Meta has recently revealed the removal of a network comprising thousands of fake and misleading accounts originating from China. These users, posing as Americans, aimed to disseminate polarizing content regarding US politics and US-China relations. The quarterly threat report from Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, outlined the recent takedowns.
The China-based network involved over 4,700 accounts, utilizing profile pictures and names copied from users worldwide. The accounts engaged in mutual sharing and liking of posts, with some content appearing to be directly sourced from X (formerly Twitter). Notably, the network exhibited no ideological consistency.
The accounts delved into various topics, including abortion, culture war issues, and aid to Ukraine. Some accounts copied verbatim posts from US politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, Gretchen Whitmer, Ron DeSantis, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, and others.
Meta’s moderation rules prohibit “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” where groups of accounts collaborate using false identities to mislead users. Although the content shared is often factually accurate, the intention is to manipulate public opinion, sow division, and amplify particular viewpoints.
In the case of the large Chinese network, Meta intervened before it could gain traction among real users. Ben Nimmo, leading investigations into inauthentic behavior, emphasized the need to stay vigilant against foreign threat actors attempting to influence people ahead of the 2024 US elections.
Meta also uncovered two smaller networks—one based in China focusing on India and Tibet, and another based in Russia posting primarily in English about the invasion of Ukraine and promoting Telegram channels. Russian networks, which gained attention following the 2016 election, have increasingly concentrated on the war in Ukraine.
The report also highlighted that the US government ceased sharing information about foreign influence networks with Meta in July, following a federal ruling as part of a legal case over the First Amendment, currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. This case is part of a broader debate on whether the US government collaborates with tech companies to unduly restrict the free speech of social media users.
