Generative agents are rapidly advancing in sophistication, raising urgent questions about how they might coordinate when deployed in online ecosystems. This is particularly consequential in information operations (IOs), influence campaigns that aim to manipulate public opinion on social media. While traditional IOs have been orchestrated by human operators and relied on manually crafted tactics, agentic AI promises to make campaigns more automated, adaptive, and difficult to detect. This work presents the first systematic study of emergent coordination among generative agents in simulated IO campaigns. Using generative agent-based modeling, we instantiate IO and organic agents in a simulated environment and evaluate coordination across operational regimes, from simple goal alignment to team knowledge and collective decision-making. As operational regimes become more structured, IO networks become denser and more clustered, interactions more reciprocal and positive, narratives more homogeneous, amplification more synchronized, and hashtag adoption faster and more sustained. Remarkably, simply revealing to agents which other agents share their goals can produce coordination levels nearly equivalent to those achieved through explicit deliberation and collective voting. Overall, we show that generative agents, even without human guidance, can reproduce coordination strategies characteristic of real-world IOs, underscoring the societal risks posed by increasingly automated, self-organizing IOs.

Understanding susceptibility to online influence is crucial for mitigating the spread of misinformation and protecting vulnerable audiences. This paper investigates susceptibility to influence within social networks, focusing on the differential effects of influence-driven versus spontaneous behaviors on user content adoption. Our analysis reveals that influence-driven adoption exhibits high homophily, indicating that individuals prone to influence often connect with similarly susceptible peers, thereby reinforcing peer influence dynamics, whereas spontaneous adoption shows significant but lower homophily. Additionally, we extend the Generalized Friendship Paradox to influence-driven behaviors, demonstrating that users' friends are generally more susceptible to influence than the users themselves, de facto establishing the notion of Susceptibility Paradox in online social influence. This pattern does not hold for spontaneous behaviors, where friends exhibit fewer spontaneous adoptions. We find that susceptibility to influence can be predicted using friends' susceptibility alone, while predicting spontaneous adoption requires additional features, such as user metadata. These findings highlight the complex interplay between user engagement and characteristics in spontaneous content adoption. Our results provide new insights into social influence mechanisms and offer implications for designing more effective moderation strategies to protect vulnerable audiences.

Proprietary public APIs play a crucial and growing role as research tools among social scientists. Among such APIs, Google's machine learning-based Perspective API is extensively utilized for assessing the toxicity of social media messages, providing both an important resource for researchers and automatic content moderation. However, this paper exposes an important bias in Perspective API concerning German language text. Through an in-depth examination of several datasets, we uncover intrinsic language biases within the multilingual model of Perspective API. We find that the toxicity assessment of German content produces significantly higher toxicity levels than other languages. This finding is robust across various translations, topics, and data sources, and has significant consequences for both research and moderation strategies that rely on Perspective API. For instance, we show that, on average, four times more tweets and users would be moderated when using the German language compared to their English translation. Our findings point to broader risks associated with the widespread use of proprietary APIs within the computational social sciences.

Social media platforms have become a hub for political activities and discussions, democratizing participation in these endeavors. However, they have also become an incubator for manipulation campaigns, like information operations (IOs). Some social media platforms have released datasets related to such IOs originating from different countries. However, we lack comprehensive control data that can enable the development of IO detection methods. To bridge this gap, we present new labeled datasets about 26 campaigns, which contain both IO posts verified by a social media platform and over 13M posts by 303k accounts that discussed similar topics in the same time frames (control data). The datasets will facilitate the study of narratives, network interactions, and engagement strategies employed by coordinated accounts across various campaigns and countries. By comparing these coordinated accounts against organic ones, researchers can develop and benchmark IO detection algorithms.

Coordinated information operations remain a persistent challenge on social media, despite platform efforts to curb them. While previous research has primarily focused on identifying these operations within individual platforms, this study shows that coordination frequently transcends platform boundaries. Leveraging newly collected data of online conversations related to the 2024 U.S. Election across 𝕏 (formerly, Twitter), Facebook, and Telegram, we construct similarity networks to detect coordinated communities exhibiting suspicious sharing behaviors within and across platforms. Proposing an advanced coordination detection model, we reveal evidence of potential foreign interference, with Russian-affiliated media being systematically promoted across Telegram and 𝕏. Our analysis also uncovers substantial intra- and cross-platform coordinated inauthentic activity, driving the spread of highly partisan, low-credibility, and conspiratorial content. These findings highlight the urgent need for regulatory measures that extend beyond individual platforms to effectively address the growing challenge of cross-platform coordinated influence campaigns.

The aftermath of the 2020 US Presidential Election witnessed an unprecedented attack on the democratic values of the country through the violent insurrection at Capitol Hill on January 6th, 2021. The attack was fueled by the proliferation of conspiracy theories and misleading claims about the integrity of the election pushed by political elites and fringe communities on social media. In this study, we explore the evolution of fringe content and conspiracy theories on Twitter in the seven months leading up to the Capitol attack. We examine the suspicious coordinated activity carried out by users sharing fringe content, finding evidence of common adversarial manipulation techniques ranging from targeted amplification to manufactured consensus. Further, we map out the temporal evolution of, and the relationship between, fringe and conspiracy theories, which eventually coalesced into the rhetoric of a stolen election, with the hashtag #stopthesteal, alongside QAnon-related narratives. Our findings further highlight how social media platforms offer fertile ground for the widespread proliferation of conspiracies during and in the aftermath of major societal events, which can potentially lead to offline coordinated actions and organized violence.

Misinformation proliferation on social media platforms is a pervasive threat to the integrity of online public discourse. Genuine users, susceptible to others' influence, often unknowingly engage with, endorse, and re-share questionable pieces of information, collectively amplifying the spread of misinformation. In this study, we introduce an empirical framework to investigate users' susceptibility to influence when exposed to unreliable and reliable information sources. Leveraging two datasets on political and public health discussions on Twitter, we analyze the impact of exposure on the adoption of information sources, examining how the reliability of the source modulates this relationship. Our findings provide evidence that increased exposure augments the likelihood of adoption. Users tend to adopt low-credibility sources with fewer exposures than high-credibility sources, a trend that persists even among non-partisan users. Furthermore, the number of exposures needed for adoption varies based on the source credibility, with extreme ends of the spectrum (very high or low credibility) requiring fewer exposures for adoption. Additionally, we reveal that the adoption of information sources often mirrors users' prior exposure to sources with comparable credibility levels. Our research offers critical insights for mitigating the endorsement of misinformation by vulnerable users, offering a framework to study the dynamics of content exposure and adoption on social media platforms.

Social media provide a fertile ground where conspiracy theories and radical ideas can flourish, reach broad audiences, and sometimes lead to hate or violence beyond the online world itself. QAnon represents a notable example of a political conspiracy that started out on social media but turned mainstream, in part due to public endorsement by influential political figures. Nowadays, QAnon conspiracies often appear in the news, are part of political rhetoric, and are espoused by significant swaths of people in the United States. It is therefore crucial to understand how such a conspiracy took root online, and what led so many social media users to adopt its ideas. In this work, we propose a framework that exploits both social interaction and content signals to uncover evidence of user radicalization or support for QAnon. Leveraging a large dataset of 240M tweets collected in the run-up to the 2020 US Presidential election, we define and validate a multivariate metric of radicalization. We use that to separate users in distinct, naturally-emerging, classes of behaviors associated with radicalization processes, from self-declared QAnon supporters to hyper-active conspiracy promoters. We also analyze the impact of Twitter's moderation policies on the interactions among different classes: we discover aspects of moderation that succeed, yielding a substantial reduction in the endorsement received by hyperactive QAnon accounts. But we also uncover where moderation fails, showing how QAnon content amplifiers are not deterred or affected by the Twitter intervention. Our findings refine our understanding of online radicalization processes, reveal effective and ineffective aspects of moderation, and call for the need to further investigate the role social media play in the spread of conspiracies.