Cited by 100Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionSocial Media and Politics

Demystifying Social Bots: On the Intelligence of Automated Social Media Actors

Open access
Assenmacher, Dennis, Clever, Lena, Frischlich, Lena, Quandt, Thorsten, Trautmann, Heike, Grimme, Christian·2020·Social Media + Society

Abstract

Recently, social bots, (semi-) automatized accounts in social media, gained global attention in the context of public opinion manipulation. Dystopian scenarios like the malicious amplification of topics, the spreading of disinformation, and the manipulation of elections through “opinion machines” created headlines around the globe. As a consequence, much research effort has been put into the classification and detection of social bots. Yet, it is still unclear how easy an average online media user can purchase social bots, which platforms they target, where they originate from, and how sophisticated these bots are. This work provides a much needed new perspective on these questions. By providing insights into the markets of social bots in the clearnet and darknet as well as an exhaustive analysis of freely available software tools for automation during the last decade, we shed light on the availability and capabilities of automated profiles in social media platforms. Our results confirm the increasing importance of social bot technology but also uncover an as yet unknown discrepancy of theoretical and practically achieved artificial intelligence in social bots: while literature reports on a high degree of intelligence for chat bots and assumes the same for social bots, the observed degree of intelligence in social bot implementations is limited. In fact, the overwhelming majority of available services and software are of supportive nature and merely provide modules of automation instead of fully fledged “intelligent” social bots.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2056305120939264

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Traditional social bots typically lack the intelligence to create realistic personas, post convincing content, or carry out natural conversations automatically.

    “They typically lack the intelligence to create realistic personas, post convincing content, or carry out natural conversations with other accounts automatically (Assenmacher et al., 2020).”

    From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Assenmacher et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Assenmacher, D., Clever, L., Frischlich, L., Quandt, T., Trautmann, H., & Grimme, C.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
Assenmacher, Dennis
Venue
Social Media + Society
Published
2020-07
Volume
6
Issue
3
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3081846154
Cited by
100
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
15.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
social bots, social media automation, dark web, bot detection, disinformation, opinion manipulation, electoral manipulation, chatbots, social networking sites

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