The growing influence of social bots in political discussion networks has raised significant concerns, particularly given their potential to adversely impact democratic outcomes. In this study, we report the results of a case study analysis of bot activity in a recent, high-profile political discussion network. Specifically, we examine the prevalence and impact of bots in a Twitter network discussing the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Using this discussion network, we conduct a “before-and-after” analysis to examine the prevalence of social bots in the discussion network as well as their influence on key network features such as (1) network structure, (2) content/messaging, (3) sentiment, and (4) influentialness. Our findings suggest that bots can affect political discussion networks in several significant ways. We found that bot-like accounts created the appearance of a virtual community around far-right political messaging, attenuated the influence of traditional actors (i.e., media personalities, subject matter experts), and influenced network sentiment by amplifying pro-Trump messaging. The results of this analysis add to a growing body of literature on the use and influence of social bots while at the same time uniquely examining their influence in a nonelectoral, political setting.
ArifA.StewartL. G.StarbirdK. (2018). Acting the part: Examining information operations within #BlackLivesMatter discourse. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 2) CSCW, November 2018. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274289
2.
BarberáP. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91.
3.
BastianM.HeymannS.JacomyM. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International Conference on Web and Social Media, 8, 361–362.
4.
BastosM. T.MerceaD. (2018). The public accountability of social platforms: Lessons from a study on bots and trolls in the Brexit campaign. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 20180003. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0003
5.
BastosM. T.MerceaD. (2019). The Brexit botnet and user-generated hyperpartisan news. Social Science Computer Review, 37(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317734157
6.
BessiA.FerraraE. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday, 21(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i11.7090
7.
BlondelV. D.GuillaumeJ.-L.LambiotteR.LefebvreE. (2008a). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
BolsoverG.HowardP. (2018). Chinese computational propaganda: Automation, algorithms and the manipulation of information about Chinese politics on Twitter and Weibo. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1476576
BradshawS.HowardP. N. (2018). Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation (p. 26). Oxford Internet Institute.
12.
BrinS.PageL. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X
13.
BroniatowskiD. A.JamisonA. M.QiS.AlKulaibL.ChenT.BentonA.QuinnS. C.DredzeM. (2018). Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1378–1384. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
14.
CanrightG. S.Engø-MonsenK. (2006). Spreading on networks: A topographic view. Complexus, 3(1–3), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094195
15.
CaverleeJ.LiuL.WebbS. (2008). Socialtrust: Tamper-resilient trust establishment in online communities. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 104–114. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378908
16.
ChaM.HaddadiH.BenevenutoF.GummadiP. K. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. International Conference on Web and Social Media, 10(10–17), 30.
ConoverM.RatkiewiczJ.FranciscoM. R.GonçalvesB.MenczerF.FlamminiA. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. International Conference on Web and Social Media, 133, 89–96.
CresciS.FabrizioL.DanieleR.SerenaT.MaurizioT. (2019). Cashtag piggybacking: Uncovering spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. ACM Transactions on the Web, 13(2).
21.
CresciS.RobertoD. P.MarinellaP.AngeloS.MaurizioT. (2015). Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers. Decision Support Systems, 80(1), 56–71.
de ZunigaH. G.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336.
24.
Del VicarioM.ZolloF.CaldarelliG.ScalaA.QuattrociocchiW. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 50, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002
FerraraE. (2018). Measuring social spam and the effect of bots on information diffusion in social media. In LehmannS.AhnY. (Eds.), Complex spreading phenomena in social systems: Influence and contagion in real-world social networks (pp. 229–255). Springer.
27.
FerraraE.VarolO.DavisC.MenczerF.FlamminiA. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104.
28.
GeigerR. S. (2016). Bot-based collective blocklists in Twitter: The counterpublic moderation of harassment in a networked public space. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1153700
29.
Giménez-GarcıaJ. M.ThakkarH.ZimmermannA. (2016). Assessing trust with PageRank in the web of data. PROFILES 2016 3rd International Workshop on Dataset PROFIling and FEderated Search for Linked Data. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1597/PROFILES2016_paper5.pdf
30.
GrahamM.DuttonW. H. (Eds.). (2019). Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives (2 edition). Oxford University Press.
31.
GreenwoodS.PerrinA.DugganM. (2016, November11). Social media update 2016. Pew Research Center.
HagenL.KellerT.NeelyS.DePaulaN.Robert-CoopermanC. (2018). Crisis communications in the age of social media: A network analysis of Zika-Related Tweets. Social Science Computer Review, 36(5), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317721985
HowardP. N.KollanyiB. (2016). Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational Propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum. ArXiv:1606.06356 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06356
36.
JacomyM.VenturiniT.HeymannS.BastianM. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One, 9(6), e98679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
37.
JiX.MachirajuR.RitterA.YenP.-Y. (2015). Examining the distribution, modularity, and community structure in article networks for systematic reviews. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (pp. 1927–1936). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765615/
NewmanM. E. J. (2006). Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Physical Review E, 74(3), 036104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2017). Background to “Assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections”: The analytic process and cyber incident attribution. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
47.
OliveiraD. J. S.BermejoP. H. de S.SantosP. A. dos. (2017). Can social media reveal the preferences of voters? A comparison between sentiment analysis and traditional opinion polls. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1214094
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
50.
PapacharissiZ. (2016). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events and mediality. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697
51.
PersilyN. (2017). The 2016 U.S. Election: Can democracy survive the internet?Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0025
52.
PonsP.LatapyM. (2006). Computing communities in large networks using random walks. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 10, 191–218.
53.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
54.
RaghavanU. N.AlbertR.KumaraS. (2007). Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks. Physical Review E, 76(3), 036106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.036106
55.
RosvallM.BergstromC. T. (2007). Maps of information flow reveal community structure in complex networks. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 1118–1123.
StellaM.FerraraE.DomenicoM. D. (2018). Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12435–12440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803470115
59.
StewartM. C.WilsonB. G. (2016). The dynamic role of social media during hurricane #sandy: An introduction to the STREMII model to weather the storm of the crisis lifecycle. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 639–646.
60.
SunsteinC. R. (2007). Republic.Com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
61.
SunsteinC. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
62.
ThelwallM.BuckleyK.PaltoglouG. (2012). Sentiment strength detection for the social web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21662
63.
The Times. (2017, November15). Russian dolls; Through bots and disinformation, Foreign powers have sought to affect our democracy. The Legal and Technical Loopholes which Allowed this Must be Closed. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-dolls-krq8s05hv
64.
VarolO.FerraraE.DavisC. A.MenczerF.FlamminiA. (2017). Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM2017) (pp. 280–289).
65.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918
WoolleyS. C.HowardP. N. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10(0), 9.
69.
YanE.DingY. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107–2118. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21128
70.
YaqubU.ChunS. A.AtluriV.VaidyaJ. (2017). Analysis of political discourse on Twitter in the context of the 2016 US presidential elections. Government Information Quarterly, 34(4), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.001
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
