitter, Facebook and Google are expected to testify in public before the Senate intelligen­ce committee on Nov. 1.

 ?? MARK WILSON/GETTY ?? Sen. Mark Warner called Twitter’s disclosure­s “disappoint­ing” and “frankly inadequate.”
MARK WILSON/GETTY Sen. Mark Warner called Twitter’s disclosure­s “disappoint­ing” and “frankly inadequate.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States