SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine make a grand entrance on the final night of the 2016 Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia on July 28, 2016.
(Photo: Nancy Lane/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images)
New Study Blows Up Myth That Russian Bots Swayed 2016 Election for Trump
However, one of the paper's authors warned that "it would be a mistake to conclude that simply because the Russian foreign influence campaign on Twitter was not meaningfully related to individual-level attitudes that other aspects of the campaign did not have any impact on the election."
Jan 10, 2023
A study published Monday by researchers at New York University eviscerated liberal Democrats' assertion that the Russian government's disinformation campaign on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election had any meaningful impact on the contest's outcome.
The study, which was led by NYU's Center for Social Media and Politics and published in the scientific journal Nature Communications, is based on a survey of nearly 1,500 U.S. respondents' Twitter activity. The researchers—who also include scholars from the University of Copenhagen, Trinity College Dublin, and Technical University of Munich—concluded that while "the online push by Russian foreign influence accounts didn't change attitudes or voting behavior in the 2016 U.S. election," the disinformation campaign "may still have had consequences."
According to the paper:
Exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: Only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.
"Despite this massive effort to influence the presidential race on social media and a widespread belief that this interference had an impact on the 2016 U.S. elections, potential exposure to tweets from Russian trolls that cycle was, in fact, heavily concentrated among a small portion of the American electorate—and this portion was more likely to be highly partisan Republicans," said Joshua A. Tucker, co-director of the Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP) and one of the study's authors.
"The specter of 'Russian bots' wreaking havoc across the web has become a byword of liberal anxiety and a go-to explanation for Democrats flummoxed by Trump's unlikely victory."
Gregory Eady of the University of Copenhagen, and one of the study's co-lead authors, cautioned that "it would be a mistake to conclude that simply because the Russian foreign influence campaign on Twitter was not meaningfully related to individual-level attitudes that other aspects of the campaign did not have any impact on the election, or on faith in American electoral integrity."
The new study may boost arguments of observers who contend that Democrats bear much of the blame for Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat by former GOP President Donald Trump. Clinton's loss, many say, is largely attributable to a deeply flawed Democratic ticket consisting of two corporate candidates including a presidential nominee who, according to former Green presidential contender Ralph Nader, "never met a war she did not like," and an anti-abortion vice presidential pick in Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
"That Russian intelligence attempted to influence the 2016 election, broadly speaking, is by now well documented," The Intercept's Sam Biddle wrote in an analysis of the study. "While their impact remains debated among scholars, the specter of 'Russian bots' wreaking havoc across the web has become a byword of liberal anxiety and a go-to explanation for Democrats flummoxed by Trump's unlikely victory."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A study published Monday by researchers at New York University eviscerated liberal Democrats' assertion that the Russian government's disinformation campaign on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election had any meaningful impact on the contest's outcome.
The study, which was led by NYU's Center for Social Media and Politics and published in the scientific journal Nature Communications, is based on a survey of nearly 1,500 U.S. respondents' Twitter activity. The researchers—who also include scholars from the University of Copenhagen, Trinity College Dublin, and Technical University of Munich—concluded that while "the online push by Russian foreign influence accounts didn't change attitudes or voting behavior in the 2016 U.S. election," the disinformation campaign "may still have had consequences."
According to the paper:
Exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: Only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.
"Despite this massive effort to influence the presidential race on social media and a widespread belief that this interference had an impact on the 2016 U.S. elections, potential exposure to tweets from Russian trolls that cycle was, in fact, heavily concentrated among a small portion of the American electorate—and this portion was more likely to be highly partisan Republicans," said Joshua A. Tucker, co-director of the Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP) and one of the study's authors.
"The specter of 'Russian bots' wreaking havoc across the web has become a byword of liberal anxiety and a go-to explanation for Democrats flummoxed by Trump's unlikely victory."
Gregory Eady of the University of Copenhagen, and one of the study's co-lead authors, cautioned that "it would be a mistake to conclude that simply because the Russian foreign influence campaign on Twitter was not meaningfully related to individual-level attitudes that other aspects of the campaign did not have any impact on the election, or on faith in American electoral integrity."
The new study may boost arguments of observers who contend that Democrats bear much of the blame for Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat by former GOP President Donald Trump. Clinton's loss, many say, is largely attributable to a deeply flawed Democratic ticket consisting of two corporate candidates including a presidential nominee who, according to former Green presidential contender Ralph Nader, "never met a war she did not like," and an anti-abortion vice presidential pick in Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
"That Russian intelligence attempted to influence the 2016 election, broadly speaking, is by now well documented," The Intercept's Sam Biddle wrote in an analysis of the study. "While their impact remains debated among scholars, the specter of 'Russian bots' wreaking havoc across the web has become a byword of liberal anxiety and a go-to explanation for Democrats flummoxed by Trump's unlikely victory."
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
A study published Monday by researchers at New York University eviscerated liberal Democrats' assertion that the Russian government's disinformation campaign on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election had any meaningful impact on the contest's outcome.
The study, which was led by NYU's Center for Social Media and Politics and published in the scientific journal Nature Communications, is based on a survey of nearly 1,500 U.S. respondents' Twitter activity. The researchers—who also include scholars from the University of Copenhagen, Trinity College Dublin, and Technical University of Munich—concluded that while "the online push by Russian foreign influence accounts didn't change attitudes or voting behavior in the 2016 U.S. election," the disinformation campaign "may still have had consequences."
According to the paper:
Exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: Only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.
"Despite this massive effort to influence the presidential race on social media and a widespread belief that this interference had an impact on the 2016 U.S. elections, potential exposure to tweets from Russian trolls that cycle was, in fact, heavily concentrated among a small portion of the American electorate—and this portion was more likely to be highly partisan Republicans," said Joshua A. Tucker, co-director of the Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP) and one of the study's authors.
"The specter of 'Russian bots' wreaking havoc across the web has become a byword of liberal anxiety and a go-to explanation for Democrats flummoxed by Trump's unlikely victory."
Gregory Eady of the University of Copenhagen, and one of the study's co-lead authors, cautioned that "it would be a mistake to conclude that simply because the Russian foreign influence campaign on Twitter was not meaningfully related to individual-level attitudes that other aspects of the campaign did not have any impact on the election, or on faith in American electoral integrity."
The new study may boost arguments of observers who contend that Democrats bear much of the blame for Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat by former GOP President Donald Trump. Clinton's loss, many say, is largely attributable to a deeply flawed Democratic ticket consisting of two corporate candidates including a presidential nominee who, according to former Green presidential contender Ralph Nader, "never met a war she did not like," and an anti-abortion vice presidential pick in Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.
"That Russian intelligence attempted to influence the 2016 election, broadly speaking, is by now well documented," The Intercept's Sam Biddle wrote in an analysis of the study. "While their impact remains debated among scholars, the specter of 'Russian bots' wreaking havoc across the web has become a byword of liberal anxiety and a go-to explanation for Democrats flummoxed by Trump's unlikely victory."
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.