Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate

By David A. Broniatowski, Amelia M. Jamison, SiHua Qi, Lulwah Alkulaib, Tao Chen, Adrian Donald Benton, S. Quinn, Mark Dredze. American Journal of Public Health, 2018

933 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Objectives To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content. Methods We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity. Results Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ2(1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ2(1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ2(1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ2(1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ2(1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ2(1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive. Conclusions Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination. Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content.

Subfields: Epidemiology, Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8415274c8fb370cbab84ad82ab2f469786ddee72

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Epidemiology

In Health

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Scalable and Generalizable Social Bot Detection through Data Selection (2019, background): “2016b), as well as adding confusion to the online debate about vaccines (Broniatowski et al. 2018).”
Inoculation theory in the post‐truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories (2021, background): “In fact, the spread of “weaponized” misinformation and conspiratorial arguments around vaccines play a critical role in shaping health‐related behaviors (Broniatowski et al., 2018; Kata, 2012).”
Evaluating the Impact of Attempts to Correct Health Misinformation on Social Media: A Meta-Analysis (2020, background): “Although this danger has previously been exemplified through the growth of the anti-vaccine movement (Broniatowski et al., 2018), the proliferation of naturopathic cancer treatments (Chen et al., 2018), and misleading rumors about the spread of infectious disease (Bode & Vraga, 2018), the duality…”
Testing Logic-based and Humor-based Corrections for Science, Health, and Political Misinformation on Social Media (2019, background): “Social media have been criticized for facilitating the spread of misinformation on a range of political (Lewandowsky et al., 2017; Tucker et al., 2018), health (Broniatowski et al., 2018; Guidry, Carlyle, Messner, & Jin, 2015), and scientific topics (Bessi et al., 2015; Del Vicario et al., 2017).”
Arming the public with artificial intelligence to counter social bots (2019, background): “Health is one domain of particular concern (Allem and Ferrara, 2018), where we have observed social bots influencing debates about vaccination policies (Ferrara et al., 2016a; Broniatowski et al., 2018) and smoking (Allem and Ferrara, 2016; Allem et al.”
A first look at COVID-19 information and misinformation sharing on Twitter (2020, background): “Health misinformation -often defined as information that counters best available evidence from medical experts at the time ( [6] see also [7] [8] [9] [10] ) -has been documented across almost all social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram [11] [12] [13] [1”
Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories (2020, background): “In addition, vaccine misinformation is often either generated or recirculated by internet “bots” and Russian “trolls” with an apparent goal of amplifying debate and further undermining authoritative accounts (Broniatowski et al., 2018; Walter, Ophir, & Jamieson, 2020).”
Correction Experiences on Social Media During COVID-19 (2021, background): “…misinformation are by no means new, with multiple studies raising alarms about the prevalence of misinformation across social media platforms for emerging disease and enduring health issues (e.g., Broniatowski et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2018; Del Vicario et al., 2016; Guidry et al., 2015).”
Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review (2021, background): “Prevalence of health misinformation posts Social media platformTopicYearAuthors 30%YouTubeTreatments2018Abukaraky et al [30] N/AaTwitterPandemics2019Ahmed et al [31] 27%WhatsAppDrugs2018Al Khaja et al [32] 59%TwitterDrugs2017Allem et al [33] N/ATwitterDrugs2017Allem et al [34] 36%TwitterEDsb2016Arse”
Social media and vaccine hesitancy (2020, neutral): “19 20 These messages may be part of a broader effort to strategically undermine public health in both the developed and developing world.”
Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking (2021, background): “There is considerable evidence that Russian state-sponsored actors are engaged in astroturfing on social media (e.g., by amplifying public division in the context of vaccinations; Broniatowski et al., 2018).”
Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency (2020, positive): “…vectors for dissemination of conspir-acy beliefs and misinformation, on medical and other topics (AVAAZ, 2020; Bora, Das, Barman, & Borah, 2018; Buchanan & Beckett, 2014; Byford, 2011, p. 11; Chaslot, 2017; Oi-Yee Li, Bailey, Huynh, & Chan, 2020; Pandey, Patni, Sing, Sood, & Singh, 2010;…”