The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
COVID-19 and the 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data
Open accessAbstract
Background: Since the beginning of December 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread rapidly around the world, which has led to increased discussions across online platforms. These conversations have also included various conspiracies shared by social media users. Amongst them, a popular theory has linked 5G to the spread of COVID-19, leading to misinformation and the burning of 5G towers in the United Kingdom. The understanding of the drivers of fake news and quick policies oriented to isolate and rebate misinformation are keys to combating it. Objective: The aim of this study is to develop an understanding of the drivers of the 5G COVID-19 conspiracy theory and strategies to deal with such misinformation. Methods: This paper performs a social network analysis and content analysis of Twitter data from a 7-day period (Friday, March 27, 2020, to Saturday, April 4, 2020) in which the #5GCoronavirus hashtag was trending on Twitter in the United Kingdom. Influential users were analyzed through social network graph clusters. The size of the nodes were ranked by their betweenness centrality score, and the graph’s vertices were grouped by cluster using the Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm. The topics and web sources used were also examined. Results: Social network analysis identified that the two largest network structures consisted of an isolates group and a broadcast group. The analysis also revealed that there was a lack of an authority figure who was actively combating such misinformation. Content analysis revealed that, of 233 sample tweets, 34.8% (n=81) contained views that 5G and COVID-19 were linked, 32.2% (n=75) denounced the conspiracy theory, and 33.0% (n=77) were general tweets not expressing any personal views or opinions. Thus, 65.2% (n=152) of tweets derived from nonconspiracy theory supporters, which suggests that, although the topic attracted high volume, only a handful of users genuinely believed the conspiracy. This paper also shows that fake news websites were the most popular web source shared by users; although, YouTube videos were also shared. The study also identified an account whose sole aim was to spread the conspiracy theory on Twitter. Conclusions: The combination of quick and targeted interventions oriented to delegitimize the sources of fake information is key to reducing their impact. Those users voicing their views against the conspiracy theory, link baiting, or sharing humorous tweets inadvertently raised the profile of the topic, suggesting that policymakers should insist in the efforts of isolating opinions that are based on fake news. Many social media platforms provide users with the ability to report inappropriate content, which should be used. This study is the first to analyze the 5G conspiracy theory in the context of COVID-19 on Twitter offering practical guidance to health authorities in how, in the context of a pandemic, rumors may be combated in the future.
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
A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China
Wu, F., Zhao, S., Yu, B., Chen, Y.-M., Wang, W., Song, Z.-G., Hu, Y., Tao, Z.-W., Tian, J.-H., Pei, Y.-Y., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3 · Cited by 11,688
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
Cited by
Puri, N., Coomes, E. A., Haghbayan, H., & Gunaratne, K. (2020) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2020.1780846 · Cited by 1,157
Laato, S., Islam, A. K. M. N., Farooq, A., & Dhir, A. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102224 · Cited by 851
What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: A scoping review
Tsao, S.-F., Chen, H., Tisseverasinghe, T., Yang, Y., Li, L., & Butt, Z. A. (2021) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30315-0 · Cited by 816
Sallam, M., Dababseh, D., Eid, H., Al-Mahzoum, K., Al-Haidar, A., Taim, D., Yaseen, A., Ababneh, N. A., Bakri, F. G., & Mahafzah, A. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9010042 · Cited by 675
Islam, A. K. M. N., Laato, S., Talukder, S., & Sutinen, E. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120201 · Cited by 538
Metadata
- Authors
- Ahmed, W., Vidal-Alaball, J., Downing, J., & López Seguí, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2020-05-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e19458
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3019597125
- Cited by
- 797
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 199.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.