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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The igraph software package for complex network research
Csárdi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,078
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
Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks
Raghavan, U. N., Albert, R., & Kumara, S. (2007) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.76.036106 · Cited by 3,502
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245
The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment
Centola, D. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185231 · Cited by 2,692
The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11421 · Cited by 2,575
Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2818717 · Cited by 1,973
Self-citationEveryone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining · doi:10.1145/1935826.1935845 · Cited by 1,689
Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest: Observations From Tahrir Square
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x · Cited by 1,532
Cited by
Deep neural networks for bot detection
Kudugunta, S., & Ferrara, E. (2018) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.08.019 · Cited by 506
Self-citationOnline misinformation about climate change
Treen, K. M. D., Williams, H. T. P., & O'Neill, S. J. (2020) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.665 · Cited by 441
Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Disinformation Campaign
Keller, F. B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888 · Cited by 378
Earl, J. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl8198 · Cited by 250
Golovchenko, Y., Buntain, C., Eady, G., Brown, M. A., & Tucker, J. A. (2020) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161220912682 · Cited by 179
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.