Supersharers of fake news on Twitter

2024/05/30 by Sahar Baribi-Bartov, Briony Swire‐Thompson, Nir Grinberg · 1 voice · 58 citations
Computer Science · Social Sciences · #Advertising #Business #Computer science #Computer security #Democracy #Fake news #Internet privacy #Law #Misinformation and Its Impacts #News media #Political science #Politics #Presidential campaign #Presidential election #Presidential system #Social Media and Politics #Social media #Spam and Phishing Detection #Vulnerability (computing)

paper · pdf · doi:10.1126/science.adl4435

published in Science 384(6699), 979-982 (American Association for the Advancement of Science)

openalex publication_date 2024/05/30 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30

Abstract

Governments may have the capacity to flood social media with fake news, but little is known about the use of flooding by ordinary voters. In this work, we identify 2107 registered US voters who account for 80% of the fake news shared on Twitter during the 2020 US presidential election by an entire panel of 664,391 voters. We found that supersharers were important members of the network, reaching a sizable 5.2% of registered voters on the platform. Supersharers had a significant overrepresentation of women, older adults, and registered Republicans. Supersharers' massive volume did not seem automated but was rather generated through manual and persistent retweeting. These findings highlight a vulnerability of social media for democracy, where a small group of people distort the political reality for many.

Cited by

• Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online
• Cooperative Evolutionary Pressure and Diminishing Returns Might Explain the Fermi Paradox: On What Super-AIs Are Like
• Quantifying the vulnerabilities of the online public square to adversarial manipulation tactics
• Hiding Liker Identity Did Not Increase Engagement With Reputationally Risky Content on X (Formerly Twitter)
• Synthetic Politics: Prevalence, Spreaders, and Emotional Reception of AI-Generated Political Images on X
• Self-moderation in the decentralized era: decoding blocking behavior on Bluesky
• Birth of a scapegoat: An actor‐affect‐affordance model of symbolic attribution in the digital age
• The structural origins of the conservative online media niche, US Twitter 2022
• A unified framework for identifying influential nodes in hypergraphs
• Using conversational AI to reduce science skepticism
• Behavior Change as a Signal for Identifying Social Media Manipulation
• Social technologies need societal alignment
• The Role of Follow Networks and Twitter's Content Recommender on Partisan Skew and Rumor Exposure during the 2022 U.S. Midterm Election
• Learning Marked Temporal Point Process Explanations based on Counterfactual and Factual Reasoning
• Social Media Can Reduce Misinformation When Public Scrutiny is High
• The Diffusion and Reach of (Mis)Information on Facebook during the U.S. 2020 Election
• Positive sentiment and expertise predict the diffusion of archaeological content on social media. [europepmc]
• Promoting engagement with social fact-checks online: Investigating the roles of social connection and shared partisanship. [europepmc]
• China's social fake news database release with brain structural, functional, and behavioural measures. [europepmc]
• A multi-disciplinary exploration of the press review of the Italian National Institute of Health during the COVID-19 pandemic. [europepmc]
• A coupled disease-misinformation model of measles transmission in the Canadian context. [europepmc]
• Community structure-regulation coupling reveals optimal information diffusion. [europepmc]

Discussions

• Supersharers of fake news on Twitter | Science Supersharers were disproportionately Republican, middle-aged White women residing in three conservative states, Arizona, Florida, and Texas. Their neigh [bsky, 90 points, 8 comments]

Related

• Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election
• The Fake News Spreading Plague: Was it Preventable?
• Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election
• How Twitter Data Sampling Biases U.S. Voter Behavior Characterizations
• Election Polls on Social Media: Prevalence, Biases, and Voter Fraud Beliefs