Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 U.S. presidential election
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Libraries
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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