| OK, here's a review of your papers. 1. Ephemeral Astroturfing Attacks: The Case of Fake Twitter Trends A good start! It makes relatively limited claims (they aren't trying to assert whole elections are being distorted by Twitter bots) and is indeed higher quality than the ones I've been citing. It actually makes its data available, which is a step forward. But it's had limited impact (28 citations), and it's also not particularly useful. All they're doing is revealing that there is ordinary spam, hijacking and SEO on Turkish Twitter, which was never in doubt. All social media sites have these problems and the authors were tipped off by some amateur third party that highlights these campaigns. Most of what they find is plain commercial spam, there's also some politics in there related to local Turkish issues like cab drivers protesting against Uber but there's no evidence presented that this is actually having a real impact on politics. The main question here is why are universities spending grant money on subsidizing Twitter? The only people who can do anything with this paper are Twitter's spam team, there isn't generalizable new scientific knowledge coming out of it. 2. Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Disinformation Campaign This one starts with a big claim, so it can at least say it's doing important research. But I really wonder why you suggested it because it actually agrees with us and even destroys the underlying premise of the entire field! A pretty useful paper that might be worth citing in future articles on the topic, in fact. Firstly, their conclusion is that "if even a powerful and well-financed organization like the South Korean secret service cannot instigate a successful disinformation campaign, then this may be more difficult than often assumed in public debates". In other words, the supposed problem motivating this entire field of >10,000 papers doesn't actually exist: even government agencies fail to have impact when they try to sway opinions with Twitter. Secondly, they accept that our criticisms of the field are correct. "We argue that past research’s predominant focus on automated accounts, famously known as “social bots” ... misses its target since reports on recent astroturfing campaigns suggest that they are often at least partially run by actual humans" and "Because a ground truth is rarely available, systematic research into astroturfing campaigns is lacking". They also dunk on ML models on page three, and admit that "these studies still largely focus on anecdotes and lack a theory-driven framework" i.e. are more like blog posts than scientific research. These were all points being made by Gallwitz, Kreil and myself years ago. The paper does have issues! Still, they should get some cred for being honest about their findings, albeit on the penultimate page of a 25 page study. The first sentence of the paper is phrased in a misleading way: they assert that astroturfing on Twitter has the potential to influence politics, but their conclusion is that it actually doesn't. That's a problem that you see a lot when reading papers in some fields. Paper 3. QAnon Propaganda on Twitter as Information Warfare. Note that this paper also isn't about bots. It's a complaint about the behavior of real American people. Where is the actual science? Why are you picking this as an example of high quality research? It's not only blatantly partisan, reading more like a Guardian op-ed than a research paper, it starts by citing paper (2), the one that wrecks the whole premise of the field! They are happy to cite it as evidence that they should look for astroturfing instead of bots, but forget to mention that it shows that even an intelligence agency was unable to have any impact on politics by running Twitter campaigns. Yet that doesn't stop them asserting that their line of research is important due to the "innovative misuse of social media towards undermining democratic processes by promotion of magical thinking". This sort of problem is rampant in published research. I've seen it so often that a paper cites another paper which directly undermines the conclusions of the first, yet the authors don't address or even mention it. This sort of thing is just deceptive. If they want to cite paper (2) then they need to tackle its conclusion. The rest of it is just US Democratic Russiagate talking points. Getting into the accuracy of that is a book-sized job and and not about science, so I won't do that here, there are many such debates on the internet. So that's your three papers. One is OK but not very valuable, one ends up (unintentionally?) wrecking the premise of the other ~10,000+ papers and one isn't even scientific research. It's unclear how they were picked but if these are really the best examples of high quality research from the field then, indeed, who really cares if Musk cuts it all off. |