Characterizing the Anti-Vaxxers’ Reply Behavior on Social Media

Although the online campaigns of anti-vaccine advocates, or antivaxxers, severely threaten efforts for herd immunity, their reply behavior—-the form of directed messaging that can be sent beyond follow-follower relationships–remains poorly understood. Here, we examined the characteristics of anti-vaxxers’ reply behavior on Twitter to attempt to comprehend their characteristics of spreading their beliefs in terms of interaction frequency, content, and targets. Among the results, anti-vaxxers more frequently conducted reply behavior with other clusters, especially neutral accounts. Anti-vaxxers’ replies were significantly more toxic than those from neutral accounts and pro-vaxxers, and their toxicity, in particular, was higher with regard to the rollout of vaccines. Antivaxxers’ replies were more persuasive than the others in terms of the emotional aspect, rather than linguistical styles. The targets of anti-vaxxers’ replies tend to be accounts with larger numbers of followers and posts, including accounts that relate to health care or represent scientists, policy-makers, or media figures or outlets. We discussed how their reply behaviors are effective in spreading their beliefs, as well as possible countermeasures to restrain them. These findings should prove useful for pro-vaxxers and platformers to promote trusted information while reducing the effect of vaccine disinformation.

[1]  K. Gunaratne,et al.  Temporal trends in anti-vaccine discourse on Twitter. , 2019, Vaccine.

[2]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Cross-Partisan Discussions on YouTube: Conservatives Talk to Liberals but Liberals Don't Talk to Conservatives , 2021, International Conference on Web and Social Media.

[3]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  In the Mood for Being Influential on Twitter , 2011, 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing.

[4]  David A. Broniatowski,et al.  Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate , 2018, American journal of public health.

[5]  Jacob Ratkiewicz,et al.  Political Polarization on Twitter , 2011, ICWSM.

[6]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Large scale networks fingerprinting and visualization using the k-core decomposition , 2005, NIPS.

[7]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[8]  V. Koppaka,et al.  anti* , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  Kyriaki Kalimeri,et al.  Falling into the Echo Chamber: the Italian Vaccination Debate on Twitter , 2020, ICWSM.

[10]  A. Kata Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm--an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. , 2012, Vaccine.

[11]  M. Jacomy,et al.  ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software , 2014, PloS one.

[12]  R. Bornstein Subliminal techniques as propaganda tools: review and critique , 1989 .

[13]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[14]  H. Roberts,et al.  Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics , 2018 .

[15]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Characterizing Twitter Users Who Engage in Adversarial Interactions against Political Candidates , 2020, CHI.

[16]  Aristides Gionis,et al.  Quantifying Controversy on Social Media , 2018, ACM Trans. Soc. Comput..

[17]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  Augmenting web pages and search results to support credibility assessment , 2011, CHI.

[18]  J. Leask,et al.  How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation , 2019, BMC Public Health.

[19]  Mathieu Bastian,et al.  Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks , 2009, ICWSM.

[20]  Minzhang Zheng,et al.  The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views , 2020, Nature.

[21]  Jinyoung Han,et al.  Rumor Propagation is Amplified by Echo Chambers in Social Media , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[22]  Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil,et al.  Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions , 2016, WWW.

[23]  T. Khazaei,et al.  Changing Others' Beliefs Online: Online Comments' Persuasiveness , 2019, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society.

[24]  Patrícia G. C. Rossini,et al.  Social Media, Opinion Polls, and the Use of Persuasive Messages During the 2016 US Election Primaries , 2018, Social Media + Society.

[25]  Ben Wasike,et al.  Persuasion in 140 characters: Testing issue framing, persuasion and credibility via Twitter and online news articles in the gun control debate , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  Alessandro Flammini,et al.  Social Influence and Unfollowing Accelerate the Emergence of Echo Chambers , 2019 .

[27]  N. Biller-Andorno,et al.  The anti-vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis , 2020, medRxiv.

[28]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[29]  Jisun An,et al.  Political Discussions in Homogeneous and Cross-Cutting Communication Spaces , 2019, ICWSM.

[30]  Ryan L. Boyd,et al.  The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015 , 2015 .

[31]  Frank Renkewitz,et al.  The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  R. Bornstein,et al.  Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  T. Burki,et al.  Vaccine misinformation and social media , 2019, The Lancet Digital Health.