Cited by 171Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsSpam and Phishing Detection

Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 U.S. presidential election

Open access
Ferrara, Emilio, Chang, Herbert, Chen, Emily, Muric, Goran, Patel, Jaimin·2020·First Monday

Abstract

Democracies are postulated upon the ability to carry out fair elections, free from any form of interference or manipulation. Social media have been reportedly used to distort public opinion nearing election events in the United States and beyond. With over 240 million election-related tweets recorded between 20 June and 9 September 2020, in this study we chart the landscape of social media manipulation in the context of the upcoming 3 November 2020 U.S. presidential election. We focus on characterizing two salient dimensions of social media manipulation, namely (i) automation (e.g., the prevalence of bots), and (ii) distortion (e.g., manipulation of narratives, injection of conspiracies or rumors). Despite being outnumbered by several orders of magnitude, just a few thousands of bots generated spikes of conversations around real-world political events in all comparable with the volume of activity of humans. We discover that bots also exacerbate the consumption of content produced by users with their same political views, worsening the issue of political echo chambers. Furthermore, coordinated efforts carried out by Russia, China and other countries are hereby characterized. Finally, we draw a clear connection between bots, hyper-partisan media outlets, and conspiracy groups, suggesting the presence of systematic efforts to distort political narratives and propagate disinformation. Our findings may have impactful implications, shedding light on different forms of social media manipulation that may, altogether, ultimately pose a risk to the integrity of the election.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5210/fm.v25i11.11431

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 Ferrara et al., 2020

No citation lists for this paper

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

Cited by 171

Authors
Ferrara, E., Chang, H., Chen, E., Muric, G., & Patel, J.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Venue
First Monday
Published
2020-10-19
ISSN
  • 1396-0458 (ISSN-L)
  • 1396-0466
OpenAlex
W3095610489
Cited by
171
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 4
FWCI
30.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • First Monday (publishedVersion)
  • First Monday (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
social media manipulation, 2020 US presidential election, disinformation, conspiracy theories, echo chambers, political polarization, foreign interference, Russian interference, Chinese interference, political narratives, Twitter

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