The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Disinformation Campaign
Open accessAbstract
Political astroturfing, a centrally coordinated disinformation campaign in which participants pretend to be ordinary citizens acting independently, has the potential to influence electoral outcomes and other forms of political behavior. Yet, it is hard to evaluate the scope and effectiveness of political astroturfing without “ground truth” information, such as the verified identity of its agents and instigators. In this paper, we study the South Korean National Information Service’s (NIS) disinformation campaign during the presidential election in 2012, taking advantage of a list of participating accounts published in court proceedings. Features that best distinguish these accounts from regular users in contemporaneously collected Twitter data are traces left by coordination among astroturfing agents, instead of the individual account characteristics typically used in related approaches such as social bot detection. We develop a methodology that exploits these distinct empirical patterns to identify additional likely astroturfing accounts and validate this detection strategy by analyzing their messages and current account status. However, an analysis relying on Twitter influence metrics shows that the known and suspect NIS accounts only had a limited impact on political social media discussions. By using the principal-agent framework to analyze one of the earliest revealed instances of political astroturfing, we improve on extant methodological approaches to detect disinformation campaigns and ground them more firmly in social science theory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“For Keller et al. (2020), another key characteristic of astroturfing is its reliance on centralized coordination, especially for disseminating and sharing information”
From Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery (2026) · cites this paper as Keller et al., 2020
In the citing paper
“Astroturfing is most frequently equated with political or commercial communications strategy”
From Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery (2026) · cites this paper as Keller et al., 2020
In the citing paper
“Traditional social bots often follow pre-defined instructions to perform simplistic tasks, such as spamming (Yang et al., 2019), following others, and amplifying certain narratives (Keller et al., 2020).”
From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Keller et al., 2020
Citations
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
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 · cited 1×
“…level have become more influential, political actors such as governments (King, Pan, & Roberts, 2017; Lukito et al., 2018), hyperpartisan media (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Faris et al., 2017), far-right groups (Marwick & Lewis, 2017) or actors with economic motives (Silverman & Alexander, 2016)…”
BackgroundTHE LOGIC OF CONNECTIVE ACTION: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.670661 · Cited by 3,116 · cited 3×
“…a “social movement grows when people with grievances meet, agree on a common agenda, and organize for political action” (Howard, 2006, p. 86; see also Bennett & Segerberg, 2013), an astroturfing campaign tries to appear like such an organic expression of public opinion, but is actually centrally…”
BackgroundDirect Clustering of a Data Matrix
Hartigan, J. (1972) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1972.10481214 · Cited by 1,255 · cited 2×
“, they tweet on the same days – and groups them together (Hartigan, 1972).”
BackgroundWeaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate
Broniatowski, D. A., Jamison, A. M., Qi, S., AlKulaib, L., Chen, T., Benton, A., Quinn, S. C., & Dredze, M. (2018) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2018.304567 · Cited by 1,149 · cited 1×
“Tweets posted by known and suspect NIS accounts should reflect these goals and strategies, and therefore differ significantly from those posted by regular users, political users, and opinion leaders (Broniatowski et al., 2018).”
BackgroundKING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. E. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055417000144 · Cited by 1,028 · cited 3×
“In order to prevent this type of shirking, the principal may opt for constant and direct supervision by physically locating all agents in the same office – as done by the “Russian troll factories”(3) – or at least hire them to work during office hours instead of paying by post, as the eponymous “50 cent party” alleged…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power
Chadwick, A. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001 · Cited by 1,000 · cited 2×
“Social media also have the potential to set the news agenda (Chadwick, 2013; Neuman, Guggenheim, Jang, & Bae, 2014) as journalists pay close attention to social media buzz (Lukito et al.”
BackgroundOnline Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization
Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871 · Cited by 981
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650212466406 · Cited by 902
THE POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF PRINCIPAL-AGENT MODELS
Miller, G. J. (2005) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104840 · Cited by 895 · cited 1×
“To better understand how the patterns of the two types of campaigns should differ, we turn to principal-agent theory (Miller, 2005; Ross, 1973).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1017/CBO9781139198752 · DOI
- Conover M., 2011, Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 89
- Faris, R., Roberts, H., Etling, B., Bourassa, N., Zuckerman, E. & Benkler, Y. (2017). Partisanship, propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 U.S. presidential election (Berkman Klein Center Research Publication 2017-6). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3019414
- Howard P. N., 2006, New media campaigns and the managed citizen
- Keller F., 2017, Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 564
- Linvill D. R., 2018, Troll factories: The internet research agency and state-sponsored agenda building
- Morstatter F., 2013, Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 400
- Ross S. A., 1973, The American Economic Review, 63, 134
- SeoulDistrictCourt, 2014, Case ID: 2013GoHap577, 2013GoHap1060
- SeoulHigherCourt, 2015, Case ID: 2014No2820
- Varol O., 2017, Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 280
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–313 of 313
The Descriptive Model of Social Bot on the Base of American Political Discourse
Loginova, A. O. (2024) · The Herald of the Siberian State University of Telecommunications and Information Science · doi:10.55648/1998-6920-2024-18-3-3-13
The online affiliations of interest groups
Moses, L. (2023) · Interest Groups & Advocacy · doi:10.1057/s41309-023-00196-1
“For the last decade, digital communication technologies have lowered the costs and barriers to connecting with the public, and interest groups have shifted to this online focus (Keller et al. 2020; Stein 2009; Obar et al. 2012; Karpf 2010; Sin and Lupia 2003; Theocharis et al. 2022).”
BackgroundPravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Z., & Šimonović, I. (2023) · Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu · doi:10.3935/zpfz.73.23.15
Trolls' Online Aggression Effects
Стукал, Д. (2022) · International Conference Management of Large-Scale System Development (MLSD) · doi:10.1109/mlsd55143.2022.9934493
“These troll-defining characteristics include spam dissemination [12], repetitive or coordinated posting [13], mocking of other users [12], or the expression of aggression [14].”
BackgroundNote: Picking Sides: The influencer-driven #HijabBan discourse on Twitter
De, S., Panda, A., & Pal, J. (2022) · The Compass · doi:10.1145/3530190.3534841
Actores políticos y promoción de contenidos desinformativos en Twitter. Caso España
Said-Hung, E., & Ocarranza-Prado, I. (2022) · Sociedade e Estado · doi:10.1590/s0102-6992-202237020009
(2021) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80043-294-920211003
Song, J., & Fiore, S. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181320641360 · Cited by 2
“11 77 / 1071181320641360 user accounts (Keller et al., 2020; Zannettou et al., 2019), and anomalous activity patterns (Glenski et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialCivic Bots: An Analysis of Automation Technologies as an Activist Repertoire on X/Twitter
Chagas, V., & da Costa, G. R. M. (2026) · Intercom: Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação · doi:10.1590/1809-58442026111en
Bots cívicos: Uma análise sobre tecnologias de automação como repertório ativista no X/Twitter
Chagas, V., & da Costa, G. R. M. (2026) · Intercom: Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação · doi:10.1590/1809-58442026111pt
Waight, H., Yuan, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Stewart, B. M. (2024) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4812826
Bürger/innen als Akteure in der politischen Kommunikation
Peter, C., & Zerback, T. (2021) · Handbuch Politische Kommunikation · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_14-1
Toxische Online-Kommunikation: Auswirkungen und Perspektiven
Voggeser, B. J., & Göritz, A. S. (2021) · Uniscope · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-34497-9_3 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Keller, F. B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (DE)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stier, Sebastian
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-10-26
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 256-280
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W2971881481
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 45
- FWCI
- 73.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Political Communication (publishedVersion)
- Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) (submittedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A3A2925033)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Keywords
- disinformation campaigns, Twitter, 2012 South Korean presidential election, social bots, principal-agent model, election interference
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