Cross-platform state propaganda: Russian trolls on Twitter and YouTube during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Abstract
This paper investigates online propaganda strategies of the Internet Research Agency (IRA)—Russian “trolls”—during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. We assess claims that the IRA sought either to (1) support Donald Trump or (2) sow discord among the U.S. public by analyzing hyperlinks contained in 108,781 IRA tweets. Our results show that although IRA accounts promoted links to both sides of the ideological spectrum, “conservative” trolls were more active than “liberal” ones. The IRA also shared content across social media platforms, particularly YouTube—the second-most linked destination among IRA tweets. Although overall news content shared by trolls leaned moderate to conservative, we find troll accounts on both sides of the ideological spectrum, and these accounts maintain their political alignment. Links to YouTube videos were decidedly conservative, however. While mixed, this evidence is consistent with the IRA’s supporting the Republican campaign, but the IRA’s strategy was multifaceted, with an ideological division of labor among accounts. We contextualize these results as consistent with a pre-propaganda strategy. This work demonstrates the need to view political communication in the context of the broader media ecology, as governments exploit the interconnected information ecosystem to pursue covert propaganda strategies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Different platforms offer different interaction paradigms to users, thus triggering very different social dynamics.
“Different platforms offer different interaction paradigms to users, ranging from retweets and mentions on Twitter to likes and comments in groups on Facebook, thus triggering very different social dynamics (35).”
From The echo chamber effect on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [35]
Prior work documented trolls' attempts to pollute the online environment with polarized content and sow discord among Americans.
“These results expand on prior work documenting trolls’ attempts to pollute the online environment with polarized content and sow discord among Americans (65).”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [65]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 179
- Authors
- Golovchenko, Y., Buntain, C., Eady, G., Brown, M. A., & Tucker, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- New Jersey Institute of Technology (US)
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Buntain, Cody
- Venue
- The International Journal of Press/Politics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-04-14
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 357-389
- ISSN
- 1040-1620 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-1612
- 1940-1620
- OpenAlex
- W3017070982
- Semantic Scholar
- 2eaff391c25765d6bc8d314f270ad9dc242683c1
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 29.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The International Journal of Press/Politics (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- charles koch foundation
- craig newmark philanthropies
- Hewlett Foundation
- Knight Foundation
- Siegel Family Endowment
- Gates Foundation
- National Sciences Foundation (SES-1756657)
- carlsbergfondet (CF16-0012)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- Internet Research Agency, 2016 US presidential election, online propaganda, Twitter, YouTube, hyperlinks, political ideology, media ecology, political communication
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