Cited by 85Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionSocial Media in Health Education

Malicious Actors on Twitter: A Guide for Public Health Researchers

Open access
Jamison, Amelia M., Broniatowski, David A., Quinn, Sandra Crouse·2019·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Social bots and other malicious actors have a significant presence on Twitter. It is increasingly clear that some of their activities can have a negative impact on public health. This guide provides an overview of the types of malicious actors currently active on Twitter by highlighting the characteristic behaviors and strategies employed. It covers both automated accounts (including traditional spambots, social spambots, content polluters, and fake followers) and human users (primarily trolls). It also addresses the unique threat of state-sponsored trolls. We utilize examples from our own research on vaccination to illustrate. The diversity of malicious actors and their multifarious goals adds complexity to research efforts that use Twitter. Bots are now part of the social media landscape, and although it may not be possible to stop their influence, it is vital that public health researchers and practitioners recognize the potential harms and develop strategies to address bot- and troll-driven messages.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2019.304969

Cites

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?

  • Social bots have been found to distort online conversations and spread misinformation in various contexts, from elections to public health crises.

    “They were found to distort online conversations and spread misinformation in various contexts, from elections to public health crises (Shao et al., 2018;Ferrara et al., 2020;Jamison et al., 2019;Marlow et al., 2020).”

    From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Jamison et al., 2019

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 11 · Cited by 85

Authors
Jamison, A. M., Broniatowski, D. A., & Quinn, S. C.
Affiliations
George Washington University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2019-05
Volume
109
Issue
5
Pages
688-692
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2923771419
Cited by
85
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 7
FWCI
29.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • George Washington University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM114771)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
social bots, malicious actors, Twitter, trolls, fake followers, vaccination, misinformation, social media harms, public health research
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Humans, Public Opinion, United States, Vaccination, Information Dissemination, Social Media

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