Nice words from @Ayjchan .

One aspect that is missed here is that many of these improvised analysts (i do not like the word sleuths) are actually very qualified in their fields and have top academic backgrounds.
That's why they succeeded. Make no mistake.

What will eventually dawn on people is how masterful the setup of DRASTIC was.
It's an informal organisation that is very open, very resilient and flexible by design.
It allows for a mix of styles, from the rebellious taunt to the peer reviewed article.

DRASTIC people worked the coal mine, jumped into the mudbath.
But they were also able to interface with top media (Washington Post, WSJ, Spectator, Le Monde, etc) without forgetting the more mainstream ones (TVs, Daily Mail, Sun, etc).

Then they were able to raise their game and work with other groups such as the Paris Group, then start framing this into a constructive engagement once the guerrilla warfare was settled.

This does not happen by chance. It happens because the design and thoughts are there.

IMHO Billy (and others) did a stellar job.

It's a masterpiece of 'grassroot intelligence', which covers collection, interpretation and last communication (at different levels).
And that's why I don't like 'internet sleuth' because that gets stuck at the collection level.

@threadreaderapp compile