Investigating the Validity of Botometer-based Social Bot Studies
Florian Gallwitz, Michael Kreil

TL;DR
This study critically examines the validity of social bot research relying on Botometer, revealing that many so-called social bots are actually human-operated accounts and highlighting flaws in current detection methodologies.
Contribution
The paper identifies a fundamental flaw in the prevalent study design and empirically demonstrates that Botometer-based studies often misclassify human accounts as social bots.
Findings
No social bots were found among inspected accounts
Most accounts identified as bots were actually human-operated
Botometer-based studies largely detect false positives
Abstract
The idea that social media platforms like Twitter are inhabited by vast numbers of social bots has become widely accepted in recent years. Social bots are assumed to be automated social media accounts operated by malicious actors with the goal of manipulating public opinion. They are credited with the ability to produce content autonomously and to interact with human users. Social bot activity has been reported in many different political contexts, including the U.S. presidential elections, discussions about migration, climate change, and COVID-19. However, the relevant publications either use crude and questionable heuristics to discriminate between supposed social bots and humans or -- in the vast majority of the cases -- fully rely on the output of automatic bot detection tools, most commonly Botometer. In this paper, we point out a fundamental theoretical flaw in the widely-used…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMisinformation and Its Impacts · Spam and Phishing Detection · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
