Paper detail

How Twitter Data Sampling Biases U.S. Voter Behavior Characterizations

Online social media are key platforms for the public to discuss political issues. As a result, researchers have used data from these platforms to analyze public opinions and forecast election results. Recent studies reveal the existence of inauthentic actors such as malicious social bots and trolls, suggesting that not every message is a genuine expression from a legitimate user. However, the prevalence of inauthentic activities in social data streams is still unclear, making it difficult to gauge biases of analyses based on such data. In this paper, we aim to close this gap using Twitter data from the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Hyperactive accounts are over-represented in volume samples. We compare their characteristics with those of randomly sampled accounts and self-identified voters using a fast and low-cost heuristic. We show that hyperactive accounts are more likely to exhibit various suspicious behaviors and share low-credibility information compared to likely voters. Random accounts are more similar to likely voters, although they have slightly higher chances to display suspicious behaviors. Our work provides insights into biased voter characterizations when using online observations, underlining the importance of accounting for inauthentic actors in studies of political issues based on social media data.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.