Engineering victory and defeat: the role of social bots on Twitter during the French PresidentialElections

International audienceThe electoral campaigns of both Trump and Macron took place in a climate marked by accusations of “fake news”, manipulation of social media and personal attacks. Previous research has even shown that the same automated Twitter accounts were used to spread rumours to discredit both Hillary Clinton and later Emmanuel Macron, notably during the “Macron Leaks” scandal (Ferrara, 2017), which has led to accusations of orchestrated foreign infiltration in at least the French presidential campaign. Although it is difficult to distinguish (legitimate) foreign discussions of (rumours related to) French presidential candidates on Twitter on the one hand and intentional meddling in national politics on the other, it has been suggested that such foreign interference is becoming common practice worldwide (Woolley & Howard, 2017). Discussions on social networking sites (SNS) have become an important focus of political debate and are sometimes taken as a preliminary indicator of public opinion by mainstream media. Their manipulation involves the use of “social robots” (bots). “A social bot is a defined as “computer algorithm that automatically produces content and interacts with humans on social media, trying to emulate and possibly alter their behavior.” (Ferrara, Varol, Davis, Menczer, & Flammini, 2016, p. 96).Research in computer science has proposed various methods to detect social bots on Twitter (Clark et al., 2016; Danisch, Dugué, & Perez, 2014; Davis, Varol, Ferrara, Flammini, & Menczer, 2016; Dickerson, Kagan, & Subrahmanian, 2014; Edwards, Edwards, Spence, & Shelton, 2014). Although studies suggest that bots are in many cases still detectable in the field of political propaganda (Grimme, Preuss, Adam, & Trautmann, 2017), other research warns that these algorithms are becoming increasingly complex and able to replicate human behaviour through machine learning (Ferrara et al., 2016, p. 99). Social bots are now widely used in various contexts, including political communication, and notably during election campaigns (Woolley & Howard, 2016), especially on Twitter. Research has shown that social bots were used on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election, for example to spread links to fake news websites (P. N. Howard, Bolsover, Kollanyi, Bradshaw, & Neudert, 2017), and have been estimated responsible for up to one fifth of campaign-related content produced in the lead-up to Trump’s victory (Bessi & Ferrara, 2016). They were also used in the 2017 French presidential elections (Ferrara, 2017; P. N. Howard, Bradshaw, Kollanyi, & Bolsolver, 2017a, 2017b), in the Brexit referendum campaign (P. Howard & Kollanyi, 2016), and in recent elections in Venezuela (Forelle, Howard, Monroy-Hernandez, & Savage, 2015) and Russia (Stukal, Sanovich, Bonneau, & Tucker, 2017), among many others. Bots can be used to diffuse or relay large quantities of positive or negative content pertaining to a candidate or political movement, spread rumours or links to “junk news” or “fake news” websites, though some research suggests that their impact on human interactions may remain limited (Murthy et al., 2016). Bots are also used to create automated followers or politicians’ or parties’ accounts, another common practice in US , French (Boyadjian, 2015) and other elections. Finally, discussions on SNS during election campaigns include messages generated by news bots, which may affect the information being spread, even when not having been intentionally programmed to favour one candidate or another (Lokot & Diakopoulos, 2016). This contribution aims to further research into this new dimension of electronic electioneering, which requires interdisciplinary approaches. Based on a study involving research teams in both communication science and computer science, working from a corpus of approximately 50M election-related tweets collected over five weeks in April and May 2017, and in the light of previous research into the “Macron Leaks” scandal (Ferrara, 2017) and use of campaign-bots in the US presidential elections (Bessi & Ferrara, 2016), it will (i) identify the presence of likely social bots on Twitter during the French presidential elections, and (ii) measure and analyse their activity pertaining to the two candidates between the first and second rounds of the election. References:Bessi, A., & Ferrara, E. (2016). Social Bots Distort the 2016 US Presidential Election Online Discussion (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2982233). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Boyadjian, J. (2015). Les usages frontistes du web. In S. Crépon, A. Dézé, & N. Mayer (Eds.), Les faux-semblants du Front national (pp. 141–160). Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.). Clark, E. M., Williams, J. R., Jones, C. A., Galbraith, R. A., Danforth, C. M., & Dodds, P. S. (2016). Sifting robotic from organic text: A natural language approach for detecting automation on Twitter. Journal of Computational Science, 16, 1–7. Danisch, M., Dugué, N., & Perez, A. (2014). Prendre en compte le capitalisme social dans la mesure de l’influence sur Twitter. In Modèles et Analyses Réseau: Approches Mathématiques et Informatiques, MARAMI 2014.Davis, C. A., Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2016). BotOrNot: A System to Evaluate Social Bots. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 273–274). Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Dickerson, J. P., Kagan, V., & Subrahmanian, V. S. (2014). Using sentiment to detect bots on Twitter: Are humans more opinionated than bots? In 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2014) (pp. 620–627). Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Shelton, A. K. (2014). Is that a bot running the social media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent and a bot agent on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 372–376. Ferrara, E. (2017). Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election. First Monday, 22(8), 33.Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104. Forelle, M., Howard, P., Monroy-Hernandez, A., & Savage, S. (2015). Political Bots and the Manipulation of Public Opinion in Venezuela. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Grimme, C., Preuss, M., Adam, L., & Trautmann, H. (2017). Social Bots: Human-Like by Means of Human Control? Big Data, 5(4), 279–293. Howard, P., & Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #Strongerin, and #Brexit: Computational Propaganda During the UK-EU Referendum. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Howard, P. N., Bolsover, G., Kollanyi, B., Bradshaw, S., & Neudert, L.-M. (2017). Junk News and Bots during the US Election: What Were Michigan Voters Sharing Over Twitter? Data Memo 2017.1. Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda. Howard, P. N., Bradshaw, S., Kollanyi, B., & Bolsolver, G. (2017a). Junk News and Bots during the French Presidential Election: What Are French Voters Sharing Over Twitter In Round Two? (COMPROP DATA MEMO No. 2017.4) (p. 5). Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.Howard, P. N., Bradshaw, S., Kollanyi, B., & Bolsolver, G. (2017b). Junk News and Bots during the French Presidential Election: What Are French Voters Sharing Over Twitter In Round Two? (COMPROP DATA MEMO No. 2017.3) (p. 5). Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.Lokot, T., & Diakopoulos, N. (2016). News Bots. Digital Journalism, 4(6), 682–699. Murthy, D., Powell, A. B., Tinati, R., Anstead, N., Carr, L., Halford, S. J., & Weal, M. (2016). Bots and political influence: a sociotechnical investigation of social network capital. International Journal of Communication, 10, 20.Stukal, D., Sanovich, S., Bonneau, R., & Tucker, J. A. (2017). Detecting Bots on Russian Political Twitter. Big Data, 5(4), 310–324. Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2016). Automation, Algorithms, and Politics: Political Communication, Computational Propaganda, and Autonomous Agents — Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10(0), 9.Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2017). Computational propaganda worldwide: Executive summary. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford