Cited by 12Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Kingdom of Trolls? Influence Operations in the Saudi Twittersphere

Open access
Barrie, Christopher, Siegel, Alexandra·2021·Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media

Abstract

Saudi Arabia has one of the highest rates of Twitter penetration in the world. Despite high levels of repression, the platform is frequently used to discuss political topics. Recent disclosures from Twitter have revealed state-backed attempts at distorting the online information environment through influence operations (IOs). A growing body of research has investigated online disinformation and foreign-sponsored IOs in the English-speaking world; but comparatively little is known about online disinformation in other contexts or about the domestic use of IOs. Using public releases of IO tweets, we investigate the extent of such activity in Saudi Arabia. Benchmarking these tweets to four samples of Saudi Twitter users, we find that engagement with IO accounts was lower than engagement with the average user, but equal to engagement with news accounts. Network analysis reveals that engagement with IO accounts was largely driven by a small number of influential accounts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.51685/jqd.2021.012

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Digital repression is primarily observed during periods of heightened contention, but these do not seem to be the moments when repressive legal capacities are developed.

    “While digital repression is primarily observed during periods of heightened contention, 97 these do not seem to be the moments when repressive legal capacities are developed.”

    From Legalizing control: the rise of restrictive internet regulation in sub-Saharan Africa (2026) · cites this paper as [97]

    The citation follows the first clause, so the attributed claim is that digital repression is primarily observed during periods of heightened contention. The Abstract mentions Saudi Arabia’s history of repressing online critics, but neither it nor the retrieved passages on influence operations address when digital repression is primarily observed (searched: heightened contention, repressive legal capacities). (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Abrahams, A. and Leber, A. (2020). Electronic Armies or Cyber Knights? The Sources of Pro- Authoritarian Discourse on Middle East Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 14:1-29.
  2. Bradshaw, S. and Howard, P. N. (2018). Challenging Truth and Trust: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. Technical report, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, UK.
  3. Elswah, M., Howard, P. N., and Narayanan, V. (2019). Iranian Digital Interference in the Arab World. COMPROP DATA MEMO, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, UK.
  4. Jones, M. O. (2019). Propaganda, Fake News, and Fake Trends: The Weaponization of Twitter Bots in the Gulf Crisis. International Journal of Communication, 13:1389-1415.
  5. Martin, D. A., Shapiro, J. N., and Ilhardt, J. G. (2020). Trends in Online Influence Efforts. Working paper, pages 1-107.
  6. Martin, D. A., Shapiro, J. N., and Nedashkovskaya, M. (2019). Recent Trends in Online Foreign Influence Efforts. Journal of Information Warfare, 18(3):15-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrie, C., & Siegel, A.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Venue
Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media
Published
2021-04-26
Volume
1
ISSN
2673-8813 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3160431485
Cited by
12
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Quantitative Description Digital Media (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HOPE (Hauptbibliothek Open Publishing Environment) (University of Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1248077)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Rita Allen Foundation
  • Intel Corporation
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • Craig Newmark Philanthropies
  • York University
  • Faculty of Arts and Sciences
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
influence operations, Saudi Arabia, Twitter, disinformation, state-sponsored disinformation, political participation, internet environment, influential accounts, network analysis

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