Papers › Bots, Disinformation, and the First Trump Impeachment
Bots, Disinformation, and the First Trump Impeachment
Michael Rossetti, Tauhid Zaman
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Automated social media accounts, known as bots, have been shown to spread disinformation and manipulate online discussions. We study the behavior of retweet bots on Twitter during the first impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump. We collect over 67.7 million impeachment related tweets from 3.6 million users, along with their 53.6 million edge follower network. We find although bots represent 1% of all users, they generate over 31% of all impeachment related tweets. We also find bots share more disinformation, but use less toxic language than other users. Among supporters of the Qanon conspiracy theory, a popular disinformation campaign, bots have a prevalence near 10%. The follower network of Qanon supporters exhibits a hierarchical structure, with bots acting as central hubs surrounded by isolated humans. We quantify bot impact using the generalized harmonic influence centrality measure. We find there are a greater number of pro-Trump bots, but on a per bot basis, anti-Trump and pro-Trump bots have similar impact, while Qanon bots have less impact. This lower impact is due to the homophily of the Qanon follower network, suggesting this disinformation is spread mostly within online echo-chambers.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections