This study explores the theoretical fusion of computational propaganda and information operations in the Tigray war, centering on algorithmic manipulation techniques. Utilizing theoretical frameworks of agenda-setting theory, framing, and information ecology, the study formulates three hypotheses. Employing a multidisciplinary approach, it integrates qualitative and quantitative methods, leveraging tools such as Twitter API (X), twerc, NVivo, Botometer, and Rstat within the Netnographic method. The analysis reveals temporal dynamics of new account infiltrations on Twitter during war, emphasizing their engagement in hashtag campaigns for information/influence operations. A surge in new account creation coinciding with the war’s onset is identified, along with the strategic deployment of political bots within these accounts for algorithmic manipulation. The findings affirm that the theoretical intertwining of computational propaganda and information operations manifests through social media’s agenda-setting and framing effects. The study significantly contributes to the discourse on information warfare in contemporary conflicts by unraveling the intricate web of digital manipulation during the Tigray war.
AbokhodairNYooDMcDonaldDW (2015) Dissecting a social botnet. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March, pp. 839–851. New York: ACM.
3.
AlbertCDAleroudARutlandJ, et al (2023) Twitter propaganda operations: analyzing sociopolitical issues in Saudi Arabia. Social Media + Society9(4): 20563051231216964.
4.
ArifAStewartLGStarbirdK (2018) Acting the part: examining information operations within #BlackLivesMatter discourse. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2: 1–27.
ChanieA (2021) Tigray crisis: a case study of geopolitical competition in the horn of Africa. Journal of Central and Eastern European African Studies1: 97–128.
9.
ChernobrovDBriantEL (2020) Competing propagandas: how the United States and Russia represent mutual propaganda activities. Politics42(3): 393–409.
ConwayBAKenskiKWangD (2015) The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(4): 363–380.
DruckmanJNKlarSKrupnikovY, et al (2021) Affective polarization, local context, and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour5: 28–38.
14.
ForelleMHowardPHernándezAM, et al (2015) Political bots and the manipulation of public opinion in Venezuela. SSRN Electronic Journal [preprint]. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2635800.
GaetaMLoiaFSarnoD, et al (2021) Online social network viability: misinformation management based on service and systems theories. International Journal of Business and Management14(1): 1–17.
18.
GagliardoneI (2016) The Politics of Technology in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GainousJWagnerKM (2014) Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GilardiFGesslerTKubliM, et al (2021) Social media and political agenda setting. Political Communication39(1): 39–60.
22.
GoldsteinJASastryGMusserM, et al (2023) Generative language models and automated influence operations: emerging threats and potential mitigations. arXiv.org. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04246 (accessed 21 February 2022).
23.
HarderRASevenansJVan AelstP (2017) Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: how traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/Politics22(3): 275–293.
HowardPNWoolleySCaloR (2018) Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: the challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration. Journal of Information Technology & Politics15(2): 81–93.
KießlingBHomburgJDrozdzynskiT, et al (2020) State propaganda on Twitter. In: GrimmeCPreussMTakesF, et al (eds) Disinformation in Open Online Media. Cham: Springer, pp. 182–197.
LasswellHD (1938) Propaganda technique in the world war. Public Opinion Quarterly2(4): 687–689.
33.
LewandowskySJetterMEckerUK (2020) Using the president’s tweets to understand political diversion in the age of social media [preprint]. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ar8d9.
34.
LomborgSBechmannA (2014) Using apis for data collection on social media. The Information Society30(4): 256–265.
LukitoJ (2019) Coordinating a multi-platform disinformation campaign: Internet research agency activity on three U.S. social media platforms, 2015 to 2017. Political Communication37(2): 238–255.
37.
MartensBAguiarLGmez-HerreraE, et al (2018) The digital transformation of news media and the rise of disinformation and fake news. SSRN Electronic Journal [preprint]. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3164170.
38.
MerrinW (2019) Digital War: A Critical Introduction. Abingdon and Oxon: Routledge.
NeudertMN (2018) Germany: A Cautionary Tale. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.
41.
NgLHCarleyKM (2023) Popping the hood on Chinese balloons: examining the discourse between U.S. and China-geotagged accounts. First Monday28: 13159.
42.
NgLHXJDMoffittCarleyKM (2022) Coordinated through a Web of images: analysis of image-based influence operations from China, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03576 (accessed 11 September 2022).
PashentsevE (2023) The malicious use of artificial intelligence through agenda setting. In: PashentsevE (ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Malicious Use of AI and Psychological Security. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 133–172.
45.
PearceKEKendziorS (2012) Networked authoritarianism and social media in Azerbaijan. Journal of Communication62(2): 283–298.
ProferesNSummersE (2021) Algorithms and agenda-setting in Wikileaks #podestaemails release.’ In: WalkerSMerceaDBastosM (eds) Disinformation and Data Lockdown on Social Platforms. New York: Routledge, pp. 100–115.
49.
ProtessDMcCombsME (2016) Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking. New York: Routledge.
50.
RadschC (2022) Ai and disinformation: state-aligned information operations and the distortion of the public sphere. SSRN Electronic Journal [preprint]. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4192038.
StarbirdKArifAWilsonT (2019) Disinformation as collaborative work: surfacing the participatory nature of strategic information operations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3: 1–26.
57.
Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) (2022). Available at: https://ucdp.uu.se/ (accessed 21 February 2023).
58.
UyhengJMagelinskiTVilla-CoxR, et al (2020) Interoperable pipelines for social cybersecurity: assessing Twitter information operations during NATO Trident Juncture 2018. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory26: 465–483.
WilsonTZhouKStarbirdK (2018) Assembling strategic narratives: information operations as collaborative work within an online community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2: 1–26.
64.
WoolleySC (2016) Automating power: social bot interference in global politics. First Monday21: 6161.
YorkeBK (2023) ClausewitzGPT framework: a new frontier in theoretical large language model enhanced information operations. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.07099.pdf (accessed 12 November 2023).
