I (Gbenga Sesan) told my friends at INEC Nigeria that their denial of the biased statement by their Chairman is what actually drew me to the issue. Again, they have hit the media with a 6-point report by an "independent" (just like the "I" in INEC) investigator. I have just spent a few minutes interrogating the "Major Investigation Findings" of this "independent" forensic investigation.
You can read the Public Statement by INEC that quotes the findings on their official X handle, but here are my quick responses to the 6 points:
1. The "Independent" Investigator
The current occupant of the Twitter handle referred to as a “verified cybersecurity researcher” is an APC apologist. Coy Emerald (whose real name is abbreviated O.Y.O.) is affiliated with a certain “Jagaban Army” and has worked for the National IT Agency and the Nigeria Police Force.
1. The "Independent" Investigator
The current occupant of the Twitter handle referred to as a “verified cybersecurity researcher” is an APC apologist. Coy Emerald (whose real name is abbreviated O.Y.O.) is affiliated with a certain “Jagaban Army” and has worked for the National IT Agency and the Nigeria Police Force.
While the investigation claims the renaming pattern is damage control by an impersonator, I flagged this as a possible insider job to deliberately muddy the waters.
They could create multiple accounts, including one in the original name of the INEC Chair, to overshadow the disputed name. One of the new accounts, @joashamupitan, was created just this month and is verified, despite claims it isn't official.
2. Forensic Evidence vs. Username Recycling
Now that new accounts have been created with the same username, the newly associated email is what will show up when you try to link an email or phone number with the disputed account. The question remains: Who benefits from this being the case?
3. The Wayback Machine Fallacy
The report claims the Wayback Machine presents “definite proof of account fabrication.” Digital Fact: No web crawler captures everything, including all tweets and replies.
4. Timestamp Analysis: The "Impossible" Reply
The attempt to use a timestamp to invalidate the “victory is sure” reply falls flat because the tweet by @dayoisrael was EDITED.
The Claim: The reply was made 13 minutes before the tweet.
The Reality: The tweet shows "Last edited 4:18 PM · Mar 18, 2023."
The Evidence: The original tweet was posted at 4:02 PM (3 minutes before the 4:05 PM reply). Using an edit timestamp to prove a reply "cannot exist" is a tactic no real expert would use.
5. Live Platform Verification
Suggesting that not finding the “victory is sure” reply on Twitter today means it never existed is lazy. As an interested party, the author of a tweet can hide replies, and the replier can delete them. If this were truly an impersonator trying to malign the Chair, why would they delete the evidence?
Now that new accounts have been created with the same username, the newly associated email is what will show up when you try to link an email or phone number with the disputed account. The question remains: Who benefits from this being the case?
3. The Wayback Machine Fallacy
The report claims the Wayback Machine presents “definite proof of account fabrication.” Digital Fact: No web crawler captures everything, including all tweets and replies.
I hope INEC has not paid the “expert” in full, because claiming a lack of a snapshot is "definite proof" is a failure of basic digital archiving knowledge.
ALSO READ:
4. Timestamp Analysis: The "Impossible" Reply
The attempt to use a timestamp to invalidate the “victory is sure” reply falls flat because the tweet by @dayoisrael was EDITED.
The Claim: The reply was made 13 minutes before the tweet.
The Reality: The tweet shows "Last edited 4:18 PM · Mar 18, 2023."
The Evidence: The original tweet was posted at 4:02 PM (3 minutes before the 4:05 PM reply). Using an edit timestamp to prove a reply "cannot exist" is a tactic no real expert would use.
5. Live Platform Verification
Suggesting that not finding the “victory is sure” reply on Twitter today means it never existed is lazy. As an interested party, the author of a tweet can hide replies, and the replier can delete them. If this were truly an impersonator trying to malign the Chair, why would they delete the evidence?
6. The Disinformation Mirror
On the point of a "broader disinformation campaign," a quick tip for the Professor and his aides: look in the mirror. The attempt to mute valid questions and invalidate genuine concerns is worrying, considering Nigeria’s electoral history and the level of gaslighting citizens have endured.
Conclusion:
Since the Professor, his aides, the original tweet author, the "researcher," and their appointer-in-chief all speak Yorùbá, let me end with the wise words of our elders:
Ẹ jáwọ́ l'ápọ̀n tí kò yọ̀. (In English: Cut the crap!)
On the point of a "broader disinformation campaign," a quick tip for the Professor and his aides: look in the mirror. The attempt to mute valid questions and invalidate genuine concerns is worrying, considering Nigeria’s electoral history and the level of gaslighting citizens have endured.
Conclusion:
Since the Professor, his aides, the original tweet author, the "researcher," and their appointer-in-chief all speak Yorùbá, let me end with the wise words of our elders:
Ẹ jáwọ́ l'ápọ̀n tí kò yọ̀. (In English: Cut the crap!)
*Contributed by Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director, Paradigm Initiative with global headquarters in Lagos.
2 comments:
Sad.
Who will bell the cat
Post a Comment