Papers › Promoting and countering misinformation during Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires: A case...

Promoting and countering misinformation during Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires: A case study of polarisation

10 Jan 2022arXiv:2201.03153links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Derek Weber, Lucia Falzon, Lewis Mitchell, Mehwish Nasim

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.

During Australia's unprecedented bushfires in 2019-2020, misinformation blaming arson resurfaced on Twitter using #ArsonEmergency. The extent to which bots were responsible for disseminating and amplifying this misinformation has received scrutiny in the media and academic research. Here we study Twitter communities spreading this misinformation during the population-level event, and investigate the role of online communities and bots. Our in-depth investigation of the dynamics of the discussion uses a phased approach -- before and after reporting of bots promoting the hashtag was broadcast by the mainstream media. Though we did not find many bots, the most bot-like accounts were social bots, which present as genuine humans. Further, we distilled meaningful quantitative differences between two polarised communities in the Twitter discussion, resulting in the following insights. First, Supporters of the arson narrative promoted misinformation by engaging others directly with replies and mentions using hashtags and links to external sources. In response, Opposers retweeted fact-based articles and official information. Second, Supporters were embedded throughout their interaction networks, but Opposers obtained high centrality more efficiently despite their peripheral positions. By the last phase, Opposers and unaffiliated accounts appeared to coordinate, potentially reaching a broader audience. Finally, unaffiliated accounts shared the same URLs as Opposers over Supporters by a ratio of 9:1 in the last phase, having shared mostly Supporter URLs in the first phase. This foiled Supporters' efforts, highlighting the value of exposing misinformation campaigns. We speculate that the communication strategies observed here could be discoverable in other misinformation-related discussions and could inform counter-strategies.

PaperPDFCode

Code

weberdc/socmed_sna officialmentioned in paper report
weberdc/find_hccs mentioned on GitHub report

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