The Computational Propaganda Awareness Scale and Its Impact on Public Opinion

Abstract

Social networks have become vital platforms during election periods, transforming traditional political communication into “digital propaganda” and “computational propaganda” (CP). CP involves the use of bots to spread propaganda, significantly influencing public opinion by acting as perceived sources of information. Studies reveal that bots, particularly active during elections, serve as tools for societal political engineering. Understanding CP is essential to comprehend the spread of misinformation and its political and social consequences. To measure this awareness, The Computational Propaganda Awareness Scale (CPAS) was developed, comprising 17 items across five factors. The data of 505 people with the CPA scale were analysed in the Jamovi programme. The total variance explained by the 5 factors of the CPAS is 56.4%. The study also examined the link between CP awareness and public monitoring behavior. Public opinion was categorized into “spectators” and “reactors,” with the model correctly identifying 50.4% of spectators and 62.1% of reactors. This research aims to enhance public awareness, promoting a more informed society capable of resisting CP’s manipulative effects. By identifying these dynamics, it contributes to fostering critical engagement with technology in political and communication contexts.

Keywords

• Social Networks
• Political Communication
• Computational Propaganda
• Bots
• Artificial Popularity

Bilişimsel Propaganda Farkındalık Ölçeği ve Kamuoyu Üzerindeki Etkisi

Abstract

Sosyal ağlar seçim dönemlerinin önemli iletişim kanalları haline gelmiştir. Yeni siyasal iletişim faaliyetleri önce “dijital propaganda”ya ardından da “bilişimsel propaganda”ya evrilmiştir. Dijital ortamın propagandası, bilişimsel propaganda, botlar aracılığıyla yürütülen yeni bir propaganda türüdür. Bireylerin bilerek ya da bilmeyerek bilgi kaynağı olarak kabul edebildiği botlar bu sebeple kamuoyu üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahip olmaktadır. Özellikle seçim dönemlerinde aktifleşen botların, toplum üzerinde siyasal mühendislik aracı olarak kullanıldığı çeşitli çalışmalarda gösterilmiştir. Bilişimsel propaganda farkındalığı, yanlış bilgilerin yayılmasında ve etkileşimlerinin sonuçlarında ne olduğunu görebilmek, teknolojinin bireylerle iletişiminde ve siyasetteki etkilerini anlayabilmek adına önem taşımaktadır. Bu bağlamda Bilişimsel Propaganda Farkındalık Ölçeği geliştirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda toplam 17 maddeli ve 5 faktörlü Bilişimsel Propaganda Farkındalık Ölçeği yapısı ortaya çıkmıştır. BPF ölçeği ile 505 kişinin verisi, Jamovi programında analiz edilmiştir. Bilişimsel Propaganda Farkındalık Ölçeği’ne dair 5 faktörün açıkladığı toplam varyans %56,4’tür. Ayrıca BPF puanları ile kamuoyunun izleme durumu arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Bilişimsel propaganda sonucu kamuoyu, “izleyici kalanlar” ve “tepki verenler” olarak ikiye ayrılmaktadır. Araştırmamızda geliştirilen modelin, izleyici kalanları doğru olarak tespit etme oranı %50,4, tepki verenleri doğru olarak tespit etme oranı ise %62,1’dir. Araştırma, bilişimsel propaganda ile mücadelede bireylerin farkındalık düzeyini artırarak daha bilinçli bir kamuoyu oluşturulmasına katkı sağlamayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• Sosyal Ağlar
• Siyasal İletişim
• Bilişimsel Propaganda
• Botlar
• Yapay popülerlik

References

1. Aggarwal, N. (2020). The norms of algorithmic credit scoring. Cambridge Law Journal, 80(1), 42-73. https://doi. org/10.1017/S000.819.7321000015
2. Arnaudo, D. (2017). Computational propaganda in Brazil: Social bots during elections [Çalışma raporu No. 2017.8]. Computational Propaganda Research Project, University of Oxford. https://demtech.oii.ox.ac. uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/Comprop-Brazil-1.pdf
3. Atasoy, D. (2001). Lojistik regresyon analizinin incelenmesi ve bir uygulaması [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
4. Baykul, Y. (2022). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klâsik test teorisi ve uygulaması (Cilt 6). PEGEM.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 3(2), 133 – 151.
6. Balcı, A. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem Akademi.
7. Benkler, Y., Faris, R. & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
8. Bolsover, G. & Howard, P. (2017). Computational propaganda and political big data: Moving toward a more critical research agenda. Big Data, 5(4), 273-276. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2017.29024.cpr.

9. Bradshaw, S. & Howard, P. (2017). Troops, trolls and troublemakers: A global ınventory of organized social media manipulation [Çalışma raporu No. 2017.12]. Computational Propaganda Reserach Project, University of Oxford. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cef7e8d9-27bf-4ea5-9fd6-855209b3e1f6/files/ m3ca8c455852611e82d0fb182445a471f
10. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Cengage Learning.
11. Daily Mail. (2013, Nisan 24). Syrian Electronic army linked to hack attack on AP Twitter feed that ‘broke news’ Obama had been injured in White House blast and sent Dow Jones plunging. https://www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-2314001/Syrian-Electronic-Army-linked-hack-attack-AP-Twitter-feed-broke- news-Obama-injured-White-House-blast-sent-Dow-Jones-plunging.html
12. Daniel, F. & Millimaggi, A. (2020). On Twitter bots behaving badly: A large-scale study of code patterns on GitHub. Journal of Web Engineering, 18(8), 801–836. https://doi.org/10.13052/jwe1540-9589.1883
13. D’Alessio, F. A. (2021). Computational propaganda: Challenges and responses. Academia Letters, (3468), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3468
14. Durbin, J. & Watson, G. S. (1950). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. Biometrika, 37(3/4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/37.3-4.409
15. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Ed.). Sage Publication.
16. Floridi, L. (2020). The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3827089
17. Floridi, L. & Taddeo, M. (2016). What is data ethics? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0360
18. Gorwa, R. & Guilbeault, D. (2020). Unpacking the social media bot: A typology to guide research and policy. Policy Internet, 12(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.06863
19. Green, B. & Chen, Y. (2019, Ocak 29-31). Disparate interactions: An algorithm-in-the-loop analysis of fairness in risk assessments [Konferans Bildirisi]. FAT* ‘19: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287.560.3287563
20. Hill, J., Ford, W. & Farreras, I. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.026
21. Himelein-Wachowiak, M., Giorgi , S., Devoto, A., Rahman, M., Ungar , L., Schwartz , H., . . . Curtis, B. (2021). Bots and misinformation spread on social media: Implications for COVID-19. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(5), Article e26933. https://doi.org/10.2196/26933
22. Hurtado, S., Ray, P. & Marculescu, R. (2019, May 6-9). Bot detection in Reddit political discussion [Konferans Bildirisi]. WebSci ‘19: 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, Boston, MA, USA. https://doi. org/10.1145/3313.294.3313386
23. Keller, F., Schoch, D., Stier, S. & Yang, J. (2019). Political astroturfing on Twitter: How to coordinate a disinformation campaign. Political Communication, 37(2), 256-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584.60 9.2019.1661888
24. Klotz, R. J. (2007). Internet campaigning for grassroots and astroturf support. Social Science Computer Review, 25(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/089.443.930628910
25. Kovic, M., Rauchfleisch, A., Sele, M. & Caspar, C. (2018). Digital astroturfing in politics: Definition, typology, and countermeasures. Studies in Communication Sciences, 18(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.24434/j. scoms.2018.01.005
26. Labati, R. D., Genovese, A. & Muñoz, E. (2016). Biometric recognition in automated border control: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 49(2), 1–39. https://doi.org/0000.001.0000001
27. Lee, M. S. & Floridi, L. (2020). Algorithmic fairness in mortgage lending: From absolute conditions to relational trade-offs. Minds and Machines, 31, 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023.020.09529-4
28. Moravec, H. P. (2024, Şubat 5). Robot. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/technology/robot-technology Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B. & Vogeli, C. (2019). Dissectingracial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447-453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342
29. Online Etymology Dictionary. (2023). Bot. https://www.etymonline.com/word/bot#etymonline_v_27335
30. Paraschakis, D. (2017). Towards an ethical recommendation framework [Konferans Bildirisi]. 11th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (IEEE), Brighton, UK. https://doi. org/10.1109/RCIS.2017.795.6539
31. Pavlíková, M., Šenkýrˇová, B. & Drmola, J. (2021). Propaganda and disinformation go online. M. Gregor & P. Mlejnková (Dü.), Challenging online propaganda and disinformation in the 21st century içind(ss. 43-75). Palgrave Macmillan.
32. Perra, N. & Rocha, L. (2019). Modelling opinion dynamics in the age of algorithmic personalisation. Scientific Reports, 9(7261), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598.019.43830-2
33. Prates, M. O., Avelar, P. & Lamb, L. (2019). Assessing gender bias in machine translation: A case study with google translate. Neural Computing and Applications, 1, 6363–6381. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1809.02208
34. Schia, N. N. & Gjesvik, L. (2020). Hacking democracy: Managing influence campaigns and disinformation in the digital age. Journal of Cyber Policy, 5(3), 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738.871.2020.1820060
35. Sütcü, C. S. (2021). Önsöz. O. Kuş (Dü.), Algoritmaların gölgesinde toplum ve iletişim içinde (ss. v-vii). Alternatif Bilişim Derneği.
36. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyon and Bacon Press.
37. Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aat5991
38. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık.
39. TechTarget. (2023). What is an algorithm? https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/algorithm
40. TÜİK. (2022). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri (BT) kullanım araştırması. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/ Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2022-45587
41. TÜİK. (2023). TÜİK hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/ Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2023-49407
42. Tosyalı, H. (2021, Ekim 20-22). Dijital çağda siyasal iletişim: Algoritmalar ve botlar [Konferans Bildirisi]. Communication and Technology Congress, İstanbul, Türkiye.
43. Ünver, H. A. (2017). Bilişimsel diplomasi [Çalışma raporu No. 2017/3]. Siber Politikalar ve Dijital Demokrasi, EDAM. https://edam.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/bilisimsel_diplomasi_2.pdf
44. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects Us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.
45. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
46. We Are Social. (2023). Digital 2023 global overview report. https://www.wearesocial.com/digital-2023
47. Woolley, S. C. & Howard, P. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics: Political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4882–4890.
48. Zhou, N., Zhang , C.-T., Lv , H.-Y., Hao, C.-X. & Li , T.-J. (2019). Concordance study between IBM Watson for oncology and clinical practice for patients with cancer in China. Oncologist, 24(6), 812–819. https://doi. org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0255