Characterizing networks of propaganda on twitter: a case study
Open accessAbstract
The daily exposure of social media users to propaganda and disinformation campaigns has reinvigorated the need to investigate the local and global patterns of diffusion of different (mis)information content on social media. Echo chambers and influencers are often deemed responsible of both the polarization of users in online social networks and the success of propaganda and disinformation campaigns. This article adopts a data-driven approach to investigate the structuration of communities and propaganda networks on Twitter in order to assess the correctness of these imputations. In particular, the work aims at characterizing networks of propaganda extracted from a Twitter dataset by combining the information gained by three different classification approaches, focused respectively on (i) using Tweets content to infer the “polarization” of users around a specific topic, (ii) identifying users having an active role in the diffusion of different propaganda and disinformation items, and (iii) analyzing social ties to identify topological clusters and users playing a “central” role in the network. The work identifies highly partisan community structures along political alignments; furthermore, centrality metrics proved to be very informative to detect the most active users in the network and to distinguish users playing different roles; finally, polarization and clustering structure of the retweet graphs provided useful insights about relevant properties of users exposure, interactions, and participation to different propaganda items.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Polarization often arises during contentious events, such as elections, where users amplify content from ideologically aligned sources.
“Polarization often arises during contentious events, such as elections, where users amplify content from ideologically aligned sources [55,56].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [56]
The Polarized retweet graphs section reports strongly polarized users in the referendum discussion, and the Clustering structure section finds politically aligned clusters in retweet networks. This supports the claim’s election-like example, but the paper does not establish that polarization often arises during contentious events or that amplifying content from ideologically aligned sources causes it. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · see citing works
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767 · see citing works
FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden
Pariser, E. (2012) · doi:10.3139/9783446431164 · Cited by 1,849 · see citing works
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 608 · see citing works
How warnings about false claims become recommendations
Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/426605 · Cited by 446 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- Alonso-Muñoz L, Casero-Ripollés A (2018) Communication of european populist leaders on twitter: Agenda setting and the 'more is less' effect. El profesional de la información 27(6):1193-02
- Aragón P, Kappler KE, Kaltenbrunner A, Laniado D, Volkovich Y (2013) Communication dynamics in twitter during political campaigns: The case of the 2011 spanish national election. Policy Internet 5(2):183-206
- Bakker TP, De Vreese CH (2011) Good news for the future? young people, internet use, and political participation. Commun Res 38(4):451-470
- Becatti C, Caldarelli G, Lambiotte R, Saracco F (2019) Extracting significant signal of news consumption from social networks: the case of twitter in italian political elections. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1-16
- Bovet A, Makse HA (2019) Influence of fake news in twitter during the 2016 us presidential election. Nat Commun 10(1):7
- Brody DC, Meier DM (2018) How to model fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00964 · arXiv
- Castanho Silva B, Vegetti F, Littvay L (2017) The elite is up to something: Exploring the relation between populism and belief in conspiracy theories. Swiss Polit Sci Rev 23(4):423-443
- Castillo C, Mendoza M, Poblete B (2011) Information credibility on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York. pp 675-684
- Taylor & Francis Ciampaglia GL, Shiralkar P, Rocha LM, Bollen J, Menczer F, Flammini A (2015) Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. PloS ONE 10(6):0128193
- Feng S, Banerjee R, Choi Y (2012) Syntactic stylometry for deception detection. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers-Volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, Jeju Island. pp 171-175
- Feng VW, Hirst G (2013) Detecting deceptive opinions with profile compatibility. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, Nagoya. pp 338-346
- Gayo-Avello D, Metaxas PT, Mustafaraj E (2011) Limits of electoral predictions using twitter. In: Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California
- Guarino S, Trino N, Chessa A, Riotta G (2019) Beyond fact-checking: Network analysis tools for monitoring disinformation in social media. In: International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications. Springer, Lisbon. pp 436-447
- Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J (2019) Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on facebook. Sci Adv 5(1):4586
- Higgins K (2016) Post-truth: a guide for the perplexed. Nat News 540(7631):9
- Karadzhov G, Nakov P, Màrquez L, Barron-Cedeno A, Koychev I (2017) Fully automated fact checking using external sources. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.00341 · arXiv
- Kleinberg JM (1999) Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J ACM (JACM) 46(5):604-632
- Lazer DM, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, Metzger MJ, Nyhan B, Pennycook G, Rothschild D, et al (2018) The science of fake news. Science 359(6380):1094-1096
- Le Q, Mikolov T (2014) Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 32. JMLR: W&CP, Beijing. pp 1188-1196
- Lévy P (2002) Cyberdémocratie: essai de philosophie politique. In: A Inteligência Coletiva. Odile Jacob, Paris Löfstedt R (2005) Risk management in post-trust societies. Springer, New York: Palgrave Macmillan
- Margolin DB, Hannak A, Weber I (2018) Political fact-checking on twitter: when do corrections have an effect?. Polit Commun 35(2):196-219
- Markowitz DM, Hancock JT (2014) Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: The case of diederik stapel. PloS ONE 9(8):105937
- Nichols T (2017) The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Wiley Online Library
- Papacharissi Z, de Fatima Oliveira M (2012) Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on# egypt. J Commun 62(2):266-282
- Pariser E (2011) The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK
- Pierri F, Artoni A, Ceri S (2020) Investigating italian disinformation spreading on twitter in the context of 2019 european elections. PloS ONE 15(1):0227821
- Prasetya HA, Murata T (2020) A model of opinion and propagation structure polarization in social media. Comput Soc Networks 7(1):1-35
- Qiu X, Oliveira DF, Shirazi AS, Flammini A, Menczer F (2017) Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information. Nat Hum Behav 1(7):0132
- Shao C, Ciampaglia GL, Flammini A, Menczer F (2016) Hoaxy: A platform for tracking online misinformation. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Montréal. pp 745-750
- Shao C, Ciampaglia GL, Varol O, Yang K-C, Flammini A, Menczer F (2018) The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nat Commun 9(1):4787
- Shao C, Hui P-M, Wang L, Jiang X, Flammini A, Menczer F, Ciampaglia GL (2018) Anatomy of an online misinformation network. PloS ONE 13(4):0196087
- Shin J, Thorson K (2017) Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. J Commun 67(2):233-255
- Shu K, Sliva A, Wang S, Tang J, Liu H (2017) Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 19(1):22-36
- Subrahmanian V, Azaria A, Durst S, Kagan V, Galstyan A, Lerman K, Zhu L, Ferrara E, Flammini A, Menczer F, et al (2016) The darpa twitter bot challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.05140 · arXiv
- Sunstein CR (2001) Republic.com. Princeton university press
- Trilling D (2015) Two different debates? investigating the relationship between a political debate on tv and simultaneous comments on twitter. Soc Sci Comput Rev 33(3):259-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314537886 · DOI
- Tucker J, Guess A, Barberá P, Vaccari C, Siegel A, Sanovich S, Stukal D, Nyhan B (2018) Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (March 19, 2018)
- Vicario MD, Quattrociocchi W, Scala A, Zollo F (2019) Polarization and fake news: Early warning of potential misinformation targets. ACM Trans Web (TWEB) 13(2):10
- Vinh NX, Epps J, Bailey J (2009) Information theoretic measures for clusterings comparison: is a correction for chance necessary? In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Montréal. pp 1073-1080
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Guarino, S., Trino, N., Celestini, A., Chessa, A., & Riotta, G.
- Affiliations
- National Research Council (IT)
- Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Guarino, Stefano
- Venue
- Applied Network Science
- Published
- 2020-09-04
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2364-8228 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3026151702
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 8.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Applied Network Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission (825469, HORIZON2020)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- propaganda, disinformation, Twitter, social networks, echo chambers, polarization, community structure, centrality, misinformation propagation, political alignment, influencer detection
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