Thread by @mikeygow, Will just leave this here.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/data-dump-that-reveals-astonishing-breadth-beijings-interference-operations/?outputType=amp @tariqtahir

Will just leave this here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/data-dump-that-reveals-astonishing-breadth-beijings-interference-operations/?outputType=amp

Opinion | The data dump that reveals the astonishing breadth of Beijing’s interference operations

Beijing is keeping track of everyone who matters around the world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/26/data-dump-that-reveals-astonishing-breadth-beijings-interference-operations/?outputType=amp

@tariqtahir - the reason I posted this is it clearly demonstrates damaging effect of bad scholarship (potentially disinformation), especially when produced by people with credibility.

Posting response to your Q here and adding to original thread.

This @washingtonpost Op-Ed is authored by well-respected Professor Brady (who has herself been a key critic of CCP on numerous issues, and has number of alleged incidents involving theft, harassment possibly by PRC agents)

That’s two credibility ticks: WaPo and a respected Prof

Op-ed cites research authored by Chris Balding, Robert Potter and an unnamed author listed as “Et. Al” on article posted to SSRN - Social Science Research Network - where scholars can publish pre-print or early drafts of work before published/submitted to peer reviewed journals

The Op-Ed links back to report by WaPo’s @gerryshih linked here.

Gerry’s earlier article reports on the data and also states they received the data from Balding and Potter

It’s not just WaPo. In late Sept/Early Oct, major media outlets around the world picked up on this story. All coverage traces back to the research conducted by Balding, Potter and “Et. Al”

Yet when checking the research posted to SSRN, it contains a lot of speculation, conjecture but no actual data or data analysis.

Neither are there any in-text citations or a reference list

You can access that article at the link below, but the 4 remaining pages posted in full here:

Link: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=354126086101080087121097109118064127015022034039066089096031005029027004064119069102033025057058114013010096014031099078109009061012033001045110103025105110019002118069079024088001121095000086000082088101112118015098068002080078118124084024006096002020&EXT=pdf

There’s literally nothing in these 5 pages that constitutes “research”.

There’s no discussion of dataset, methods of analysis, no presentation of any data or analysis of any data.

There are plenty of excuses for not doing this ranging from volume/scope of data, anonymity etc

I dare see these media outlets have done some checking of the database - but this appears to be taken on trust and adopting assumptions underpinning any checking which reflect the speculation contained in the SSRN article.

This is evident in all media pieces I’ve seen. Looking at the DW piece, we can see this clearly

They also link directly to the SSRN piece - something others do not do

More worryingly, it also looks like Balding lied about the Zhenhua data being leaked directly to him by an internal source - and actually obtained it through collaboration on a project looking at faulty databases (though I haven’t seen his response to this allegation).

Then we see a deep dive into the nature of this data leak by @Jeremy_Kirk which puts major question marks over claims about the data itself, and on the conclusions drawn in the SSRN piece. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/blogs/does-this-leaked-chinese-database-pose-security-threat-p-2937

Does This Exposed Chinese Database Pose a Security Threat?

A leaked database compiled by a Chinese company has suddenly become the focus of multiple media reports, warning that it could be used as an espionage instrument by Beijing. But on closer examinati...

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/blogs/does-this-leaked-chinese-database-pose-security-threat-p-2937

Kirk actually found this data in late 2019 and nothing raised a flag

He also spoke to Potter and it seems the non-public info referred to in the SSRN report isn’t private info, but non-public, paywalled subscriber content.

We cannot see in that SSRN piece *how* the authors have arrived at their conclusions.

We can’t scrutinise their analysis given that no data analysis methods are outlined, no systematic analysis presented

They haven’t given account of *what* data is or *why* it’s so sensitive

The single reason it has been taken seriously is down to the efforts to push the narrative in the SSRN report by the authors who, by virtue of their credentials and affiliations, have a credibility conveyed on their work

But I cannot see anything in that article which clearly presents a persuasive argument backed up with solid and systematic data analysis justifying the conclusions they reach.

Nothing.

In spite of this, the story becomes part of the discourse on China, on the “China threat”. The perceived credibility of a problematic and completely unsupported argument snowballs as it is disseminated via outlets where the readership expects checks to be rigorous

Whether this type of poor research results from a failure to uphold basic scholarly standards or is a deliberate attempt at disinfo isn’t really what I’m concerned with.

That’s simply a question of degrees of ethical violation

It’s incredibly damaging and disruptive either way.

The Huawei CV fiasco and the Zhenhua debacle were a massive problem without revelations of the China Biden Report

Because this type of stuff ends up getting cited in reports, white papers, and influences govt policy, public sentiment.

Latest Threads Unrolled: