Disinformation, social media, bots, and astroturfing: the fourth wave of digital democracy
Open accessAbstract
This article reflects on the conceptualization and the salient features of the ecology of e-democracy. The authors identify four distinct waves marked by technological innovations and studied under the control–participation dichotomy. In the first wave, during the 1990s, political actors begin to establish their online presence but without any other notable changes in communication. The second wave takes place from 2004 to 2008 and features the consolidation of social networks and the increasing commodification of audience engagement. The third wave begins to take shape during Obama’s 2008 election campaign, which featured micro-segmentation and the use of big data. The fourth wave, starting in 2016 with the Brexit campaign and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, has been defined by the front and center use of Artificial Intelligence. Some recent phenomena that challenge or buttress the make-up of critical public opinion are the following: a) digital platforms as political actors; b) the marked use of Artificial Intelligence and big data; c) the use of falsehoods as a political strategy, as well as other fake news and deep fake phenomena; d) the combination of hyperlocal and supranational issues; e) technological determinism; f) the search for audience engagement and co-production processes; and g) trends that threaten democracy, to wit, the polarization of opinions, astroturfing, echo chambers and bubble filters. Finally, the authors identify several challenges in research, pedagogy and politics that could strengthen democratic values, and conclude that democracy needs to be reimagined both under new research and political action frameworks, as well as through the creation of a social imaginary on democracy.
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?
Disinformation and astroturfing both mislead the public and can negatively affect public debates, which thereby lose authenticity, but the two phenomena are not intrinsically and systematically linked.
“Disinformation and astroturfing both mislead the public (Chen et al., 2021) and can negatively affect public debates (García-Orosa, 2021;Schoch et al., 2022), which thereby lose authenticity (Al-Rawi & Rahman, 2020;Chan, 2022;Lits, 2021a;Lock & Seele, 2017), but it does not follow that the two phenomena are intrinsically and systematically linked.”
From Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery (2026) · cites this paper as García-Orosa, 2021
In the literature, astroturfing is often associated with the intention to create the illusion of grassroots public support and backing that exceeds its actual scale.
“astroturfing is often associated with the intention to create the illusion of grassroots public support and backing that exceeds its actual scale”
From Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery (2026) · cites this paper as García-Orosa, 2021
Cites
Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Disinformation Campaign
Keller, F. B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
Unpacking the Social Media Bot: A Typology to Guide Research and Policy
Gorwa, R., & Guilbeault, D. (2020) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.184 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening Epistemic Crisis of Democracy
Dahlgren, P. (2018) · Javnost - The Public · doi:10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819 · Cited by 237 · see citing works
An Examination of the Impact of Astroturfing on Nationalism: A Persuasion Knowledge Perspective
Henrie, K. M., & Gilde, C. (2019) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci8020038 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery
Alloing, C., Fournier, V., Reid, V., Germain, S., Turbide, O., & Yates, S. (2026) · International Journal of Communication · doi:10.65476/qd17zh66
- Authors
- García-Orosa, B.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
- ORCID
- García-Orosa, Berta
- Venue
- El Profesional de la información
- Published
- 2021-10-28
- ISSN
- 1386-6710 (ISSN-L)
- 1699-2407
- OpenAlex
- W3210485234
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- El Profesional de la Informacion (publishedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (RTI2018-093346-B-C33, RTI2018)
- European Regional Development Fund (RTI2018, RTI2018-093346- B-C33)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- digital democracy, disinformation, social media, political bots, astroturfing, artificial intelligence in politics, big data, fake news, deepfakes, Cambridge Analytica, audience engagement, political polarization, echo chambers, technological determinism, democratic values
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