Analysis of a Dumpster Fire: SMIU Society Burning — PART I
Preamble
I’ve decided to publish the first part of many, debunking a report that was written about extremism. There is an infectious cancer that has kept spreading in the community, pretending to be experts in things they know nothing about. I don’t have expert knowledge, but I can see glaring problems all over this report, as I have clear understandings and dynamics of the groups involved as well as Data Science.
The biggest outrageous error in this report is the lack of coverage concerning the Proud Boys, opting to give more time to less relevant groups and information. They are only vaguely referenced twice in the entire paper, and the Boogaloo Boys being a libertarian movement for technological advancement.
This was way too much nonsense combined with other people blindly promoting this, without even reading it nor understanding how bad it is, pushed me over the edge to writing some drafts debunking this paper, which was around 08/17/2020 at about 1,800 words, according to the timestamps. Now, here we are, and we are going to take a magical ride into how very wrong this paper is, with an expanded ~1,200 words.
Paper in Question: https://web.archive.org/web/20210824092633/http%3A%2F%2Fsmiu.eu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2FSMIU-EU-Society-Burning-Tactical-Assessment-13-07-20-Vers-2.pdf
Introduction
Today we are exploring a paper published by SMIU. It is so full of outright grievous errors it has given rise to me writing this debunking article. Among these errors, includes page 9 which defines the Boogaloo Boys as a do-good techno libertarian group, redefining the context of accelerationism regarding this group’s stated ideology.
One easy counter example to the paper to consider is The Christchurch Mosque Massacre by a White National Accelerationist, who did not rush in a new libertarian ideal government based upon technological advancement.
Visual Formatting (AKA — My Eyes Are Bleeding)
The paper also has one of the most visually obnoxious formats that has ever assaulted my ocular nerves. The constant and unnecessary baby blue highlighting of text reminds me of a 2nd rate textbook from grade school with inappropriate drawings on the inside cover after years of Freudian abuse. Who’s great idea was it to use baby blue on white for a “professional” paper? I can see this causing lots of issues with anyone having Achromatopsia.
Luckily, there was a few options with the pdf viewer I use that can fix the burning in my eyes and the incoming headache having to visually process the text.
I rip on the unnecessary highlighting, as the presentation and readability is of importance, especially when presented as a “professional” publication. Even the wrong font can have some very bad side effects, as Twitter found out. The main reason I avoided looking at it for so long was because of the headache-inducing stylized presentation. It is unfriendly to anyone neurodivergent trying to read this paper, an important population to note as we are dominantly represented among academics.
The Human Element
It is important to note that human beings are not logical, follow strict patterns, nor always perform actions as expected. This is a major issue in the analysis of social media data and when attempting to do so using one-size-fits-all algorithms. Overly flawed and simplified methodologies produce major errors in results. Examples include doing a broad analysis of followers, following, and interactions using strictly home brewed tools cobbled together from Python libraries and some Java based software without full understanding of the Java Virtual Machine. This is the quintessential GIGO Effect.: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
This goes for sanity checks on data collection, as you, the reader, will find later on in the debunking.
Method on page 6
This is some of the best word salad I’ve ever seen. It’s full of the art of saying nothing. For a section on “Method”, there is no “Method” defined. There is no talk about what data sources are used, how the data were processed in non-word salad, nor any software to allow for repeatability by other researchers. Terms such as “sterile corridor”, are never defined.
This entire page has zero informative value since these methods cannot be used for replication of their “study”. The only thing that can be determined from this wall of text, is they looked at some data, from undefined sources and undefined collection methods, wrote some thoughts about it, and made sure to use spell check. This can be all inferred by the existence and topic matter of this paper.
Acronyms and terms of interest on page 8
There is plenty wrong here, as there’s terminology that isn’t even used in the paper, or just used once, while being defined in that single instance differently. In a section about defining terminology, there appears to be no attempt to look up or describe the definitions accurately or with consistency.
Many of these conflicts are in conflict with standard definitions, with one I’ve never seen used before, CYBORG, by anyone with that terminology. I put links on the ones that describe the standard definitions of the terms for the bizarre redefined ones in the paper.
- SOCINT — The “web” is not social interaction. There is no other mention of other mediums besides Twitter.
- HUMINT — Why is “people” used instead of the human part of “HUM” in comparison to CHIS? Consistency is nice.
- API — An API’s purpose is not solely to collect bulk information like tweets from Twitter. This is highly simplistic as well as just flat out wrong.
- There are no periods ending any of the sentences in this section. Consistency is nice.
- Bot — Solely focused on Twitter, just like the definition of API.
- Cyborg — Not even used in the paper, no idea why it’s even here.
- Click Farm — Only used once on PG. 15, is redefined in context, says “devices” instead of “mobile devices”, and also is called, “click-farm”. It’s almost as useless as defining “Cyborg”.
- Random use of periods ending sentences. Consistency is nice.
- Disinformation — This is an extremely odd definition of “Disinformation”, especially the part where it makes you go out and commit crimes, apparently.
- Misinformation — What is it with the whole act against the law bits? This looks intentionally misleading. The sentence is missing the period at the end as well as “Amplification”. Consistency is nice.
The “Introduction” on page 9
Well, the first half of introduction looks good to me, then the rest goes downhill. This is an inherent problem with the paper that detracts from any conclusions based upon factual data it may provide.
This is wrong. . . The main group in direct opposition to Antifa and BLM is the Proud Boys, not the Boogaloo Boys. The opposition tactics by the Proud Boys have gotten more extreme.This is a factual based conclusion, as they show up, en masse, to physically attack BLM and Antifa protesters, holding their own anti-ANTIFA and anti-BLM demonstrations (more citations + screenshots needed here at some point).
The amount of people identifying as Boogaloo Boys pale in comparison to Proud Boys. Historically, Boogaloo Boys have not had their own demonstrations against BLM or ANTIFA, and have not shown up to protests in numbers like the Proud Boys (more citations needed, all the citations, note here). The writing, figures, and data presented in this paper are misleading, as nobody investigating this topic considers the Boogaloo Boys a primary group in opposition to BLM and Antifa.
The ADL considers the Boogaloo movement as an anti-government extremist movement containing some White Supremacist members within it, rather than a White Supremacist movement.
Demographitized for over a year prior to the publication of this paper, This paper has aged very poorly, as it was never based in factual present day reality to begin with.
Source or even evidence for these claims? As much as it pains me to actually have to defend Ngo and Posobiec, the only “evidence” I’ve seen indicates these are done by either right wing trolls, people doing satire mocking them (Need to find that citation / admission for this, I am tired of writing, I will fill this in eventually), or this guy.
This is an absurd, racist, and offensive view that demonizes minorities that have been victimized for the entirety of our nation’s history. All the dead and brutalized BIPOC citizens and their families are victims. Claiming this is a “manipulated dichotomy” belittles and dehumanizes the violence and discrimination these communities have endured since the colonization of this country. This gives the impression that BLM is nothing more than social manipulation to cause divisions rather than a global social movement based upon clear and present racism against the BIPOC community that has since expanded to include colonized, oppressed, and [previously] enslaved communities across the globe.
This is one way to ignore and glance over what the “Boogaloo Boys” are really all about. At pg 27, it actually does describe offhand what the term “Boogaloo” means, but not anywhere else in a more appropriate section, like right here. Instead, we have some kind of off definition trying to describe them as techno libertarians and angry young people. This completely ignores the fact that they’re primarily an anti-government movement, oftentimes but not always, having white nationalist ideology as well.
Many self-proclaimed members of the Boogaloo Movement adhere and act along the goals to target BLM and ANTIFA, with the desire of sparking the civil or race war known as the “Boogaloo”. (Takes until pg 35 to mention this part). This is not a new phenomena, all you have to do is read the Turner Diaries and look over at the Oklahoma city bombings. In Minnesota, there was arrests of white nationalists intentionally destroying property so it would be blamed on Antifa and BLM. As on pg 27 and pg 35, there is information that should be right here on this page.
As for ideology of the Boogaloo Movement, it’s just hate the government, in particular the federal government, due to distrust, usually citing Waco and the Oklahoma city bombings as acts of patriotism against the corrupt oppressive government. This follows more close in line with the classical right wing militia groups than anything else, with a special focus on the future civil war. The accelerationists focus on making this a reality.
The last sentence is the most impressive, suggesting their involvement is manufactured by stating they are “building narratives to influence the perception of their involvement”. I guess this can be considered self awareness points, as this is a relatively minor group, out of many other minor groups in the White Nationalist/Nazi/Far-Right collective labeling. The Proud Boys has been one of the dominant groups, in numbers as well as taking direct physical action, but we don’t see that anywhere in here.
Either way, the inclusions of the Boogaloo (Boys)/Movement just should not have such a dominant mentioned or considered a major player in opposition to BLM and ANTIFA. There are other groups, such as Patriot Prayer, that have done even more than the Boogaloo Movement in opposition to BLM, as well as a close ally to the Proud Boys, that are not mentioned at all. Even Identify Evropa has done a lot more than the Boogaloos have when it comes to going against BLM and ANTIFA.
The Landscape on page 12
You know, I have a good place for this information to be, it’s called the Method section, where one describes the Methods used to gather the data, the source of the data, and also, the methods of analysis used such that another researching group could replicate their process. Although, it doesn’t even hint how they obtained this data from Twitter, until page 22, which is an entirely different data set (where was this obtained? Is a source provided?).
This does seem to be a pattern, the lack of grouping important information together in appropriate sections. Proper organization of a paper, along with consistency, is a must for any “professional” publication. All the inconsistent definitions, the methods used being scattered about the paper when they should be at the start, under the methods section, etc. is just poor and sloppy.
This triggers my inert OCD and attention to details. Notice how the ranges go from low to high, and then with the female range, it’s high to low? Just why? Consistency is nice.
Citation needed? This also shows a lack of understanding of the “Landscape”, rather ironically. BLM and ANTIFA share a common enemy, the police, and how the police go hand in hand with racist hate groups. The rise of Trump came with it, the rise of extreme right wing fascism, and the resurgence of the popularity of ANTIFA. This is not a mystery involving external actors.
Twitter can be used from a browser on a phone, which might be shocking news to this graph. This will, of course, skew the iPhone vs Android stats here, but by how much is unknown. The rambling about “click-farms” comes out of no where with unfounded implications that implies it is statistically relevant somehow.
The bit about scheduling tweets using special software is a pointless addition to this, as Twitter added it as a feature in May 2020, available via the web, giving such a feature to everyone without “detection” by client. Further more, according to the dates you’ve mentioned this analysis was done, everyone had access to this feature from twitter itself, so… why is that not mentioned?
Citation needed? All the citations are needed!
There is no citation for the implication iPhone users are more wealthier than Android users, or reference to how this conclusion was determined at all. When you make claims in a professional publication, you do need to reference sources, else these are essentially your opinions from authority rather than anything to be taken seriously.
(It has been pointed out to me there is donation drives using older iPhones to people of need as well as various charity organizations, electronic recyclers that do this as well, and so on. I’ll add citations later for this here at some point. You can easily get an older iPhone that is considerably cheap as well on ebay and other sources.)
All I could find was a questionable marketing survey in 2018 and this paper. The for-mentioned paper determined that owning an android phone was 59.5% more likely you were “rich” compared to owning an iPhone, at 69.1%, which is only a 9.6% difference in comparison, in 2016. This doesn’t account for changes in economy, technology, or marketing during those ~4 years.
This graph does not show data interpretation in a meaningful way, with 34 being the “highest” level shown. There is no probability, out of 6,455,900 claimed collected tweets, over a period of 4 weeks, on the #BLM hashtag, that there can be that few unique urls. Where are all the links to news articles from the domains of their respective news outlets go? It’s impossible that there were only 13 unique Facebook urls, out of millions of tweets.
These statistics do not meet basic sanity checks. I currently do not have access to an equivalent dataset to map the real statistics, which might come in part 2, provided I can locate one.
How is a “far-right” news aggregator and two far right French news/magazines the ONLY apparent news sources, in a top 10 list, on that representation
So, a significant number of individuals can read and presumably speak French in the United States with the sole interest in BLM, and only shared 66% of their news about BLM from two far right French news outlets? How does reality and sanity work exactly? 🤷♂️
This amounts to, in context, they talked to or read posts by unspecified anonymous individuals between 9am to 5pm their local time, noted their feels, and they wrote them down. There is no information concerning the sampling, who these people are, if it was even a group of people, or just one person’s opinion.
I do not see any issues with the rest of this section til the end, on page 22, at the present time.
Conclusions
This is only half of the paper done, and thankfully the section about Facebook was within reason. This write up is already ~3,000 words, if there is anything in it that needs to be addressed that I missed, it can be in part 2.
If you liked the debunk of this paper and want to ease the pain of me having to read it, please send whiskey, lots and lots of whiskey, thank you!
UPDATES
Hi there, as expected, the entire company failed, and now the domain is expired. I didn’t see a point to do a Part II, as shortly after this was published, the company was put on a “pause” before the domain was allowed to expire.
Everything that these bad actors build ultimately fails. It’s not possible for any of them, put together, to build a solid foundation for anything, as they lack everything required to do so. They grift their way and abuse associations to give an appearance they have the know how and expertise, when they really don’t. They tear down everyone they can, especially when they feel it’s a threat to their grift, in order to elevate themselves up. This won’t be the last and has not been the first attempt to push dis/misinformation while pretending to be “experts” on subjects they know very little about.
