Sophia

8/ I am personally allergic to group-think, but members of @DFRLab and the anti-Syria/anti-Russia space in general exemplify a well funded group-think while attempting to prevent the emergence of such an equivalent in the pro-Russia/pro-Syria space.

7/ A complete scientifc approach to interpret correctly the results of such a study would require a control group. This is pseudo-science.

6/ All in all, this article is an attempt to silence and initimidate some in the pro-Assad/pro-Russia space by scrutinizing in a discriminatory way a number of people accusing them of guilty associations, with no scientific basis.

5/ Moreover, the article flags some worrying methods like researching people's personal lives in their criticism but the author does the same by scrutinizing the interactions of different members of the group.

4/ And while I do not condone any response to criticism using insults, the author omits to mention that @DFRLab own members have resorted to this kind of insults very often.

3/ So, the pseudo-science is not in the identification of the group, it is in the speculative interpretation that is made with the findings.

2/ Let's be clear, a scientific method & tools are used to identify a grp, but this in no way proves, scientifically, that the group has been formed with the intent to conduct the kind of campaigns it is accused of, while the mere existence of a grp is inherent to social networks