Paper detail

Promoting and countering misinformation during Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires: A case study of polarisation

During Australia's unprecedented bushfires in 2019-2020, misinformation blaming arson resurfaced on Twitter using #ArsonEmergency. The extent to which bots were responsible for disseminating and amplifying this misinformation has received scrutiny in the media and academic research. Here we study Twitter communities spreading this misinformation during the population-level event, and investigate the role of online communities and bots. Our in-depth investigation of the dynamics of the discussion uses a phased approach -- before and after reporting of bots promoting the hashtag was broadcast by the mainstream media. Though we did not find many bots, the most bot-like accounts were social bots, which present as genuine humans. Further, we distilled meaningful quantitative differences between two polarised communities in the Twitter discussion, resulting in the following insights. First, Supporters of the arson narrative promoted misinformation by engaging others directly with replies and mentions using hashtags and links to external sources. In response, Opposers retweeted fact-based articles and official information. Second, Supporters were embedded throughout their interaction networks, but Opposers obtained high centrality more efficiently despite their peripheral positions. By the last phase, Opposers and unaffiliated accounts appeared to coordinate, potentially reaching a broader audience. Finally, unaffiliated accounts shared the same URLs as Opposers over Supporters by a ratio of 9:1 in the last phase, having shared mostly Supporter URLs in the first phase. This foiled Supporters' efforts, highlighting the value of exposing misinformation campaigns. We speculate that the communication strategies observed here could be discoverable in other misinformation-related discussions and could inform counter-strategies.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.