Cited by 223Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactSpam and Phishing Detection

What types of COVID-19 conspiracies are populated by Twitter bots?

Open access
Ferrara, Emilio·2020·First Monday

Abstract

With people moving out of physical public spaces due to containment measures to tackle the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, online platforms become even more prominent tools to understand social discussion. Studying social media can be informative to assess how we are collectively coping with this unprecedented global crisis. However, social media platforms are also populated by bots, automated accounts that can amplify certain topics of discussion at the expense of others. In this paper, we study 43.3M English tweets about COVID-19 and provide early evidence of the use of bots to promote political conspiracies in the United States, in stark contrast with humans who focus on public health concerns.

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 · 10.5210/fm.v25i6.10633

Cites

86 of 86 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [47]C. Freitas, F. Benevenuto, S. Ghosh, and A. Veloso, 'Reverse engineering socialbot infiltration strategies in twitter,' in Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM 2015 , Aug. 2015, pp. 25-32, doi: 10.1145/2808797.2809292. · DOI
  2. [51]S. Cresci, A. Spognardi, M. Petrocchi, M. Tesconi, and R. Di Pietro, 'The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms race,' in 26th International World Wide Web Conference 2017, WWW 2017 Companion , 2019, pp. 963-972, doi: 10.1145/3041021.3055135. · DOI · Paper page
  3. [63]K.-C. Yang, O. Varol, P.-M. Hui, and F. Menczer, 'Scalable and Generalizable Social Bot Detection through Data Selection,' Nov. 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.09179. · arXiv
  4. [83]D. Pacheco, P.-M. Hui, C. Torres-Lugo, B. T. Truong, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer, 'Uncovering Coordinated Networks on Social Media,' Jan. 2020, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.05658. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferrara, E.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Ferrara, Emilio
Venue
First Monday
Published
2020-05-19
ISSN
  • 1396-0458 (ISSN-L)
  • 1396-0466
OpenAlex
W3032981809
Cited by
223
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 34 · 2017: 2
FWCI
58.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • First Monday (publishedVersion)
  • First Monday (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter bots, political conspiracy, misinformation, automated accounts, social media, public health discourse, online political discussion, United States

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