Cited by 15Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsSpam and Phishing Detection

Russian troll hunting in a brexit Twitter archive

Llewellyn, Clare, Cram, Laura, Favero, Adrian, Hill, Robin L.·2018·Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries

Abstract

Twitter has identified 2,752 accounts that it believes are linked to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company that creates online propaganda. These accounts are known to have tweeted about the US 2016 Elections and the list was submitted as evidence by Twitter to the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. There is no equivalent officially published list of accounts from the IRA known to be active in the UK-EU Referendum debate (Brexit), but we found that the troll accounts active on the 2016 US Election also produced content related to Brexit. We found 3,485 tweets from 419 of the accounts listed as IRA accounts which specifically discussed Brexit and related topics such as the EU and migration. We have been collating an archive of tweets related to Brexit since August 2015 and currently have over 70 million tweets. The Brexit referendum took place on the 23rd June 2016 and the UK voted to leave the European Union. We gathered the data using the Twitter API and a selection of hashtags chosen by a panel of academic experts. Currently we have in excess of fifty different hashtags and we add to the set periodically to accurately represent the evolving conversation. Twitter has closed the accounts that were documented in the Senate list meaning that these tweets are no longer available through the webpage or API. Due to Twitter's terms of service we are unable to share specific tweet text or user profile information but our findings, utilising text and metadata from derived and aggregated data, allows us to provide important insights into the behaviour of these trolls.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3197026.3203876

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Internet Research Agency engaged in online political tactics to sow intergroup conflict and influence US citizens during the 2016 presidential election and British citizens prior to the Brexit vote.

    “The IRA has engaged in online political tactics to sew intergroup conflict and influence US citizens during the 2016 presidential election (34) and British citizens prior to the Brexit vote (35).”

    From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Llewellyn, C., Cram, L., Favero, A., & Hill, R. L.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-05-23
Pages
361-362
ISSN
1552-5996 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2805120555
Cited by
15
References
5
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
8.32
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (publishedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/R001901/1)
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
Internet Research Agency, Brexit referendum, online disinformation, Twitter, 2016 US presidential election, political propaganda, migration discourse, EU migration policy, social media manipulation, tweet metadata

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