Automated Diffusion? Bots and Their Influence During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

  • Olga Boichak
  • Sam Jackson
  • Jeff HemsleyEmail author
  • Sikana Tanupabrungsun
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10766)


In the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, some candidates used to automated accounts, or bots, to boost their social media presence and followership. Categorizing all automated accounts as “bots” obfuscates the role different types of bots play in the spread of political information in election campaigns. Exploring strategies for automated information diffusion helps scholars understand and model online political behavior. This paper presents an initial effort aimed at understanding the disparate roles of bots in diffusion of political messages on Twitter. Having collected over 300 million tweets from candidates and the public from the U.S. presidential election, we use three OLS regression models to explore the strategic advantages of different types of automated accounts. We approach this by analyzing retweet events, testing a series of hypotheses regarding bots’ influence on the size of retweet events, and the change in candidates’ followers. Next, we develop an estimator to analyze the spread of information across the networks, demonstrating that, while ‘benevolent bots’ serve as overt information aggregators and have an effect on information diffusion, “nefarious bots” act as false amplifiers, covertly mimicking the spread of online information with no effect on diffusion. Making this important distinction allows us to disambiguate the concept of “bots” and reach a more nuanced and detailed understanding of the role of automated accounts in information diffusion in political campaigning online.


Bots Political elections Viral events Twitter Social media 


  1. 1.
    Bessi, A., Ferrara, E.: Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday 21(11) (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breur, T.: US elections: how could predictions be so wrong? J. Mark. Anal. 4(4), 125–134 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruns, A., Highfield, T.: Political networks on Twitter. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16(5), 667–691 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clauset, A., et al.: Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51(4), 661–703 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faraway, J.J.: Linear Models with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrara, E., et al.: The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM. 59(7), 96–104 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forelle, M.C., et al.: Political Bots and the Manipulation of Public Opinion in Venezuela (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hemsley, J., et al.: Collection and classification of illuminating 2016 social media data. In: Illuminating 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hemsley, J.: Studying the viral growth of a connective action network using information event signatures. First Monday 21(8) (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kollanyi, B., et al.: Bots and Automation over Twitter during the First U.S. Presidential Debate (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwak, H., et al.: What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? p. 591 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salge, C., Karahanna, E.: Protesting corruption on twitter: is it a bot or is it a person? Acad. Manag. Discov. (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stieglitz, S., Dang-Xuan, L.: Political communication and influence through microblogging–an empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), pp. 3500–3509, January 2012Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suh, B., et al.: Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. In: 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 177–184 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varol, O., et al.: Online human-bot interactions: detection, estimation, and characterization. In: Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, May 2017Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woolley, S.C., Guilbeault, D.R.: Computational propaganda in the United States of America: manufacturing consensus online. Technical report #2017.5. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaman, T.R., et al.: Predicting Information Spreading in Twitter, pp. 17599–17601 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations