The evidence against some of them is not particularly strong and had I been the author I would probably have only included hard core Assadists.
Although I wouldn't have done it in the first place as I wouldn't want to bring that shitstorm to my door.
He explains on twitter why he included soft/medium as well as full on- let me find it
Edit- Can't find it- so here is his Facebook chat about it
my guesses why my report triggered such a big reaction from RT and their zombie army on twitter :
1) I showed more of their network as a network than before - critiquing one or a few of their propaganda agents or assets doesn't bother them too much, it also kind of amplifies them and their framing narratives too, but showing publicly their network as a network, so that people can begin to understand their system, damages the credibility and audience-reach of their whole system.
2) I showed more of the individual public figures in their network, not just their white and grey propaganda media sites; psychologically, personalising it has more impact and memorability than just listing or graphing their grey propaganda sites, as has been done and published about 6 times before.
3) I showed examples of public figures in the Assad regime international propaganda system from the far right to the far left, and a few in between. They've invested time and money in audience segmentation so that they can tailor different narratives to politically very different audiences of their followers, but when they get mixed up and they can see each other together, it damages the scale and efficiency of their whole system.
4) I put the list in alphabetical order, so some people who present themselves as mainstream leftists were alongside neonazis in the list in alphabetical order - they repeat some of the same claims, which are not factually true, and all defend the regime.
5) I included some examples of mainstreamers - public figures who present themselves as mainstream but they launder some of the milder but really core claims of regime propaganda into the mainstream - those are actually even more important to their propaganda system than the overt and extreme people, because at critical times when they need to defend their client regime from receiving consequences and becoming constrained into negotiations instead of warfare, it's the mainstreamers who have most potential to influence people outside their propaganda echo chamber and hence to prevent democratic governments from intervening against their client regime, and to recruit new gullible people into their propaganda echo chamber. I think they are defending their mainstreamers most of all not just because it's easier to obfuscate and deny their role but also because they are strategically the most valuable assets in their network.
6) I haven't fallen for reacting in kind to their game strategy of troll > induce self-degrading reaction > use that to discredit and distract from the substantial content I published, so they are desperately trying harder at it but their usual strategy isn't working. I think I've received in the order of 20,000 abusive trolling tweets, and I think I've sent about 5 snarky replies.