Some claims don’t seem to match the source…

They show an arabic anti Al-Qaeda account in Yemen with two posts. One has 1 like. The other has zero likes. We’re supposed to believe that’s with Twitter “amplifying” the account?

This post also doesn’t say what the author claims it says…

“Drone targets Al-Qaeda car and news that Abu Jandal al-Hadrami and Abu Hashim al-Sharuri were killed in the airstrike in the Al-Abra area of Hadhramaut” https://archive.vn/9FOxg

From the link you gave, the bio of the "yemencurrent" account says "صفحة تابعة للقيادة المركزية الأمريكية لدعم الحوار حول الشأن اليمني و قضايا الأمن والاستقرارفي اليمن". I don't read Arabic, but google translates this as "A page affiliated with the US Central Command to support dialogue on Yemeni affairs and security and stability issues in Yemen". The documentcloud (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23466698) says that CENTCOM asked for a bluecheck and 'whitelisting' for the account. I don't see the big deal about this? After all, the account already indicated that it was government affiliated.

Edit: some else pointed out that the government may have been trying to trick Twitter by later deleting the disclaimer about affiliation. Looks like I should have read the article before posting!

But the claims are blatantly false when you look at their links

>Another CENTCOM account, @althughur, which posts anti-Iran and anti-ISIS content focused on an Iraqi audience, changed its Twitter bio from a CENTCOM affiliation to an Arabic phrase that simply reads “Euphrates pulse.”

Here’s their link: https://web.archive.org/web/20191028194428/https://twitter.c...

Nothing simply says “Euphrates pulse” here.

The name of the twitter account is "نبض الفرات" which translates to "Euphrates pulse". However, you're right that the Twitter bio doesn't have that phrase; rather, in the link you gave it's another CENTCOM disclaimer. It looks like this phrase in the bio was later deleted and replaced with nothing (https://web.archive.org/web/20210506142008/https://twitter.c...), and probably not coincidentally the account is now suspended for breaking the Twitter rules.

The major claim is that Twitter, upon request, exempted certain accounts from their normal anti-astroturf checks.

I don't know if that claim be true or not, but the ultimate efficacy of the astroturfing has little to do with what is being asserted.

> On the same day that CENTCOM sent its request, members of Twitter’s site integrity team went into an internal company system used for managing the reach of various users and applied a special exemption tag to the accounts, internal logs show.

But Twitter didn’t know the accounts would later be astroturfing

>KAHLER TOLD TWITTER that the accounts would all be “USG-attributed, Arabic-language accounts tweeting on relevant security issues.” That promise fell short, as many of the accounts subsequently deleted disclosures of affiliation with the U.S. government.

>That promise fell short, as many of the accounts subsequently deleted disclosures of affiliation with the U.S. government.

>The former Twitter employee told The Intercept that they were surprised to learn of the Defense Department’s shifting tactics. “It sounds like DOD was doing something shady and definitely not in line with what they had presented to us at the time,” they said.

Fair enough, and I would certainly believe it[0] ... but if I were building an anti-astroturfing system, it would not have exemptions.

> The point will invariably arise: "This tells me how to listen to a foreign radio. Okay, I'll get the news, the lectures, the plays—all the rest of it. But so what? How am I going to know what's the truth and what's propaganda? How can I tell 'em apart? Tell me that!"

> The answer is simple: "If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports."

[0] All it would take would be for one person to make the original request, and a different person to remove the disclaimers. Given "stupidity before malice" a more charitable headline would have been "Twitter (Inadvertently) Aided The Pentagon in Its..."?

Props to The Intercept for reporting on this. Notice how the corporate-owned legacy media still doesn’t pick the Twitter revelations up.

Disinformation