If they are using public posts, this seems fine. It’s more of a general study and could have a real impact on our understanding of how stories spread (at least via this medium, today).
What is not fine is the fact that social media companies have spent years using dark patterns and tricks to get us to publish more and more of our info publicly. It used to be common knowledge that you never post any of your real life details on the internet but now the most popular websites will ban you for not using your real name.
I remember a decade ago when http://pleaserobme.com/ came out and how my coworkers were shocked. I honestly thought over-sharing was a common sense bad idea, but it was not as common sense as I had thought. They did not require any dark patterns to willfully give up everything to social media.
> It used to be common knowledge that you never post any of your real life details on the internet
But before then it used to be common knowledge that you always post your real life details on the internet, at the very least your name and email, often your phone and office address too
The real concern isn't the privacy given that it is publically available but what it says about their motivations and respect for civilian control of the military.
Monitoring pacifist groups based on publicly available information may respect rights technically but it is not a good look. It indicates either major bad intentions to subvert democracy or sets the stage for any who plan to abuse it while being peripheral to their nominal core functionality.
To give a crude analogy it may be technically legal to note the comings and goings of my neighbor and every aspect of their home security but it would be very understandable if they think I plan to burgle them.
