Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analyzing the Digital Traces of Political Manipulation: The 2016 Russian Interference Twitter Campaign

Open access
Badawy, Adam, Ferrara, Emilio, Lerman, Kristina·2018·2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM)

Abstract

Until recently, social media was seen to promote democratic discourse on social and political issues. However, this powerful communication platform has come under scrutiny for allowing hostile actors to exploit online discussions in an attempt to manipulate public opinion. A case in point is the ongoing U.S. Congress investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election campaign, with Russia accused of, among other things, using trolls (malicious accounts created for the purpose of manipulation) and bots (automated accounts) to spread misinformation and politically biased information. In this study, we explore the effects of this manipulation campaign, taking a closer look at users who re-shared the posts produced on Twitter by the Russian troll accounts publicly disclosed by U.S. Congress investigation. We collected a dataset with over 43 million elections-related posts shared on Twitter between September 16 and November 9, 2016 by about 5.7 million distinct users. This dataset includes accounts associated with the identified Russian trolls. We use label propagation to infer the users' ideology based on the news sources they shared, to classify a large number of them as liberal or conservative with precision and recall above 90%. Conservatives retweeted Russian trolls significantly more often than liberals and produced 36 times more tweets. Additionally, most of the troll content originated in, and was shared by users from Southern states. Using state-of-the-art bot detection techniques, we estimated that about 4.9% and 6.2% of liberal and conservative users respectively were bots. Text analysis on the content shared by trolls reveals that they had a mostly conservative, pro-Trump agenda. Although an ideologically broad swath of Twitter users were exposed to Russian trolls in the period leading up to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, it was mainly conservatives who helped amplify their message.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/asonam.2018.8508646

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Badawy, A., Ferrara, E., & Lerman, K.
Venue
2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-08
Pages
258-265
OpenAlex
W2787037992
Cited by
353
References
62
FWCI
130.78
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analyzing the Digital Traces of Political Manipulation: The 2016 Russian Interference Twitter Campaign. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/asonam.2018.8508646
The paper
Badawy, A., Ferrara, E., & Lerman, K. (2018). Analyzing the Digital Traces of Political Manipulation: The 2016 Russian Interference Twitter Campaign. 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). https://doi.org/10.1109/asonam.2018.8508646

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.