skip to main content
10.1145/3511095.3536372acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Weaponising Social Media for Information Divide and Warfare

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Social media is often used to disseminate information during crises, including wars, natural disasters and pandemics. This paper discusses the challenges faced during crisis situations, which social media can both contribute to and ameliorate. We discuss the role that information polarisation plays in exacerbating problems. We then discuss how certain mal-actors exploit these divides. We conclude by detailing future avenues of work that can help mitigate these issues.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

10.1145:3511095.3536372.mp4

mp4

17.9 MB

References

  1. 2016. Inside Trump’s ’cyborg’ Twitter army. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-twitter-army-228923. (Accessed on 04/15/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2021. Internet users in the world 2021 | Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/. (Accessed on 04/16/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2022. Fake news from Ukraine: 7 steps to identify misinformation and disinformation. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/fake-news-from-ukraine-7-steps-to-identify-misinformation-and-disinformation-1.4822317. (Accessed on 04/15/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2022. NCRI Insights Report. https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Insights-SitRep-March-2022.pdf. (Accessed on 04/15/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2022. Social media platforms on the defensive as Russian-based disinformation about Ukraine spreads - POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/24/social-media-platforms-russia-ukraine-disinformation-00011559. (Accessed on 04/15/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2022. War in Ukraine. https://edmo.eu/2022/02/28/war-in-ukraine-the-fact-checked-disinformation-detected-in-the-eu/. (Accessed on 04/16/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael Bossetta. 2018. The weaponization of social media: Spear phishing and cyberattacks on democracy. Journal of international affairs 71 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mohit Chandra, Manvith Reddy, Shradha Sehgal, Saurabh Gupta, Arun Balaji Buduru, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2021. ” A Virus Has No Religion”: Analyzing Islamophobia on Twitter During the COVID-19 Outbreak. In 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. 67–77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Seong Eun Cho, Kyujin Jung, and Han Woo Park. 2013. Social media use during Japan’s 2011 earthquake: how Twitter transforms the locus of crisis communication. Media International Australia 149, 1 (2013), 28–40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Matteo Cinelli, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Alessandro Galeazzi, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Michele Starnini. 2021. The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 9 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dan Ciuriak. 2022. The Role of Social Media in Russia’s War on Ukraine. Available at SSRN (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A Connaughton. 2021. Those on ideological right favor fewer COVID-19 restrictions in most advanced economies. Pew Research Center (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyo Jin Do, Chae-Gyun Lim, You Jin Kim, and Ho-Jin Choi. 2016. Analyzing emotions in twitter during a crisis: A case study of the 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome outbreak in Korea. In 2016 international conference on big data and smart computing (BigComp). IEEE, 415–418.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Aditi Gupta, Anupam Joshi, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2012. Identifying and characterizing user communities on twitter during crisis events. In Proceedings of the 2012 workshop on Data-driven user behavioral modelling and mining from social media. 23–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mario Haim, Andreas Graefe, and Hans-Bernd Brosius. 2018. Burst of the filter bubble? Effects of personalization on the diversity of Google News. Digital journalism 6, 3 (2018), 330–343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehsan Ul Haq, Tristan Braud, Young D Kwon, and Pan Hui. 2020. A survey on computational politics. IEEE Access 8(2020), 197379–197406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Ehsan-Ul Haq, Tristan Braud, Yui-Pan Yau, Lik-Hang Lee, Franziska B Keller, and Pan Hui. 2022. Screenshots, Symbols, and Personal Thoughts: The Role of Instagram for Social Activism. (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehsan-Ul Haq, Gareth Tyson, Lik-Hang Lee, Tristan Braud, and Pan Hui. 2022. Twitter dataset for 2022 russo-ukrainian crisis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02955(2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferenc Huszár, Sofia Ira Ktena, Conor O’Brien, Luca Belli, Andrew Schlaikjer, and Moritz Hardt. 2022. Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 1 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mansooreh Karami, Tahora H Nazer, and Huan Liu. 2021. Profiling Fake News Spreaders on Social Media through Psychological and Motivational Factors. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. 225–230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Anna Kawakami, Khonzoda Umarova, Dongchen Huang, and Eni Mustafaraj. 2020. The’Fairness Doctrine’Lives on? Theorizing about the Algorithmic News Curation of Google’s Top Stories. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. 59–68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Franziska Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang. 2017. How to manipulate social media: Analyzing political astroturfing using ground truth data from South Korea. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 11. 564–567.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Juhi Kulshrestha, Motahhare Eslami, Johnnatan Messias, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Saptarshi Ghosh, Krishna P Gummadi, and Karrie Karahalios. 2017. Quantifying search bias: Investigating sources of bias for political searches in social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM CSCW.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Gabriel Lima, Jiyoung Han, and Meeyoung Cha. 2022. Others Are to Blame: Whom People Consider Responsible for Online Misinformation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1(2022), 1–25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David Gunnarsson Lorentzen. 2014. Polarisation in political Twitter conversations. Aslib Journal of Information Management(2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Marcelo Mendoza, Barbara Poblete, and Carlos Castillo. 2010. Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we RT?. In Proceedings of the first workshop on social media analytics. 71–79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Carl Miller. 2022. Stop Saying Ukraine Is Winning the Information War - The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/russian-propaganda-zelensky-information-war/629475/. (Accessed on 04/15/2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarred Prier. 2020. Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. In Information warfare in the age of cyber conflict. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hans Rosenberg, Shahbaz Syed, and Salim Rezaie. 2020. The Twitter pandemic: The critical role of Twitter in the dissemination of medical information and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian journal of emergency medicine 22, 4 (2020), 418–421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Erick Tseng. 2013. Providing relevant notifications based on common interests between friends in a social networking system. US Patent 8,560,678.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Christo Wilson, Alessandra Sala, Krishna PN Puttaswamy, and Ben Y Zhao. 2012. Beyond social graphs: User interactions in online social networks and their implications. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 6, 4 (2012), 1–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Koosha Zarei, Damilola Ibosiola, Reza Farahbakhsh, Zafar Gilani, Kiran Garimella, Noël Crespi, and Gareth Tyson. 2020. Characterising and detecting sponsored influencer posts on Instagram. In 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    HT '22: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
    June 2022
    272 pages
    ISBN:9781450392334
    DOI:10.1145/3511095

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 28 June 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate378of1,158submissions,33%

    Upcoming Conference

    HT '24
    35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
    September 10 - 13, 2024
    Poznan , Poland

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format