Listen to the article
New Location Feature on X Reveals Geographic Origins of Accounts, Raising Both Promise and Concerns
Canadian researchers tracking online misinformation are cautiously welcoming a new feature on X (formerly Twitter) that reveals account locations, though they warn the tool still contains significant glitches and should be interpreted carefully.
The “about this account” feature, rolled out Friday, displays the geographic location of X accounts based primarily on IP addresses. While this transparency could help unmask fake accounts and foreign actors attempting to influence political discourse, experts caution it may also endanger dissidents by exposing their locations or VPN usage.
The feature’s debut sparked an immediate flurry of activity as users began identifying accounts where locations didn’t match claimed origins. Numerous influential accounts supporting Donald Trump’s MAGA movement were listed as based in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Nigeria, raising questions about foreign influence. Similarly, some accounts soliciting donations for Gaza relief were shown to be operating from countries like India.
Similar location discrepancies have emerged in Canadian political discourse. One popular Conservative-leaning account with over 150,000 followers appears to be based in Italy, while an account promoting Alberta sovereignty with 15,000 followers is listed in Thailand. Neither has responded to media inquiries about these discrepancies.
Even established organizations are affected by apparent inaccuracies. While Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Green Party accounts show Canadian locations, the Liberal Party and NDP accounts are listed as U.S.-based. Lucy Watson, NDP national director, attributes this error to the party’s use of a VPN for security purposes, confirming their account is “managed in Canada, not in the U.S.” The Liberal Party similarly maintains that all their social accounts are run from Canada.
Several CBC accounts also incorrectly appear as U.S.-based. Chuck Thompson, CBC’s head of public affairs, emphasized that “all of CBC’s accounts are proudly located and run out of Canada” and noted they are investigating how to correct the information.
Philip Mai, co-director of the Social Media Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University, explains that X determines location by analyzing IP addresses associated with accounts. “About this account is less accurate because it uses aggregated IP addresses,” Mai said, noting that his own account shows as German-based after a research trip there in September.
According to X’s help center, the platform uses various methods to determine location, defaulting to the U.S. when those methods fail. Mai suggests the feature was implemented in response to pressure for greater transparency amid concerns about foreign interference in politics.
“This is part of their evolving strategy to combat bot accounts, foreign influence operations and coordinated manipulation,” Mai explained. While the tool promises to benefit researchers, Mai predicts sophisticated actors will quickly adapt their methods. “Overall, it’s a good thing. It just needs time to work itself out. But most players, the smarter ones, will simply pivot.”
A significant concern is the potential impact on individuals legitimately using location-masking for safety. “VPNs are vital tools for activists, journalists and people living under repressive governments,” Mai noted. “Exposing their VPN use could inadvertently put these individuals in danger.”
Mika Desblancs-Patel, research engineer with the Montreal-based Media Ecosystem Observatory, welcomed the increased transparency despite current flaws. “One of the toughest parts of working in this space is simply data access,” Desblancs-Patel said, noting that social media companies are typically reluctant to provide such information.
The feature has already helped identify suspicious accounts. Desblancs-Patel pointed to one account posting about Canadian politics that his research had previously flagged for possible misinformation and is now shown to be based in “East Asia & Pacific.” However, he questions whether the feature will remain effective as bad actors adapt their methods.
Both researchers emphasize the importance of critical thinking when consuming online content and interpreting location data. “I would generally urge people to be cautious when drawing conclusions from this location data and treat it as another tool they can use to critically examine the content they’re exposed to online,” Desblancs-Patel concluded.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
While the intentions behind this feature seem positive, the potential for unintended consequences is clear. Careful implementation and ongoing monitoring will be crucial.
Well said. Transparency is important, but not at the expense of user safety and responsible use of the data.
Curious to see how this location feature evolves and whether it can effectively unmask coordinated disinformation campaigns without compromising user privacy and security.
Agreed, the balance between transparency and protecting vulnerable users will be a delicate one to strike. Thoughtful policy development will be key.
Transparency around account locations is valuable, but the technology still has flaws. Using this data responsibly to identify potential misinformation campaigns is important.
Well said. This feature could be useful, but needs to be applied cautiously and in context to avoid misunderstandings or unintended consequences.
The location discrepancies highlighted in the article are quite concerning. Rigorous fact-checking and context-specific analysis will be essential to avoid false conclusions.
Absolutely. Jumping to conclusions about foreign interference based solely on this data could do more harm than good if the information is unreliable.
Interesting feature, but location data can be inaccurate and misleading. Careful interpretation is key to avoid jumping to conclusions about account origins and potential foreign influence.
Agreed, this tool seems to have significant limitations. Relying too heavily on it could lead to unfair characterizations of accounts and users.
While the location data could help identify foreign influence operations, it seems prone to significant errors. More robust verification processes may be needed to ensure reliable insights.
Good point. The technology behind this feature will likely require ongoing refinement to improve accuracy and mitigate potential misuse.
The location feature raises valid concerns about dissidents’ safety and the potential for abuse. Ensuring appropriate safeguards and accurate data interpretation will be critical.
Absolutely, the tradeoffs here need to be carefully weighed. Protecting vulnerable users should be a top priority as this tool is implemented.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. Ultimately, the value of the location data will depend on its accuracy and how it is applied to support legitimate goals.
Exactly. Finding the right balance between transparency and protection will require nuanced policymaking and a commitment to ongoing improvement.