83

As the news of Black Lives Matter activist Sasha Johnson being shot became public in May 2021, social media contained images which allegedly show a tweet posted by her stating:

the white man will not be our equal but our slave

However, searching for her name and this quote only reveals far-right blogs and news sites posting this claim, I couldn't find this anywhere else. Not on Wikipedia, not in the centrist or left-leaning media, not in the mainstream conservative media. Did Sasha Johnson tweet this? Is it a hoax?

chicks
  • 219
  • 1
  • 2
  • 10
vsz
  • 1,638
  • 2
  • 14
  • 25

3 Answers3

155

The tweet in question (alternative archive link) was very likely sent from a fake account (although Twitter being what it is, this is unlikely to ever be conclusively proven either way). The account that seems to be her real Twitter (@Sashapanther93) has denied any connection with the tweet (and its message). In addition, the same thing was said by the Taking the Initiative Party where she is a member of the Executive Leadership Committee, as reported by Insider:

The party said the account @SashaJohnsonBLM was "not created by Sasha" and was "created to persecute her."

On Reddit, green_flash's comment outlines some other points:

  • If you google sashajohnsonblm which is the account name used for that tweet, there is no mention of it before Aug 26, 2020 at all, no other tweet, no link, not a single outraged reaction. Seems unlikely.
  • She doesn't use the "blm" as part of her account name on any other platform, on Instagram for example she's thesashajohnson. The "blm" in the account name is very useful for propaganda purposes against BLM though
  • The profile image used for the account seems to be this Shutterstock image. Would she use a stock image as her profile image? Seems unlikely.

Not definitive proof, but it means that anyone could have gotten the image.

And this is what they said about the account that made the tweet:

  • Describing herself as "Oxford Black Lives Matter Leader" which she never was, she just spoke at BLM rallies in Oxford

To call her any type of leader at Oxford BLM seems to be an exaggeration. Neither their Instagram nor Twitter ever mentioned her as far as I can tell (not even after she was shot). The Instagram or Facebook of "the BlackLivesMatter Global Network Foundation", for example, describes her as "an ally of BLMUK" — she's apparently not even a member there.

  • No activity except for a flurry of racist tweets on a single day and a retweet of an old white man with a Hong Kong flag in his profile criticizing a self-described socialist journalist - yeah that's totally what a BLM activist would do

As I understand it, the account was live for a number of months and had more activity (75 Tweets) than what can be seen via any archive I've found. Still, it was not well known before.

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
  • 2
    The second blockquote is mostly non-sequitur. None of those points really say much on the validity of the account and it's tweets. It's suspicions at best (i.e. I don't feel like the *real* person would do this). –  May 28 '21 at 20:21
  • @fredsbend What do you suggest I do with it? (No longer the second block quote btw :p). I was thinking that I could probably remove some of it, though some of the circumstantial evidence I found helpful (eg that it's a stock photo) even if it's only a suspicion. – Laurel May 28 '21 at 20:48
  • 2
    IDK, just suggesting that the points don't illuminate anything. I don't have ideas on this kind of thing. I don't use Twitter, and never have. It seems to me that 1) making fake accounts is easy, and 2) outside of the "blue checkmark" verifying account ownership is extremely difficult. That leaves truth seekers fighting a gish gallop. I guess when the result of verifying obscure ownership would be harm to the supposed owner's character, pushing the onus of providing proof onto the claimant is the reasonable position, but that's not really our mode here. –  May 28 '21 at 20:57
  • Apparently tweets tweeted by a suspended account become deleted on twitter, but not mentions of the suspended account, as far as I understand. The earliest mention of the respective account I could find via the "extended search" option on twitter is [this](https://twitter.com/search?q=(to%3Asashajohnsonblm)%20until%3A2020-08-01&src=typed_query) disparaging remark towards @sashajohnsonblm https://twitter.com/search?q=(to%3Asashajohnsonblm)%20until%3A2020-08-01&src=typed_query – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 20:16
  • ... from July 23 2020. The next latest mentions of the account @sashajohnson date to August 2 2020. However, I don't understand if these are necessarily reactions to a tweet by the account or the account is just mentioned, reacting to a non-tweet event. The earliest mentioning of Sasha Johnson (the person, not the account) regarding BLM I can find is the announcement of a webinar from late June 2020, in which she is announced as "Sasha Johnson, BLM Oxford"... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 20:25
  • 1
    in [this tweet](https://twitter.com/search?q=%22sasha%20johnson%22%20blm%20until%3A2020-07-03&src=typed_query). I cannot find any mention of her on twitter or anywhere else relating to her regarding BLM before June 2020, and I think it would be bold to assume that a fake account in the name of a at that point rather obscure person had been set up in May 2020. However, analyzing tweets mentioning the name Sasha Johnson or the handle@sashajohnsonblm suggest that she became a controversial figure at least in the twitter-sphere on July 22 2020, when a discussion with her and right-wing activist... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 20:38
  • ...Tommy Robinson in a video shared by @HappyHarryMedia with 1,3 million klicks, titled "Oxford Black Lives Matter leader Sasha uses racial slurs and threats of violence to abuse a black man.". Here is what MIGHT have happened: 1. In May 2020, a twitter account is set up under an arbitrary name. 2. Sasha Johnson receives notion in the twitter-sphere after the controversial video with Tommy Robinson is widely shared in July 2020 3. The account created in May is renamed: name and handle are changed to sashajohnsonblm and controversial tweets under her name are shared... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 20:40
  • ...explaining her handle being mentioned first in the wake of the video with Tommy Robinson. If I understand it correctly, even after twitter name and handle are changed, tweets from the respective handle will be updated as having originated from the new handle, but mentions of the handle will not be updated. If the handle of some account had indeed been changed to @sashajohnsonblm, it makes sense to assume that this happened immediatly after the video with Tommy Robinson was shared on 22 July 2020 and before the handle is first mentioned on 23 July 2020. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 20:49
  • ... the alternative explanation obviously is that Sasha Johnson set up the account in May 2020 and did not tweet/her tweets did not provoke any reaction until July 23 2020. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 20:52
  • Some additional (highly circumstential!) evidence for a fake account with a changed handle: Although Sasha Johnson is described with the qualifier "BLM Oxford" in the Webinar-accouncement from June 2020, the earliest phrase "Leader of BLM Oxford" I find is used in twitter descriptions of the video with Tommy Robinson shared by opponents of Sasha Johnson's view stated in the video. This in my opinion further points towards the hyothesis that the handle and name were changed immediatly after the twitter-outrage following the Tommy Robinson video. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 21:03
  • 2 corrections: 1. I use the term "mentions" in my comments. However, this seems to be the wrong twitter terminology. Nearly all instances involving @sashajohnsonblm are not mentions, but replies, which are reactions directly to one of the account's (now deleted) tweet. 2. The earliest sharing of the Tommy Robinson video as far as I can see was July 20 (with several tens of thousand views), not July 22 (with about a million views). This is important since the video might have been the inspiration for renaming the handle (if the handle had indeed been renamed, that is): For once, because... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 23:00
  • ...it contains, as far as I see, the first qualifiation of Johnson as the Leader of BLM Oxforfd (although she is described as "Sasha Johnson, BLM Oxford", by allies earlier, somewhat weakening the point), because it seems to be the first instance she became widely known, and because it was shared three days before the handle's name was first mentioned in a reply. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 23:04
  • 1
    @EpicBroccoli You should put together your own answer, at this point. This is quite a lot of comments. –  May 31 '21 at 15:55
94

The tweet is still available in the wayback archives.

The account in question is suspended from twitter, but the archives show that this was an account that was only active for a short time in August 2020 with 3 followers and no blue checkmark.

Absence any evidence linking Johnson to the account or the ideas espoused there, the most likely explanation is that it is a fake account created to discredit her.

tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 2
    Regarding the direction of this answer, I normally agree, but we strive for the evidence either way, regardless whether appropriate discourse normally puts the onus for proof on the claimant. In the least, perhaps noting *where* we should expect evidence and *not* finding it should be added to this answer. –  May 28 '21 at 21:02
-5

The tweet and the account were genuine. Sasha Johnson then created a new account and denied the original.

The suspended Twitter account was created in May 2020. This was the exact time that Johnson started arranging and speaking at BLM protests. There were racist tweets on the profile from its creation in May 2020. This account was suspended in August 2020 after the racist tweets on there gained exposure.

Johnson's current account was created in September 2020 after the original account was suspended in August 2020 for the infamous pinned tweet dated 2nd August 2020.

I looked at the reasons given by Reddit's green_flash and consider them to be circumstantial and ahistoric.

None of the Twitter accounts were/are verified because Twitter has suspended their "blue tick" verification in 2017. No one during that time has been able to verify their account.

RightOfCentreUK
  • 47
  • 1
  • 4
    This is largely unreferenced speculation and personal political opinion. I will be editing it down to focus on the parts you actually have evidence for. – Oddthinking May 29 '21 at 14:04
  • 4
    After a major edit, I think the structure of the argument is: Green_Flash produced a long list of circumstantial evidence, each one pushing the needle towards the fake it was a fake account. The OP went through each one and showed it was circumstantial and there might be another explanation. From that the OP has concluded it couldn't possibly have been fake. Identifying weaknesses in the argument in one direction is helpful. Concluding that the opposite must be true as a result is a fallacy. – Oddthinking May 29 '21 at 14:25
  • 4
    In summary: No evidence is given here to show it is an authentic account, only that it isn't safe to categorically conclude that it is fake. – Oddthinking May 29 '21 at 14:26
  • I'd recommend getting rid of the first sentence in this answer, then. It's explicitly asserting something that is in no way proven by any of the subsequent arguments, and more than likely *won't ever be provable one way or the other* unless someone subpoenas Twitter for the source IP of the account that made the first tweet -- and even then. – Shadur May 29 '21 at 15:27
  • 2
    I'd just like to say that it may never be provable for a fact one way or the other but as the account was originally created in May 2020 when Sasha first started protesting and when she was unknown to the public it's highly unlikely that someone created it to discredit her. I'd also say that I feel there is more evidence in my answer pointing to it being a genuine account and tweet than has been presented to the contrary. When taken with other evidence such as the readily available video evidence and Instagram posts made by Sasha, I believe this only strengthens the case that it's genuine. – RightOfCentreUK May 29 '21 at 16:08
  • Considering how easy it is to make a twitter/email account with any name you want and put whatever information you want on that account I think it is on the safe side to use the innocent until proven guilty rule. It would not be very hard for anyone to put up a fake twitter account for someone and make them say things they never would and goes against everything they believe in. – Joe W May 29 '21 at 16:26
  • 3
    @Joe W: nobody knew her when the account was set up. It was set up before she started protesting. Who would try to discredit an unknown person? There are also many other post and videos that shine Sasha in the same light as the Twitter account. Such as her calling the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, a diverse group who said there's no evidence of systemic racism in the UK, "the kind of house negro's they roll out to discredit the movement". Or the black man she was filmed calling a "coon" because he doesn't agree with her extremist ideology. How much evidence is actually required? – RightOfCentreUK May 29 '21 at 17:21
  • No one knew her? I find that hard to believe, sure she may not have been widely known but she has been an activist before 2020. And as I said before a twitter account can be setup by anyone and can have any name/biographical information that they chose and it is impossible to determine who set it up without having twitter confirm it. The point is you can't prove it either way without it and there is no reason to go with innocent until proven guilty here. It seems that there is a lot of effort to discredit her instead of find out the truth. – Joe W May 29 '21 at 17:32
  • "I looked at other people's analysis and found them circumstantial and ahistoric" and once again you completely decline to explain your reasoning. – Shadur May 29 '21 at 18:18
  • 1
    @Shadur: I put all of my reasoning in the original answer but it was heavily edited by a moderator. If you look at Green-flashes Reddit link in the answer above and scroll to the bottom you will see my original response to each and every point that they made. Seems to me you simply don't want this to be true and therefore refuse to accept any evidence presented. I also answered your comments in an edit to my original post but that has been edited out too. – RightOfCentreUK May 29 '21 at 18:48
  • 4
    @Joe: no offense but you couldn't be more wrong. As I said in my original post, I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, I am simply posting the facts as I know them. If you don't want to see what someone is like when there is a wealth of evidence that show the persons character then that's your choice. Let's all just ignore all the video evidence of her racism and celebrate her as the angel you seem to think she is. I personally will still strive to show the truth of the kind of person she is so people who want to support her do so knowing exactly what she actually stands for. – RightOfCentreUK May 29 '21 at 18:54
  • Wrong? Do you have any proof that it was her account? Or are you just going by the name and what was put in the bio? From what I have seen there is no evidence that it was actually her that created the account and posted the tweet. It is all speculation based on the name and bio in the account. And you sure seem to have a lot vested in this by calling her a racist and pointing to her other content rather than focusing on the twitter account itself. – Joe W May 29 '21 at 19:55
  • @Joe W: I focused on the the tweet and Twitter account all along. There is absolutely zero evidence that it is not her account or tweet and plenty of evidence that it is. You're obviously a Sasha Johnson supporter who would deny it was her account if she told you it was herself so what's the point of continuing this discussion? I've shown evidence that points to it being her account. If you've got any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, please feel free to show it to me. – RightOfCentreUK May 29 '21 at 21:45
  • 2
    Her first twitter account uses her name and blm (@SashaJohnsonBLM) but her second one doesn't? @Sashapanther93. It seems very strange that she would change her handle that much. And you still have provided zero evidence that it was her creating the account just some claim that it has to be her based on when the account was created. To me it seems like the first account was made to smear her. – Joe W May 30 '21 at 01:12
  • 3
    @JoeW Was she known well enough that a discredit attempt would be made in summer 2020? Neither you nor the OP have made evidence of that point, which would certainly be more helpful than this empty back and forth. (As an aside, maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see evidence for the creation date of this account beginning in May 2020 either.) –  May 30 '21 at 06:28
  • 2
    @Shadur I rolled back your edit because it clearly conflicts with the author's intent, as evidence by the comments. –  May 30 '21 at 06:36
  • 4
    @Fredsbend: the link that says that the suspended account was created in May 2020 takes you to a Google cached version of the page and on the left it has a "joined date" of May 2020. It also shows around 75 tweets on the profile which is evidence that there are many more tweets on the there than the few shown on the cached page. Thanks for rolling back that change also as I felt I Shadur's edit did completely change the original intent of the answer. JoeW: is it so hard to believe that she would change her handle so much when trying to distance herself from the old account? – RightOfCentreUK May 30 '21 at 07:30
  • @fredsbend As oddthinking pointed out during their edit, while this may have been the author's intent, they fail to actually prove said claim to the kind of degree we expect from an answer on this site. "The evidence is circumstantial and could go either way" is about the furthest they get, but they're actively asserting that their position is the obvious and only correct one. – Shadur May 30 '21 at 10:39
  • 1
    @RightOfCentreUK Do you know if there is any way to show that the account was opened in May 2020 with this exact name and this exact handle? I created a twitter test account, and it seems to be possible to change the name above the @... and the handle following the @ easily. I think your argument, that the account was created in May before Johnson became well known might have some weight, but from my limited understanding, an account created under another name in May may have been renamed in August and utilized. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it seems possible to my knowledge. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 10:52
  • 1
    @EpicBroccoli - as far as I'm aware you can change the name part of your Twitter profile, so in this case the "Sasha Johnson" bit but not the part after the @ sign, e.g. the SashaJohnsonBLM, as this is the login for the account and is what Twitter blocks when you get suspended etc. When an account gets suspended you will see the user create a new account, sometime similar with a number after it for example if that user wants to still be known to their followers, and sometimes with a completely different one if, as I believe in this instance, they don't want to be associated with the old one. – RightOfCentreUK May 30 '21 at 18:11
  • 1
    @EpicBroccoli - so basically this means that even if the profile wasn't originally set up with the name part as "Sasha Johnson" in May 2020 (I think it probably was though), the part after the @ sign was definitely set up as "SashaJohnsonBLM" in May 2020, as that part cannot be changed. – RightOfCentreUK May 30 '21 at 18:22
  • @RightOfCentreUK I think you are mistaken, or perhaps I misunderstood you. I just set up my first twitter account, so I'm not familiar with the terminology. I could change the name (written above @handle) via "edit profile" as well as the handle (what is written after the @...) via more->settings and privacy->account information. After changing both the name and the handle, all tweets were retroactively changed as having originated from the changed name and changed handle. The old url (such as www.twitter.com/oldhandle which had previously directed to the old account then became defunct... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 19:39
  • @RightOfCentreUK ... and the twitter profile with the new handle became accessible via www.twitter.com/newhandle (not the actual handle of my test profile). All tweets which had been created under the old handle were then shown as having originated from the new handle. Edit: If you require evidence, I can repeat the test and document the changes via wayback machine, but perhaps it is easier if you take my word for it or try for yourself. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 19:45
  • @EpicBroccoli - no need, I believe you. I wasn't aware you could change the handle as well as the username. I have to wonder though, if someone set this account up in a different name, then the original intent is unlikely to have been to discredit Sasha, so I assume it would have been created by someone who actually meant the racist remarks they posted. Why then would they change the name to Sasha's to discredit her? I'm not saying it couldn't have been done but I find it a pretty unlikely scenario. I will however try to find evidence of how long that was the profile name and get back soon. – RightOfCentreUK May 30 '21 at 22:24
  • Thank you for you reply. I added a chain of comments under the answer by "Laurel" which might be of interested to you, since it concerns the history of the account as far as I could reconstruct via twitter's search function. I think there are three scenarios for what happened. 1: In May 2020, an account with the handle @sashajohnsonblm was created with the intention to discredit her. This seems exceedingly unlikely to me, since, as you remark, the account was founded in May 2020, when Sasha Johnson was a very obscure figure, in fact I cannot find a single BLM-related instance of her... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 23:09
  • ... mentioned on google, google news, or twitter before June 2020. 2: Sasha Johnson created the account herself. 3. The account was, for whatever reason, created under another name in May 2020. If this is the case, and its handle was changed, the most likely timepoint by far seems to me between July 20 and July 23, as explained in my comments under the reply by Laurel. In your reply, you mention that the accounted @sashajohnsonblm had tweeted racist remarks since May 2020. Can you explain what led you to this conclusion? As mentioned above, the first reply to one of her tweets I can find is... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 23:18
  • ...from July 23 2020. If I understand the twitter search feature correctly, this is not a matter of incomplete caching, but all replies to her (now deleted) tweets should still be preserved, unless deleted for another reason. Therefore, either all of the account's earlier tweets must either have gone unreplied, or the account has started posting only after July 22. If the account has only started tweeting on July 23, it could easily have been an unused account opened in May for whatever reason, and I assume it is also possible to buy unused twitter accounts with some silent history for... – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 23:23
  • 1
    ...various nefarious and innocent purposes. If, however, the account had started tweeting racist remarks since May 2020, this would (assuming the "fake account hypothesis" is true) imply that either the unknown author tweeting under whatever handle meant what they wrote, or the account had been created in May and filled with controversial tweets with the intention of later discrediting some, in May yet unknown, person, which seems possible, but does not strike me as plausible. – EpicBroccoli May 30 '21 at 23:28