Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Politics and Propaganda on Social Media: How Twitter and Meta Moderate State-Linked Information Operations

Published 4 Jan 2024 in cs.SI | (2401.02095v1)

Abstract: Why do Social Media Corporations (SMCs) engage in state-linked information operations? Social media can significantly influence the global political landscape, allowing governments and other political entities to engage in concerted information operations, shaping or manipulating domestic and foreign political agendas. In response to state-linked political manipulation tactics on social media, Twitter and Meta carried out take-down operations against propaganda networks, accusing them of interfering foreign elections, organizing disinformation campaigns, manipulating political debates and many other issues. This research investigates the two SMCs' policy orientation to explain which factors can affect these two companies' reaction against state-linked information operations. We find that good governance indicators such as democracy are significant elements of SMCs' country-focus. This article also examines whether Meta and Twitter's attention to political regime characteristics is influenced by international political alignments. This research illuminates recent trends in SMCs' take-down operations and illuminating interplay between geopolitics and domestic regime characteristics.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (84)
  1. Selman Selim Akyüz. The impact of misinformation and preferences of news sources on institutional trust perception in the covid-19 process. In Impact of Infodemic on Organizational Performance, pages 291–310. IGI Global, 2021.
  2. The global organization of social media disinformation campaigns. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1.5):23–32, 2018.
  3. Hiding in plain sight: The anatomy of malicious pages on facebook. Social Network Based Big Data Analysis and Applications, pages 21–54, 2018.
  4. Çiğdem Bozdağ. Bottom-up nationalism and discrimination on social media: An analysis of the citizenship debate about refugees in turkey. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(5):712–730, 2020.
  5. The role of social media in political marketing: 2014 local elections of turkey. European Journal of business and Management, 6(22):131–140, 2014.
  6. Social media use and political participation: the turkish case. Turkish Studies, 23(3):450–473, 2022.
  7. Social media and the elections. Science, 338(6106):472–473, 2012.
  8. Perils and challenges of social media and election manipulation analysis: The 2018 us midterms. In Companion proceedings of the 2019 world wide web conference, pages 237–247, 2019.
  9. Britney Harris. Diplomacy 2.0: the future of social media in nation branding. Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy, 4(1):3, 2013.
  10. Bilge Yesil. Social media manipulation in turkey: Actors, tactics, targets. In The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism, pages 386–396. Routledge, 2021.
  11. Sarah T Roberts. Digital detritus:’error’and the logic of opacity in social media content moderation. First Monday, 2018.
  12. Sarah T Roberts. Commercial content moderation: Digital laborers’ dirty work. 2016.
  13. S. Frenkel and T. Hsu. Facebook, twitter and others remove pro-u.s. influence campaign. The New York Times, August 2022.
  14. Onur Varol. Should we agree to disagree about twitter’s bot problem? Online Social Networks and Media, 37:100263, 2023.
  15. Does the musk twitter takeover matter? political influencers, their arguments, and the quality of information they share. Socius, 9:23780231231152193, 2023.
  16. Todd Helmus. Social media and influence operations technologies: Implications for great power competition. Strategic Assessment 2020: Into a New Era of Great Power Competition, pages 153–166, 2020.
  17. Double standards in social media content moderation. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. https://www. brennancenter. org/our-work/research-reports/double-standards-socialmedia-content-moderation, 2021.
  18. New threats to society from free-speech social media platforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01229, 2023.
  19. Kyle Langvardt. Regulating online content moderation. Geo. LJ, 106:1353, 2017.
  20. Onur Varol. Spatiotemporal analysis of censored content on twitter. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science, pages 372–373, 2016.
  21. Edward L Bernays. Manipulating public opinion: The why and the how. American journal of sociology, 33(6):958–971, 1928.
  22. Propaganda & persuasion. Sage publications, 2018.
  23. Combating information manipulation: A playbook for elections and beyond. The International Republican Institute & The National Democratic Institute & The Stanford Internet Observatory, 2021.
  24. Facebook. Removing bad actors on facebook, Jul 2018.
  25. Political misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science, 23:77–94, 2020.
  26. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3):790–816, 2000.
  27. Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents: Introduction. International journal of Communication, 10, 2016.
  28. Disinformation, misinformation, and fake news in social media. Springer, 2020.
  29. Erkan Saka. Siyasi trollük örneği olarak aktroller. Birikim,(322), pages 17–21, 2016.
  30. Social media and fake news in the post-truth era. Insight Turkey, 22(2):177–196, 2020.
  31. Seong Jae Min. Who believes in conspiracy theories? network diversity, political discussion, and conservative conspiracy theories on social media. American Politics Research, 49(5):415–427, 2021.
  32. Erkan Saka. Social media in turkey as a space for political battles: Aktrolls and other politically motivated trolling. Middle East Critique, 27(2):161–177, 2018.
  33. Does the platform matter? social media and covid-19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries. new media & society, page 14614448211045666, 2021.
  34. Conspiracy theories in the 2016 election. Conventional Wisdom, Parties, and Broken Barriers in the 2016 Election, 163, 2017.
  35. Fake news on twitter during the 2016 us presidential election. Science, 363(6425):374–378, 2019.
  36. Mediatized populisms— digital populism: Trolls and political polarization of twitter in turkey. International Journal of Communication, 11:25, 2017.
  37. Troops, trolls and troublemakers: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Computational Propaganda Research Project, 2017.
  38. Deception strategies and threats for online discussions. First Monday, 2018.
  39. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature communications, 9(1):1–9, 2018.
  40. The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7):96–104, 2016.
  41. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, volume 11, pages 280–289, 2017.
  42. Journalists on twitter: self-branding, audiences, and involvement of bots. Journal of Computational Social Science, 3(1):83–101, 2020.
  43. Evolution of online user behavior during a social upheaval. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on Web science, pages 81–90, 2014.
  44. Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2021.
  45. Max Bader. Disinformation in elections. Security and Human Rights, 29(1-4):24–35, 2018.
  46. Turkey’s government forms 6,000-member social media team. The Wall Street Journal, 16, 2013.
  47. E. K. Sozeri. Mapping turkey’s twitter trolls, October 2015.
  48. Online political trolling in the context of post-gezi social media in turkey. International Journal of Digital Television, 8(3):383–401, 2017.
  49. Evidence of inter-state coordination amongst state-backed information operations. Scientific reports, 13(1):7716, 2023.
  50. Asymmetrical discursive competition: China–united states digital diplomacy in africa. International Communication Gazette, 85(1):15–31, 2023.
  51. Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. The computational propaganda project, 1:1–26, 2018.
  52. Information operations in turkey: Manufacturing resilience with free twitter accounts. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 17, pages 638–649, 2023.
  53. Jessica Brandt. How autocrats manipulate online information: Putin’s and xi’s playbooks. The Washington Quarterly, 44(3):127–154, 2021.
  54. Jessica Brandt. How democracies can win an information contest without undercutting their values. Carnegie Endowment, August, 2, 2021.
  55. T. Peel. The coalition’s twitter fraud and deception. Independent Australia, June 2013.
  56. Robert A Dahl. What political institutions does large-scale democracy require? Political Science Quarterly, 120(2):187–197, 2005.
  57. Cyberspace and international relations: Theory, prospects and challenges. Springer, 2013.
  58. A. Segal. A new u.s. foreign policy for cyberspace, July 2022.
  59. J. Chipman. Why your company needs a foreign policy: Multinationals must address growing geopolitical volatility. Harvard Business Review, September 2016.
  60. Russian-led troll network based in west africa uncovered. The Guardian, Mar 2020.
  61. Facebook. Removing myanmar military officials from facebook, Aug 2018.
  62. Meta. Taking down more coordinated inauthentic behavior, Aug 2018.
  63. Meta. October 2020 coordinated inauthentic behavior report, Nov 2020.
  64. Meta. March 2021 coordinated inauthentic behavior report, Apr 2021.
  65. Rising competitive authoritarianism in turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(9):1581–1606, 2016.
  66. Worldwide governance indicators, 2023 update. http://www.govindicators.org, 2023. Accessed on 19 October 2023.
  67. Freedom House. Freedom in the world. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world#Data, 2023. Accessed: [date of access].
  68. V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset v13. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project, 2023.
  69. The autocratic advantage: Internationalization of state-owned multinationals. Journal of World Business, 53(5):668–681, 2018.
  70. Nathan M Jensen. Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International organization, 57(3):587–616, 2003.
  71. Susan Morgan. Fake news, disinformation, manipulation and online tactics to undermine democracy. Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(1):39–43, 2018.
  72. United Nations General Assembly Voting Data, 2009.
  73. Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. European journal of political economy, 23(2):397–415, 2007.
  74. The “country-of-origin effect” in multinational corporations: Sources, mechanisms and moderating conditions. In Management and International Review: Can Multinationals Bridge the Gap Between Global and Local?, pages 47–66. Springer, 2003.
  75. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of international business studies, 19:411–432, 1988.
  76. Joakim Kreutz. Human rights, geostrategy, and eu foreign policy, 1989–2008. International organization, 69(1):195–217, 2015.
  77. The White House. National security strategy, October 2022.
  78. https://datareportal.com/essential-facebook-stats, 2023. Accessed: [date of access].
  79. United Nations General Assembly Voting Data. 2009.
  80. Joseph S Nye. Multinational corporations in world politics. Foreign Affairs, 53(1):153–175, 1974.
  81. Hongfei Gu. Data, big tech, and the new concept of sovereignty. Journal of Chinese Political Science, pages 1–22, 2023.
  82. Maxwell Lowe. Social media is blurring the lines of national sovereignty, 4 2021.
  83. Meta. Meta’s adversarial threat report, third quarter 2022, Nov 2022.
  84. How transparent are transparency reports? comparative analysis of transparency reporting across online platforms. Telecommunications Policy, 47(3):102477, 2023.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 4 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free