Repeat Spreaders and Election Delegitimization

Ian Kennedy, Morgan Wack, Andrew Beers, Joseph S. Schafer, Isabella García-Camargo, Emma S. Spiro, Kate Starbird
{"title":"Repeat Spreaders and Election Delegitimization","authors":"Ian Kennedy, Morgan Wack, Andrew Beers, Joseph S. Schafer, Isabella García-Camargo, Emma S. Spiro, Kate Starbird","doi":"10.51685/jqd.2022.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper introduces and presents a first analysis of a uniquely curated dataset of misinformation, disinformation, and rumors spreading on Twitter about the 2020 U.S. election. Previous research on misinformation—an umbrella term for false and misleading content—has largely focused either on broad categories, using a finite set of keywords to cover a complex topic, or on a few, focused case studies, with increased precision but limited scope. Our approach, by comparison, leverages real-time reports collected from September through November 2020 to develop a comprehensive dataset of tweets connected to 456 distinct misinformation stories from the 2020 U.S. election (our ElectionMisinfo2020 dataset), 307 of which sowed doubt in the legitimacy of the election. By relying on real-time incidents and streaming data, we generate a curated dataset that not only provides more granularity than a large collection based on a finite number of search terms, but also an improved opportunity for generalization compared to a small set of case studies. Though the emphasis is on misleading content, not all of the tweets linked to a misinformation story are false: some are questions, opinions, corrections, or factual content that nonetheless contributes to misperceptions. Along with a detailed description of the data, this paper provides an analysis of a critical subset of election-delegitimizing misinformation in terms of size, content, temporal diffusion, and partisanship. We label key ideological clusters of accounts within interaction networks, describe common misinformation narratives, and identify those accounts which repeatedly spread misinformation. We document the asymmetry of misinformation spread: accounts associated with support for President Biden shared stories in ElectionMisinfo2020 far less than accounts supporting his opponent. That asymmetry remained among the accounts who were repeatedly influential in the spread of misleading content that sowed doubt in the election: all but two of the top 100 ‘repeat spreader’ accounts were supporters of then-President Trump. These findings support the implementation and enforcement of ‘strike rules’ on social media platforms, directly addressing the outsized role of repeat spreaders.","PeriodicalId":93587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of quantitative description: digital media","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of quantitative description: digital media","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This paper introduces and presents a first analysis of a uniquely curated dataset of misinformation, disinformation, and rumors spreading on Twitter about the 2020 U.S. election. Previous research on misinformation—an umbrella term for false and misleading content—has largely focused either on broad categories, using a finite set of keywords to cover a complex topic, or on a few, focused case studies, with increased precision but limited scope. Our approach, by comparison, leverages real-time reports collected from September through November 2020 to develop a comprehensive dataset of tweets connected to 456 distinct misinformation stories from the 2020 U.S. election (our ElectionMisinfo2020 dataset), 307 of which sowed doubt in the legitimacy of the election. By relying on real-time incidents and streaming data, we generate a curated dataset that not only provides more granularity than a large collection based on a finite number of search terms, but also an improved opportunity for generalization compared to a small set of case studies. Though the emphasis is on misleading content, not all of the tweets linked to a misinformation story are false: some are questions, opinions, corrections, or factual content that nonetheless contributes to misperceptions. Along with a detailed description of the data, this paper provides an analysis of a critical subset of election-delegitimizing misinformation in terms of size, content, temporal diffusion, and partisanship. We label key ideological clusters of accounts within interaction networks, describe common misinformation narratives, and identify those accounts which repeatedly spread misinformation. We document the asymmetry of misinformation spread: accounts associated with support for President Biden shared stories in ElectionMisinfo2020 far less than accounts supporting his opponent. That asymmetry remained among the accounts who were repeatedly influential in the spread of misleading content that sowed doubt in the election: all but two of the top 100 ‘repeat spreader’ accounts were supporters of then-President Trump. These findings support the implementation and enforcement of ‘strike rules’ on social media platforms, directly addressing the outsized role of repeat spreaders.
重复传播者和选举非法化
本文介绍并首次分析了在Twitter上传播的关于2020年美国大选的错误信息、虚假信息和谣言的独特策划数据集。先前对错误信息(虚假和误导性内容的总称)的研究主要集中在广泛的类别上,使用有限的关键字集来覆盖复杂的主题,或者集中在少数几个集中的案例研究上,精确度更高,但范围有限。相比之下,我们的方法利用2020年9月至11月收集的实时报告,开发了一个综合的推文数据集,该数据集与2020年美国大选中的456个不同的错误信息故事(我们的ElectionMisinfo2020数据集)有关,其中307个对选举的合法性提出了质疑。通过依赖实时事件和流数据,我们生成了一个精心策划的数据集,它不仅比基于有限数量的搜索词的大型集合提供了更多的粒度,而且与一小部分案例研究相比,它还提供了更好的泛化机会。虽然重点是误导性的内容,但并非所有与错误信息相关的推文都是假的:有些是问题、观点、更正或事实内容,但仍会导致误解。除了对数据的详细描述外,本文还从规模、内容、时间扩散和党派关系等方面分析了导致选举无效的错误信息的一个关键子集。我们在互动网络中标记了账户的关键意识形态集群,描述了常见的错误信息叙事,并识别了那些反复传播错误信息的账户。我们记录了错误信息传播的不对称性:与支持拜登总统有关的账户在ElectionMisinfo2020上分享的故事远远少于支持他的对手的账户。这种不对称仍然存在于那些反复传播误导性内容的账户中,这些内容在选举中播下了怀疑的种子:前100名“重复传播者”账户中,除了两个之外,其余都是时任总统特朗普的支持者。这些发现支持在社交媒体平台上实施和执行“罢工规则”,直接解决了重复传播者的巨大作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信