Manufacturing rage: The Russian Internet Research Agency’s political astroturfing on social media
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines social media ads purchased by the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA). Using a public dataset, we employ a mixed method to analyze the thematic and strategic patterns of these ads. Due to Facebook and Instagram’s promotional features, IRA managed to microtarget audiences mostly located in the United States fitting its messages to suit the audiences’ political, racial, gendered, and in some cases religious backgrounds. The findings reveal the divisive nature and topics that are dominant in the dataset including: race, immigration, and police brutality. By expanding on the theoretical conceptualization of astroturfing strategy that focuses on carefully concealing the identity and intention of actors behind social media activities, we argue that IRA has added political astroturfing as a powerful tool at a low cost contributing to the broader Russian geopolitical disinformation campaign strategies. The IRA made use of the business model of Facebook and Instagram in an attempt to further divide its targeted audiences and by highlighting mostly negative issues with a potential goal of fuelling political rage.
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 Al-Rawi & Rahman, 2020
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 Al-Rawi & Rahman, 2020
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
- Al-Rawi, A., & Rahman, A.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- ORCID
- Rahman, Anis
- Venue
- First Monday
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Libraries
- Published
- 2020-08-16
- ISSN
- 1396-0458 (ISSN-L)
- 1396-0466
- OpenAlex
- W3082019726
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 2.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- First Monday (publishedVersion)
- First Monday (acceptedVersion)
- 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
- astroturfing, political disinformation, social media advertising, microtargeting, Facebook, Instagram, political polarization, race and immigration, police brutality, Russian geopolitical strategy
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