SAO PAULO, Brazil: Allegations of a dirty tricks campaign on WhatsApp dominated Brazil’s presidential election race on Thursday, turning attention to social media manipulation following abuses uncovered in the last US election and Britain’s Brexit referendum.
Trailing leftist candidate Fernando Haddad accused the far-right frontrunner, Jair Bolsonaro, of “illegal” electoral tactics after a report that companies were poised to unleash a flood of WhatsApp messages attacking him and his Workers Party.
Bolsonaro denied the allegation, tweeting that the Haddad’s Workers Party “isn’t being hurt by fake news, but by the TRUTH.”
The exchange happened 10 days before a run-off election that polls predict Bolsonaro — a bluff, Internet-savvy, pro-gun polemicist often compared to US President Donald Trump — will likely win comfortably.
Ordinary Brazilians told AFP they got much of their election information through WhatsApp. They said some in their families or entourage swallowed some misinformation, but denied they themselves were being influenced.
“We get a lot of news, even false news, but some true, about politics but I don’t think it changes very much in terms of making decisions,” said Ana Clara Valle, a 27-year-old engineer in Rio.
She said she was voting for Bolsonaro because of his Catholic, pro-family stance, not because of any “extreme right” sensibility.
Andre de Souza, a 35-year-old lawyer leaning toward voting for Bolsonaro, said he receives around 500 WhatsApp messages a day for and against both candidates.
The rumors and false information “don’t make a difference to me,” he said, but added: “My mother received a WhatsApp message saying Bolsonaro was doing away with (mandatory) end-of-year salary payments, and she believed it!“
Support by companies
Haddad made his accusation after Brazil’s widest circulation newspaper, Folha de Sao Paulo, reported it had discovered contracts worth up to $3.2 million each for companies to send out bulk WhatsApp messages attacking the Workers Party.
“We have identified a campaign of slander and defamation via WhatsApp and, given the mass of messages, we know that there was dirty money behind it, because it wasn’t registered with the Supreme Electoral Tribunal,” Haddad told a media conference in Sao Paulo.
Bolsonaro’s lawyer, Tiago Ayres, told the financial daily Valor there was no evidence of any connection between the companies mentioned by Folha de Sao Paulo and Bolsonaro’s campaign.
The row shone a light on an issue that has become a pressing one in democracies: the organized abuse of social media to sway public opinion in countries.
Facebook — which owns WhatsApp, as well as popular image-based network Instagram — is the most prominent company that has come under scrutiny, though Twitter has also come in for criticism.
The platforms have made an effort to clean up who uses their services after evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 US election that saw Trump triumph, and accusations Facebook allowed user data to be harvested to bolster the campaign the same year for Britain to leave the European Union.
Facebook has also shut down disinformation pages traced to campaigns believed to have ties to Iran’s state-owned media and to Russian military intelligence services.
No foreign interference
There is no evidence of foreign interference online in Brazil’s election.
The director of major polling firm Datafolha, Mauro Paulinho, said on Twitter that his company had detected “some shifts” in public opinion just before the first round of the election on October 7, which Bolsonaro won handily.
“Technical and factual observations” were made, he said, without drawing any conclusions.
There are 120 million WhatsApp user accounts in Brazil, whose population is 210 million. The app works as a popular social network for friends, families and work colleagues.
Both Haddad and Bolsonaro are the subject of memes, cartoons and slogans circulating online in Brazil.
Haddad, a former education minister and ex-mayor of Sao Paulo, has repeatedly tried to draw Bolsonaro into televised debates on policies.
The leftist candidate has an academic background he believes would give him an advantage if the exchanges moved away from the one-line quips and insults that characterize most social media communications.
But Bolsonaro, who skipped early debates because he was recovering from a knife stab wound after being attacked by a lone assailant while campaigning last month, has thus far shown little inclination to go head-to-head with Haddad.
WhatsApp dirty tricks alleged in Brazil presidential race
WhatsApp dirty tricks alleged in Brazil presidential race
- Leftist candidate Fernando Haddad accused frontrunner Jair Bolsonaro of using WhatsApp to unleash fake news messages
- here are 120 million WhatsApp user accounts in Brazil, whose population is 210 million
Doctors Without Borders rejects Israeli army claim of ‘terror activity’ at site of deadly attack in Gaza
- 2 family members of staff member killed and 7 others injured by Israeli forces in February
- Likely a tank shell ‘fired directly into the building,’ according to a media probe
DUBAI: Israeli forces have been accused of intentionally, and without provocation, attacking a Doctors Without Borders aid shelter housing 64 people in Al-Mawasi, Gaza, on Feb. 20 killing two relatives of a staff member and injuring seven others.
The attack came despite Israeli forces being informed of the precise location of the shelter, Doctors Without Borders, or the MSF, reportedly said. The Israeli army has claimed that there was “terror activity” at the site, which the MSF has rejected.
Sky News revealed the findings of its investigation into the incident on Wednesday, prompting the Israeli Defense Forces to initiate its own “examination” into the incident.
The news organization said it visited the site, and used on-the-ground footage, open-source techniques and interviews with witnesses and weapons experts to understand how the incident unfolded.
Witnesses told Sky News they heard loud noises that seemed to come from a tank track, while some also heard gunshots.
The evidence suggests the attack was initiated by a tank shell that entered through a window. “It’s difficult to draw definitive conclusions merely from imagery however I believe the damage is the result of a tank round being fired directly into the building,” said former British army artillery officer and director of Chiron Resources, Chris Cobb-Smith.
He dispelled any notions about it being an attack by Hamas, saying he was “unaware of any direct fire weapons of this caliber being operated by Hamas” and is “doubtful that anything of this size would have been able to be deployed and fired with the amount of IDF activity in the area.”
Witnesses and MSF members said they also heard gunfire before the building was hit.
Meinie Nicolai, general director of the aid organization, who visited the site soon after the attack, said bullets were fired at the front of the shelter.
The investigation further revealed that on the day of the attack, the Israeli army said on its Telegram channel that its forces were operating in northern, central and southern Gaza Strip and continuing “intensive operations in western Khan Younis,” but it did not mention the immediate area around the shelter.
Moreover, the IDF’s Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee published an evacuation map on the same day of two neighborhoods further north in and around Gaza City, which did not cover the area where the shelter is located.
Emergency services arrived at the scene at least two-and-a-half hours after the attack due to security concerns, according to the investigation.
The injured were taken to the International Medical Corps Field hospital in Rafah, said the MSF.
“We are outraged and deeply saddened by these killings,” said Nicolai in February.
“These killings underscore the grim reality that nowhere in Gaza is safe, that promises of safe areas are empty and deconfliction mechanisms unreliable,” she added.
The IDF, which has launched its own investigation, said that it “fired at a building that was identified as a building where terror activity is occurring,” but did not provide any evidence.
The MSF said in a statement on Wednesday it “refutes any allegations of terror activity occurring in MSF-run structures.
“The shelter was used by humanitarian personnel and their family members, identified by an MSF flag, and notified to the Israeli authorities.”
In a statement, the IDF added: “After the incident, reports were received of the death of two uninvolved civilians in the area. The IDF regrets any harm to civilians and does everything in its power to operate in a precise and accurate manner.”
Under international humanitarian law, medical facilities and units must be respected and protected in all circumstances.
Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law School, told Sky News that medical facilities are “presumed to be civilian objects and not subject to targeting during armed conflict.”
She added that if the IDF intentionally targets a civilian object, it counts as “potentially a war crime.”
Last week, the IDF launched an operation in and around Al-Shifa, saying senior Hamas operatives were based at the sprawling compound. Days of heavy fighting have followed, with the military reporting about 170 Palestinian militants killed and hundreds more arrested or questioned.
US, UK sanction Gaza Now media channel over Hamas fundraising
- “Treasury remains committed to degrading Hamas’ ability to finance its terrorist activities,” US Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Brian Nelson said
- “The UK Government has announced a full asset freeze against two individuals suspected of providing financial support for Gaza Now,” the UK Treasury said
WASHINGTON: US and UK authorities unveiled sanctions Wednesday against two people and three companies related to the popular media channel Gaza Now over its fundraising efforts in support of Hamas.
The Treasury Department said in a statement that Gaza Now, whose popular Telegram channel has more than 1.8 million followers, and its founder Mustafa Ayash, started fundraising for Hamas after its unprecedented attack on October 7.
That attack resulted in about 1,160 deaths in Israel, mostly civilians, and the capture of around 250 hostages, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.
Israel’s retaliatory campaign has killed at least 32,414 people in Gaza, most of them women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
“Treasury remains committed to degrading Hamas’ ability to finance its terrorist activities, including through online fundraising campaigns that seek to funnel money directly to the group,” US Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence Brian Nelson said in a statement.
The Treasury Department accused the group of “having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hamas.”
The US also unveiled sanctions against Aozma Sultana, the director of two companies that allegedly gave “thousands of dollars to Gaza Now and advertised Gaza Now as a partner during a joint fundraiser shortly after the October 7 terrorist attack.”
The Treasury Department’s actions are being carried out alongside similar actions by the UK authorities.
“The UK Government has announced a full asset freeze against two individuals suspected of providing financial support for Gaza Now — a news agency that promotes the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist groups,” the UK Treasury said in a statement.
“All funds and economic resources in the UK belonging to or controlled by Sultana and Ayash have been frozen,” they added.
Australia’s ABC staff raise concerns over alleged Israeli bias in Gaza reporting
- Memo from staff meeting indicated network’s over-reliance on Israeli sources, distrust of Palestinian ones
- In January, staff threatened walkout after Antoinette Lattouf dismissed for sharing social media post critical of Israel
LONDON: Staff at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation have voiced concerns about what they perceive as biased coverage of the Gaza conflict in favor of Israel.
In a document obtained by Al Jazeera through a freedom-of-information request, staff indicated “an over-reliance on Israeli sources and explicit distrust of Palestinian sources,” as well as language that “favored the Israeli narrative over objective reporting.”
The three-page summary detailed a November meeting involving 200 staff members who expressed concerns about the broadcaster’s coverage.
The document said: “We’re worried the language we’re using in our coverage is askew, favoring the Israeli narrative over objective reporting.
“This is evident in our reluctance to use words such as war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and occupation to describe various aspects of Israeli practices in Gaza and the West Bank, even when the words are attributed to respectable organizations and sources.”
While ABC acknowledged that it could not make accusations of genocide or war crimes, staff argued that the broadcaster “should be more proactive in reporting them to properly contextualize the conflict,” adding that the correct language to describe Israeli aggression in the region was still lacking.
In response, an ABC spokesperson said: “All major stories are subject to robust internal discussion, and we listen to and respect staff input.”
The spokesperson declined to comment further on internal matters but affirmed that the ABC Ombudsman’s Office had reviewed the coverage of the Gaza conflict and found it to be “professional, wide ranging, and reflective of newsworthy events.”
The latest development followed previous controversies at ABC, including the allegedly unlawful dismissal of Lebanese-Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf after she shared a report on social media from Human Rights Watch alleging that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza.
Staff threatened to stage a walkout unless the organization’s leadership addressed concerns about outside interference.
According to reports, tensions persist at ABC over the Gaza conflict months after the initial staff meeting.
Iraqi minister proposes TikTok ban over societal concerns
- Unclear if banning option has Iraq parliamentary support
- TikTok has strong base in Iraq with nearly 32m users
LONDON: Iraq’s communications minister has formally requested the country’s Cabinet to block Chinese-owned app TikTok over worries about its societal impact.
Hiyam Al-Yasiri’s concerns, expressed during a recent press conference, have sparked a nationwide debate on the issue.
The minister told reporters: “I have submitted the request to the Council of Ministers to block TikTok, and I hope it will be considered soon.”
She highlighted what she described as TikTok’s role in “eroding Iraq’s social fabric” and noted a “lack of educational value in the app,” branding it as “purely entertainment focused.”
While it remained uncertain whether the request would be approved or rejected by the Cabinet or when deliberations would commence, any decision would necessitate action from the Iraqi Parliament or Cabinet as it surpassed the authority of the Ministry of Communications.
Al-Yasiri pointed out the need for cooperation from parliamentarians to support the prohibition of apps such as TikTok.
The popular short-form video app has a significant user base in Iraq. According to figures from Chinese tech company ByteDance’s advertising resources, TikTok had 31.95 million users aged 18 and over in Iraq early this year.
Some of Iraq’s more conservative religious factions have accused the platform of undermining societal norms and raised concerns about its impact on youth.
Al-Yasiri’s ban request came after well-known Iraqi Tiktokers, Hussein and his wife Shahinda, were recently assaulted on their way home from work and shot multiple times. While they survived the attack, Shahinda lost an eye.
However, some people have expressed their concerns about the economic implications of banning the app and its potential impact on freedom of expression.
Any ban would likely damage Iraq’s advertising market, especially for small businesses, as many rely on TikTok influencers and other advertising methods on the platform.
Several other countries are already considering banning the platform. Earlier this month, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that would compel TikTok owner ByteDance to divest the social media platform or face a complete ban in America.
Meta oversight board urges company to end ban on Arabic word ‘shaheed’
- Year-long review found Facebook approach was “overbroad,” unnecessarily suppressed speech of millions of users
- The ruling comes after years of criticism of the company’s handling of content involving the Middle East
NEW YORK: Meta’s oversight board on Tuesday called on the company to end its blanket ban on a common usage of the Arabic word “shaheed,” or “martyr” in English, after a year-long review found the Facebook owner’s approach was “overbroad” and had unnecessarily suppressed the speech of millions of users.
The board, which is funded by Meta but operates independently, said the social media giant should remove posts containing the word “shaheed” only when they are linked to clear signs of violence or if they separately break other Meta rules.
The ruling comes after years of criticism of the company’s handling of content involving the Middle East, including in a 2021 study Meta itself commissioned that found its approach had an “adverse human rights impact” on Palestinians and other Arabic-speaking users of its services.
Those criticisms have escalated since the onset of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in October. Rights groups have accused Meta of suppressing content supportive of Palestinians on Facebook and Instagram against the backdrop of a war that has killed tens of thousands of people in Gaza following Hamas’ deadly raids into Israel on Oct 7.
The Meta Oversight Board reached similar conclusions in its report on Tuesday, finding Meta’s rules on “shaheed” failed to account for the word’s variety of meanings and resulted in the removal of content not aimed at praising violent actions.
“Meta has been operating under the assumption that censorship can and will improve safety, but the evidence suggests that censorship can marginalize whole populations while not improving safety at all,” Oversight Board co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt said in a statement.
Meta currently removes any posts using “shaheed” in referring to people it designates on its list of “dangerous organizations and individuals,” which includes members of Islamist militant groups, drug cartels and white supremacist organizations.
The company says the word constitutes praise for those entities, which it bans, according to the board’s report. Hamas is among the groups the company designates as a “dangerous organization.”
Meta sought the board’s input on the topic last year, after starting a reassessment of the policy in 2020 but failing to reach consensus internally, the board said. It revealed in its request that “shaheed” accounted for more content removals on its platforms on than any other single word or phrase.
A Meta spokesperson said in a statement that the company would review the board’s feedback and respond within 60 days.