2020 年美国总统大选中的多方面在线协调行为

IF 3 2区 计算机科学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS EPJ Data Science Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00467-0
Serena Tardelli, Leonardo Nizzoli, Marco Avvenuti, Stefano Cresci, Maurizio Tesconi
{"title":"2020 年美国总统大选中的多方面在线协调行为","authors":"Serena Tardelli, Leonardo Nizzoli, Marco Avvenuti, Stefano Cresci, Maurizio Tesconi","doi":"10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00467-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organized attempts to manipulate public opinion during election run-ups have dominated online debates in the last few years. Such attempts require numerous accounts to <i>act in coordination</i> to exert influence. Yet, the ways in which coordinated behavior surfaces during major online political debates is still largely unclear. This study sheds light on coordinated behaviors that took place on Twitter (now X) during the 2020 US Presidential Election. Utilizing state-of-the-art network science methods, we detect and characterize the coordinated communities that participated in the debate. Our approach goes beyond previous analyses by proposing a multifaceted characterization of the coordinated communities that allows obtaining nuanced results. In particular, we uncover three main categories of coordinated users: (<i>i</i>) moderate groups genuinely interested in the electoral debate, (<i>ii</i>) conspiratorial groups that spread false information and divisive narratives, and (<i>iii</i>) foreign influence networks that either sought to tamper with the debate or that exploited it to publicize their own agendas. We also reveal a large use of automation by far-right foreign influence and conspiratorial communities. Conversely, left-leaning supporters were overall less coordinated and engaged primarily in harmless, factual communication. Our results also showed that Twitter was effective at thwarting the activity of some coordinated groups, while it failed on some other equally suspicious ones. Overall, this study advances the understanding of online human interactions and contributes new knowledge to mitigate cyber social threats.</p>","PeriodicalId":11887,"journal":{"name":"EPJ Data Science","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multifaceted online coordinated behavior in the 2020 US presidential election\",\"authors\":\"Serena Tardelli, Leonardo Nizzoli, Marco Avvenuti, Stefano Cresci, Maurizio Tesconi\",\"doi\":\"10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00467-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Organized attempts to manipulate public opinion during election run-ups have dominated online debates in the last few years. Such attempts require numerous accounts to <i>act in coordination</i> to exert influence. Yet, the ways in which coordinated behavior surfaces during major online political debates is still largely unclear. This study sheds light on coordinated behaviors that took place on Twitter (now X) during the 2020 US Presidential Election. Utilizing state-of-the-art network science methods, we detect and characterize the coordinated communities that participated in the debate. Our approach goes beyond previous analyses by proposing a multifaceted characterization of the coordinated communities that allows obtaining nuanced results. In particular, we uncover three main categories of coordinated users: (<i>i</i>) moderate groups genuinely interested in the electoral debate, (<i>ii</i>) conspiratorial groups that spread false information and divisive narratives, and (<i>iii</i>) foreign influence networks that either sought to tamper with the debate or that exploited it to publicize their own agendas. We also reveal a large use of automation by far-right foreign influence and conspiratorial communities. Conversely, left-leaning supporters were overall less coordinated and engaged primarily in harmless, factual communication. Our results also showed that Twitter was effective at thwarting the activity of some coordinated groups, while it failed on some other equally suspicious ones. Overall, this study advances the understanding of online human interactions and contributes new knowledge to mitigate cyber social threats.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11887,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EPJ Data Science\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EPJ Data Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00467-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EPJ Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00467-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去几年中,有组织地试图在选举前夕操纵公众舆论已成为网络辩论的主要话题。这种企图需要众多账户协调行动来施加影响。然而,在主要的网络政治辩论中,协调行为是如何出现的在很大程度上还不清楚。本研究揭示了 2020 年美国总统大选期间 Twitter(现为 X)上发生的协调行为。利用最先进的网络科学方法,我们检测并描述了参与辩论的协调社区。我们的方法超越了以往的分析,提出了协调社区的多方面特征,从而获得了细致入微的结果。特别是,我们发现了三大类协调用户:(i) 真正对选举辩论感兴趣的温和团体,(ii) 散布虚假信息和分裂言论的阴谋团体,(iii) 试图篡改辩论或利用辩论宣传自身议程的外国影响力网络。我们还发现极右翼外国势力和阴谋团体大量使用自动化手段。相反,左翼支持者总体上协调性较差,主要从事无害的事实性交流。我们的研究结果还显示,Twitter 能有效阻止一些协调团体的活动,但对其他一些同样可疑的团体却无能为力。总之,这项研究加深了人们对网络人际互动的理解,并为减轻网络社交威胁贡献了新的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Multifaceted online coordinated behavior in the 2020 US presidential election

Organized attempts to manipulate public opinion during election run-ups have dominated online debates in the last few years. Such attempts require numerous accounts to act in coordination to exert influence. Yet, the ways in which coordinated behavior surfaces during major online political debates is still largely unclear. This study sheds light on coordinated behaviors that took place on Twitter (now X) during the 2020 US Presidential Election. Utilizing state-of-the-art network science methods, we detect and characterize the coordinated communities that participated in the debate. Our approach goes beyond previous analyses by proposing a multifaceted characterization of the coordinated communities that allows obtaining nuanced results. In particular, we uncover three main categories of coordinated users: (i) moderate groups genuinely interested in the electoral debate, (ii) conspiratorial groups that spread false information and divisive narratives, and (iii) foreign influence networks that either sought to tamper with the debate or that exploited it to publicize their own agendas. We also reveal a large use of automation by far-right foreign influence and conspiratorial communities. Conversely, left-leaning supporters were overall less coordinated and engaged primarily in harmless, factual communication. Our results also showed that Twitter was effective at thwarting the activity of some coordinated groups, while it failed on some other equally suspicious ones. Overall, this study advances the understanding of online human interactions and contributes new knowledge to mitigate cyber social threats.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EPJ Data Science
EPJ Data Science MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS -
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
53
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EPJ Data Science covers a broad range of research areas and applications and particularly encourages contributions from techno-socio-economic systems, where it comprises those research lines that now regard the digital “tracks” of human beings as first-order objects for scientific investigation. Topics include, but are not limited to, human behavior, social interaction (including animal societies), economic and financial systems, management and business networks, socio-technical infrastructure, health and environmental systems, the science of science, as well as general risk and crisis scenario forecasting up to and including policy advice.
期刊最新文献
Estimating work engagement from online chat tools Language and the use of law are predictive of judge gender and seniority Connection between climatic change and international food prices: evidence from robust long-range cross-correlation and variable-lag transfer entropy with sliding windows approach Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer: structural properties of negative relationships on Twitter Analyzing user ideologies and shared news during the 2019 argentinian elections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1