Turf wars: Using social media network analysis to examine the suspected astroturfing campaign for the Adani Carmichael Coal mine on Twitter
Abstract
This article uses social media network analysis (SMNA) to examine whether there was an astroturfing campaign on Twitter in support of the Adani Carmichael coal mine in 2017. It shows that SMNA can be used to visualize and analyze outsider lobbying activity in issue arenas and is capable of identifying networks of fake opinion. This study found that in April 2017, there was a small network of accounts that made a series of suspiciously similar pro‐Adani tweets that could be considered a form of duplicitous lobbying. However, this study concludes that these posts were likely a weak influence on public opinion in Australia and largely ineffectual as a lobbying tactic. Nevertheless, this analysis shows how communitas public interests can be subverted by covert social media campaigns used in support of corporatas goals, as well as the role digital research methods can play in protecting the integrity on public debates by exposing disingenuous actors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The way social media functions encourages astroturfing by facilitating anonymity, reducing the cost of access, and boosting the viral circulation of information.
“The way social media functions encourages this phenomenon by facilitating anonymity, reducing the cost of access, and boosting the viral circulation of information”
From Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery (2026) · cites this paper as Hobbs et al., 2020
Cites
Detecting Automation of Twitter Accounts: Are You a Human, Bot, or Cyborg?
Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H., & Jajodia, S. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2012.75 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
Unpacking the Social Media Bot: A Typology to Guide Research and Policy
Gorwa, R., & Guilbeault, D. (2020) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.184 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery
Alloing, C., Fournier, V., Reid, V., Germain, S., Turbide, O., & Yates, S. (2026) · International Journal of Communication · doi:10.65476/qd17zh66
- Authors
- Hobbs, M., Della Bosca, H., Schlosberg, D., & Sun, C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Sydney Environment Institute The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
- Corresponding author
- Hobbs, Mitchell
- Venue
- Journal of Public Affairs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1472-3891 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2999899829
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Public Affairs (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Sydney (D9278 00000 M3POSTRUTH)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
- Keywords
- astroturfing, Twitter, lobbying, fake accounts, disinformation, public opinion, corporate interests, digital research methods
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review