2020
DOI: 10.1109/tnsm.2020.3031573
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spotting Political Social Bots in Twitter: A Use Case of the 2019 Spanish General Election

Abstract: While social media has been proved as an exceptionally useful tool to interact with other people and massively and quickly spread helpful information, its great potential has been ill-intentionally leveraged as well to distort political elections and manipulate constituents. In the paper at hand, we analyzed the presence and behavior of social bots on Twitter in the context of the November 2019 Spanish general election. Throughout our study, we classified involved users as social bots or humans, and examined t… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is not just elections that have come to their attention, but also local conflict situations, such as the strike in 2017 or the US impeachment debate and the Catalan referendum. The increasing popularity of the use of fake accounts in political campaigns is clearly demonstrated in the work of Pastor-Galindo and colleagues [31]. Whereas in 2014 they noted artificial activity in two countries, in 2019 they noted 13 countries where fake Twitter activity was used during election campaigns.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…It is not just elections that have come to their attention, but also local conflict situations, such as the strike in 2017 or the US impeachment debate and the Catalan referendum. The increasing popularity of the use of fake accounts in political campaigns is clearly demonstrated in the work of Pastor-Galindo and colleagues [31]. Whereas in 2014 they noted artificial activity in two countries, in 2019 they noted 13 countries where fake Twitter activity was used during election campaigns.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…With the emergent role of OSNs in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as previously mentioned, recent social bot analysis efforts have expanded their focus greatly into political OSN conversations. These works include the examination of detected bots within the 2016 U.S. presidential election [4,21,22], the UK-EU Brexit referendum [16,17], the 2018 Italian general election [46], the 2017 Catalan referendum [47] and the 2019 Spanish general election [48] within Twitter conversations. These election-focused social bot analyses relied upon an assortment of bot detection platform algorithms, but they all used a single method to classify bots.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These election-focused social bot analyses relied upon an assortment of bot detection platform algorithms, but they all used a single method to classify bots. Further, while these recent works produced promising results using a single bot detection method (e.g., Botometer in [17,21,22,48] or DeBot in [20]) and inspired the development of more robust detection algorithms, such as the vastly improved methods involving adversarial detection approaches [27,28], they ultimately do not support more robust analyses given the lack of accessibility to the underlying detection algorithms for other researchers. This study significantly expands this body of work by aggregating the classification results of three bot detection platforms (i.e., DeBot, Bot-hunter and Botometer) in an effort to provide a more holistic social bot analysis framework.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of these illicit online activities specifically have electoral contexts as their main target [3], which are ideal gaps where to maximize the influence in political behaviour and decision-making [4]. The danger this poses for democracy and freedom of thought has mobilized major companies (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%