The spread of low-credibility content by social bots

Abstract

The massive spread of digital misinformation has been identified as a major threat to democracies. Communication, cognitive, social, and computer scientists are studying the complex causes for the viral diffusion of misinformation, while online platforms are beginning to deploy countermeasures. Little systematic, data-based evidence has been published to guide these efforts. Here we analyze 14 million messages spreading 400 thousand articles on Twitter during ten months in 2016 and 2017. We find evidence that social bots played a disproportionate role in spreading articles from low-credibility sources. Bots amplify such content in the early spreading moments, before an article goes viral. They also target users with many followers through replies and mentions. Humans are vulnerable to this manipulation, resharing content posted by bots. Successful low-credibility sources are heavily supported by social bots. These results suggest that curbing social bots may be an effective strategy for mitigating the spread of online misinformation.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 40

1. 1.

   Gottfried, J. & Shearer, E. News use across social media platforms 2016. White Paper, Pew Research Center (2016). http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2018;359:1146-1151.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.aap9559

3. 3.

   Markines, B., Cattuto, C. & Menczer, F. Social spam detection. In Proc. 5th International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb) (ACM, New York, 2009).

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Mustafaraj, E. & Metaxas, P. T. From obscurity to prominence in minutes: Political speech and real-time search. In Proc. Web Science Conference: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line (Raleigh, 2010).

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Ratkiewicz, J. et al. Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. In Proc. 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (AAAI, Palo Alto, 2011).

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Howell, L. et al. Digital wildfires in a hyperconnected world. In Global Risks (World Economic Forum, 2013).

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Gu, L., Kropotov, V. & Yarochkin, F. The fake news machine: how propagandists abuse the internet and manipulate the public. TrendLabs Research Paper, Trend Micro (2017). https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/white_papers/wp-fake-news-machine-how-propagandists-abuse-the-internet.pdf.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Allcott H, Gentzkow M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 2017;31:211-236.

   Not in our library10.1257/jep.31.2.211

9. 9.

   Hotez PJ. Texas and its measles epidemics. PLoS Med. 2016;13:1-5.

   Not in our library10.1371/journal.pmed.1002153

10. 10.

    Ferrara E, Varol O, Davis C, Menczer F, Flammini A. The rise of social bots. Comm. ACM. 2016;59:96-104.

    Not in our library10.1145/2818717

11. 11.

    Lazer D, et al. The science of fake news. Science. 2018;359:1094-1096.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aao2998

12. 12.

    Qiu X, Oliveira DFM, Shirazi AS, Flammini A, Menczer F. Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information. Nat. Human. Behav. 2017;1:0132.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41562-017-0132

13. 13.

    Sunstein, C. R. Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Pariser, E. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think (Penguin, New York, 2011).

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Nikolov, D., Lalmas, M., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. Quantifying biases in online information exposure. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06958 (2018).

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Conover MD, Gonçalves B, Flammini A, Menczer F. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Sci. 2012;1:6.

    Not in our library10.1140/epjds6

17. 17.

    Conover, M. et al. Political polarization on Twitter. In Proc. 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (AAAI, Barcelona, 2011).

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science. 2006;311:854-856.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1121066

19. 19.

    Hodas, N. O. & Lerman, K. How limited visibility and divided attention constrain social contagion. In Proc. ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, 2012).

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Ciampaglia, G. L., Nematzadeh, A., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality. Sci. Rep. 8, 15951 (2018).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-34203-2

21. 21.

    Stroud, N. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011).

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Kahan DM. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2013;8:407-424.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Levendusky MS. Why do partisan media polarize viewers? Am. J. Pol. Sci. 2013;57:611-623.

    Not in our library10.1111/ajps.12008

24. 24.

    Lippmann, W. Public Opinion (Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1922).

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Weedon, J., Nuland, W. & Stamos, A. Information Operations and Facebook. White paper, Facebook (2017). https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/facebook-and-information-operations-v1.pdf.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C. A., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. Online human-bot interactions: detection, estimation, and characterization. In Proc. Intl. AAAI Conf. on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) (AAAI, Palo Alto, 2017).

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Subrahmanian V, et al. The DARPA Twitter Bot Challenge. IEEE Comput. 2016;49:38-46.

    Not in our library10.1109/mc.2016.183

28. 28.

    Jun Y, Meng R, Johar GV. Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:5976-5981.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1700175114

29. 29.

    Jagatic T, Johnson N, Jakobsson M, Menczer F. Social phishing. Commun. ACM. 2007;50:94-100.

    Not in our library10.1145/1290958.1290968

30. 30.

    Bessi, A. & Ferrara, E. Social bots distort the 2016 US presidential election online discussion. First Monday21, 11 (2016).

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Woolley, S. C. & Howard, P. N. Computational propaganda worldwide: Executive summary. Working Paper 2017.11 (Oxford Internet Institute Oxford, 2017).

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    Ferrara, E. Disinformation and Social Bot Operations in the Run Up to the 2017 French Presidential Election. First Monday22, 8 (2017).

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Shao C, et al. Anatomy of an online misinformation network. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0196087.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0196087

34. 34.

    Albert R, Jeong H, Barabási AL. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature. 2000;406:378-382.

    Not in our library10.1038/35019019

35. 35.

    Mosseri, A. News feed fyi: showing more informative links in news feed. Press release, Facebook (2017). https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/news-feed-fyi-showing-more-informative-links-in-news-feed/

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Del Vicario M, et al. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:554-559.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1517441113

37. 37.

    Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Cook J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2017;6:353-369.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

38. 38.

    von Ahn, L., Blum, M., Hopper, N. J. & Langford, J. Captcha: Using hard AI problems for security. In Advances in Cryptology — Proceedings of EUROCRYPT 2003: International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques (ed. Biham, E.) 294–311 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2003).

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Wardle, C. Fake news. It’s complicated. White Paper, First Draft News (2017). https://firstdraftnews.com/fake-news-complicated/

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    Wojcik, S., Messing, S., Smith, A., Rainie, L. & Hitlin, P. Bots in the twittersphere. White Paper, Pew Research Center (2018). http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 11

• What Motivates Social Media Users to Share Fake News, and What are its Impacts? A Systematic Literature Review · 2025
  Not checked
• The Propagation of Misinformation in Social Media · 2023
  Not checked
• Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal · 2022
  No notice
• Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review · 2021
  No notice
• Chapter Media and fake news: An analysis of citizens’ attitudes toward misinformation in European countries · 2021
  Not checked
• COVID-19-related misinformation on social media: a systematic review · 2021
  No notice
• Framework for Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Methods and Results of an Online, Crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation · 2020
  No notice
• Investigating Italian disinformation spreading on Twitter in the context of 2019 European elections. · 2020
  Not checked
• Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians · 2019
  Not checked
• Bot stamina: examining the influence and staying power of bots in online social networks · 2019
  Not checked
• Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election · 2019
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.