Hubbry Logo
search
search button
Sign in
MainMain
starMorearrow-down
Sign in
Hubbry Logo
search
search button
Sign in
Twitter bot
Twitter bot
Community hub for the Wikipedia article
logoWikipedian hub
Main

Wikipedia

Twitter bot
View on Wikipedia

A Twitter bot or an X bot is a type of software bot that controls a Twitter/X account via the Twitter API.[1] The social bot software may autonomously perform actions such as tweeting, retweeting, liking, following, unfollowing, or direct messaging other accounts.[citation needed] The automation of Twitter accounts is governed by a set of automation rules that outline proper and improper uses of automation.[2] Proper usage includes broadcasting helpful information, automatically generating interesting or creative content, and automatically replying to users via direct message.[3][4][5] Improper usage includes circumventing API rate limits, violating user privacy, spamming,[6] and sockpuppeting. Twitter bots may be part of a larger botnet. They can be used to influence elections and in misinformation campaigns.

Twitter's policies do allow non-abusive bots, such as those created as a benign hobby or for artistic purposes,[7] or posting helpful information,[8] although price changes introduced to the previously free API service in June 2023 resulted in many such accounts closing.[9]

Types

[edit]

Positive influence

[edit]
The @congressedits Twitter bot posted when Wikipedia articles were edited anonymously from IP addresses within the ranges assigned to the United States Congress.

Many non-malicious bots are popular for their entertainment value. However, as technology and the creativity of bot-makers improves, so does the potential for Twitter bots that fill social needs.[10][11] @tinycarebot is a Twitter bot that encourages followers to practice self care, and brands are increasingly using automated Twitter bots to engage with customers in interactive ways.[12][13] One anti-bullying organization has created @TheNiceBot, which attempts to combat the prevalence of mean tweets by automatically tweeting kind messages.[14]

In June 2023, Twitter began charging $100 per month for basic access to its API, resulting in many entertainment bots being suspended or taken down.[9]

Political

[edit]
Further information: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Twitter bots posting similar pro-Clinton messages during the 2016 United States elections

Concerns about political Twitter bots include the promulgation of malicious content, increased polarization, and the spreading of fake news.[15][16][17] A subset of Twitter bots programmed to complete social tasks played an important role in the United States 2016 Presidential Election.[18] Researchers estimated that pro-Trump bots generated four tweets for every pro-Clinton automated account and out-tweeted pro-Clinton bots 7:1 on relevant hashtags during the final debate. Deceiving Twitter bots fooled candidates and campaign staffers into retweeting misappropriated quotes and accounts affiliated with incendiary ideals.[19][20][21] Twitter bots have also been documented to influence online politics in Venezuela.[22] In 2019, 20% of the global Twitter trends were found to be created automatically using bots originating from Turkey. It is reported that 108,000 bot accounts were bulk tweeting to push 19,000 keywords to top trends in Turkey, to promote slogans such as political campaigns related to the 2019 Turkish local elections.[23]

In November 2022, Chinese bots coordinately flooded Twitter with garbage information (e.g. online gambling ads) so as to distract the users' attention away from the protests.[24] These bots, disguised as attractive girls, hashtagged the major cities in China.[25]

Fake followers

[edit]

The majority of Twitter accounts following public figures and brands are often fake or inactive, making the number of Twitter followers a celebrity has a difficult metric for gauging popularity.[26] While this cannot always be helped, some public figures who have gained or lost huge quantities of followers in short periods of time have been accused of discreetly paying for Twitter followers.[27][28] For example, the Twitter accounts of Sean Combs, Rep Jared Polis (D-Colo), PepsiCo, Mercedes-Benz, and 50 Cent have come under scrutiny for possibly engaging in the buying and selling of Twitter followers, which is estimated to be between a $40 million and $360 million business annually.[27][28] Account sellers may charge a premium for more realistic accounts that have Twitter profile pictures and bios and retweet the accounts they follow.[28] In addition to an ego boost, public figures may gain more lucrative endorsement contracts from inflated Twitter metrics.[27] For brands, however, the translation of online buzz and social media followers into sales has recently come under question after The Coca-Cola Company disclosed that a corporate study revealed that social media buzz does not create a spike in short term sales.[29][30]

Identification

[edit]

It is sometimes desirable to identify when a Twitter account is controlled by an internet bot.[31] Following a test period, Twitter rolled out labels to identify bot accounts and automated tweets in February 2022.[32][33]

Detecting non-human Twitter users has been of interest to academics.[31][34]

In a 2012 paper, Chu et al. propose the following criteria that indicate that an account may be a bot (they were designing an automated system):[1]

  • "Periodic and regular timing" of tweets;
  • Whether the tweet content contains known spam; and
  • The ratio of tweets from mobile versus desktop, as compared to an average human Twitter user.

Emilio Ferrara at the University of Southern California used artificial intelligence to identify Twitter bots. He found that humans reply to other tweets four or five times more than bots and that bots continue to post longer tweets over time.[35] Bots also post at more regular time gaps, for example, tweeting at 30-minute or 60-minute intervals.[35]

Indiana University has developed a free service called Botometer[36] (formerly BotOrNot), which scores Twitter handles based on their likelihood of being a Twitterbot.[37][38][39]

Recent research from EPFL argued that classifying a Twitter account as bot or not may not be always possible because hackers take over human accounts and use them as bots temporarily or permanently[40] and in parallel to the owner of the account in some cases.[23]

See also: Author profiling § Author profiling and the Internet

Examples

[edit]

There are many different types of Twitter bots and their purposes vary from one to another. Some examples include:

  • @Betelgeuse_3 sends at-replies in response to tweets that include the phrase, "Beetlejuice, beetlejuice, beetlejuice". The tweets are sent in the voice of the lead character from the Beetlejuice film.[41]
  • @CongressEdits and @parliamentedits posts whenever someone makes edits to Wikipedia from the United States Congress and United Kingdom Parliament IP addresses, respectively.[42] @CongressEdits was suspended in 2018 while @parliamentedits is still running.
  • @DBZNappa replied with "WHAT!? NINE THOUSAND?" to anyone on Twitter that used the internet meme phrase "over 9000." The account began in 2011, and was eventually suspended in 2015.[43]
  • @DearAssistant sends auto-reply tweets responding to complex queries in simple English by utilizing Wolfram Alpha.[4]
  • @DeepDrumpf is a recurrent neural network, created at MIT, that releases tweets imitating Donald Trump's speech patterns. It received its namesake from the term 'Donald Drumpf', popularized in the segment 'Donald Trump' from the show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.[44]
  • @DroptheIBot tweets the message, "People aren't illegal. Try saying 'undocumented immigrant' or 'unauthorized immigrant' instead" to Twitter users who have sent a tweet containing the phrase "illegal immigrant". It was created by American Fusion.net journalists Jorge Rivas and Patrick Hogan.[45]
  • @everyword has tweeted every word of the English language. It started in 2007 and tweeted every thirty minutes until 2014.[46]
  • @nyt_first_said tweets every time The New York Times uses a word for the first time. It was created by artist and engineer Max Bittker in 2017.[47][48] A similar bot was created for the NOS.[49]
  • @factbot1 was created by Eric Drass to illustrate what he believed to be a prevalent problem: that of people on the internet believing unsupported facts which accompany pictures.[50]
  • @fuckeveryword was tweeting every word in the English language preceded by "fuck", but Twitter suspended it midway through operation because the account tweeted "fuck niggers".[51] @fckeveryword was created by someone else after the suspension to resurrect the task, which it completed in 2020.[52]
  • @Horse ebooks was a bot that gained a following among people who found its tweets poetic. It has inspired various _ebooks-suffixed Twitter bots which use Markov text generators (or similar techniques) to create new tweets by mashing up the tweets of their owner.[53] It went inactive following a brief promotion for Bear Stearns Bravo.
  • @infinite_scream tweets and auto-replies a 2–39 character scream.[54] At least partially inspired by Edvard Munch's The Scream,[55] it attracted attention from those distressed by the first presidency of Donald Trump[56] and bad news.[55]
  • @MetaphorMagnet is an AI bot that generates metaphorical insights using its knowledge-base of stereotypical properties and norms. A companion bot @MetaphorMirror pairs these metaphors to news tweets. Another companion bot, @BestOfBotWorlds, uses metaphor to generate faux-religious insights.[57]
  • @Pentametron finds tweets incidentally written in iambic pentameter using the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary, pairs them into couplets using a rhyming dictionary, and retweets them as couplets into followers' feeds.[58]
  • @RedScareBot tweets in the persona of Joseph McCarthy in response to Twitter posts mentioning "socialist", "communist", or "communism".[41]
  • @tinycarebot promotes simple self care actions to its followers, such as remembering to look up from your screens, taking a break to go outside, and drink more water. It will also send a self care suggestion if you tweet directly at it.[59]

Prevalence

[edit]

In 2009, based on a study by Sysomos, Twitter bots were estimated to create approximately 24% of tweets on Twitter.[60] According to the company, there were 20 million, fewer than 5%, of accounts on Twitter that were fraudulent in 2013.[61] In 2013, two Italian researchers calculated 10 percent of total accounts on Twitter were "bots" although other estimates have placed the figure even higher.[62] One significant academic study in 2017 estimated that up to 15% of Twitter users were automated bot accounts.[63][64] A 2020 estimate puts the figure at 15% of all accounts or around 48 million accounts.[65]

A 2023 MIT study found that third-party tools used to detect bots may not be as accurate as they are trained on data being collected in simplistic ways, and each tweet in these training sets then manually labeled by people as a bot or a human.[66] Already in 2019 German researchers scrutinized studies that were using Botswatch and Botometer, dismissing them as fundamentally flawed and concluded that (unlike spam accounts) there is no evidence that "social bots" even exist.[67]

Impact

[edit]

The prevalence of Twitter bots coupled with the ability of some bots to give seemingly human responses has enabled these non-human accounts to garner widespread influence.[68][69][20][70] The social implications these Twitter bots potentially have on human perception are sizeable. Looking at the Computers as Social Actors (CASA) paradigm, the journal notes, "people exhibit remarkable social reactions to computers and other media, treating them as if they were real people or real places." The study concluded that Twitter bots were viewed as credible and competent in communication and interaction making them suitable for transmitting information in the social media sphere.[71] Whether posts are perceived to be generated by humans or bots depends on partisanship, a 2023 study found.[72]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]

Grokipedia

Twitter bot

View on Grokipedia
A Twitter bot is a software-controlled account on the Twitter platform (now X) that automates posting, reposting, following, or interacting with content and users without ongoing human oversight. These programs leverage Twitter's API to execute predefined scripts, ranging from benign utilities like weather alerts or trend monitoring to malicious operations such as spam dissemination or coordinated amplification of narratives. Empirical analyses estimate bots comprise 9-15% of active Twitter accounts, with higher proportions—up to 20%—in discussions of global events, where they often exhibit distinct behavioral patterns like higher posting volumes and neutral sentiment compared to human users. Bots emerged in the early 2010s as simple automation tools but proliferated amid platform growth, enabling both legitimate data aggregation and deceptive influence tactics. Key characteristics include rapid, repetitive actions and limited originality in content, which detection algorithms exploit through metrics like tweet frequency and network clustering, though evasion techniques challenge accurate classification. Controversies center on their role in manipulating discourse, with research showing bots disproportionately accelerate low-credibility information spread during elections and crises, amplifying volume until human retweets sustain virality—effects observed across ideological lines but often underreported in biased institutional analyses. Platforms have responded with API restrictions and purges, yet persistent bot populations underscore ongoing tensions between automation's efficiencies and risks to informational integrity.

History

Origins and Early Examples

Twitter launched on March 21, 2006, initially as an internal service at Odeo before its public beta release in July of that year, allowing users to post short status updates via SMS, web, or other interfaces. The Twitter API became available in September 2006, providing developers with programmatic access to post tweets, retrieve timelines, and interact with the platform, which quickly enabled simple automation scripts for repetitive tasks such as broadcasting local weather updates or posting daily quotes from public datasets. Among the first documented examples of Twitter bots emerged in 2007, including Ryan King's Twitter Ghost, an automated account that retweeted tweets matching specific keywords or patterns, illustrating early capabilities for content filtering and redistribution without human intervention. By 2007–2008, additional benign bots appeared for entertainment, such as interactive responders mimicking oracles or games, and basic news aggregators that pulled and reposted headlines from RSS feeds, reflecting developers' experimentation with the API to augment user engagement through scheduled, rule-based posting. These early implementations relied on straightforward scripting in languages like Python or Ruby, often hosted on personal servers, and operated within the platform's initial limits of 140-character tweets and basic authentication. Developer communities, including those on forums and early tech blogs, adopted these tools amid Twitter's rapid growth from thousands to millions of users, though precise metrics on bot accounts remain scarce for this era, as the platform lacked formalized tracking until later years. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone publicly addressed emerging spam concerns in 2008, signaling that automated accounts, initially designed for utility, were already prompting platform responses to distinguish legitimate automation from abuse.

Expansion and Key Milestones

The proliferation of Twitter bots accelerated between 2011 and 2015, driven by the platform's accessible API and the emergence of user-friendly third-party development tools that simplified automated account creation and management. During this period, developers leveraged libraries and scripts to deploy bots at scale for tasks ranging from content curation to trend amplification, contributing to estimates that 9-15% of active accounts exhibited bot-like behaviors by 2014. This growth was facilitated by Twitter's API version 1.0's relatively permissive structure, which allowed high-volume data access without stringent initial oversight, though it began shifting with the rollout of version 1.1 in September 2012. The 2012 update introduced mandatory authentication via OAuth, per-endpoint rate limits (e.g., 15-minute windows for most calls), and restrictions on third-party clients exceeding 100,000 user tokens without approval, marking an early milestone in efforts to curb unchecked bot scaling while inadvertently prompting more sophisticated workarounds. The 2016 U.S. presidential election emerged as a critical turning point, elevating bots from a technical curiosity to a subject of widespread scrutiny amid concerns over their role in narrative amplification. Analyses of election-related tweets revealed that automated accounts generated a disproportionate volume of content, with one study finding bots responsible for 31% of junk news tweet impressions despite comprising only about 6% of users, often through coordinated retweeting that boosted visibility of polarizing topics. Complementary research documented spikes in bot activity around key hashtags, such as peaks during candidate announcements and debates, where automation accounted for up to 20-30% of partisan messaging in sampled periods. These findings, drawn from large-scale datasets of millions of tweets, underscored how bots exploited platform mechanics like retweet cascades to inflate engagement metrics, prompting regulatory inquiries and platform policy refinements. By the mid-2010s, bot networks demonstrated heightened sophistication through adaptive behaviors, including randomized timing and content variation, which empirical network studies attributed to early algorithmic refinements enabling evasion of basic heuristics. This evolution, observed in analyses of interconnected bot clusters, reflected scaling factors like cloud computing affordability and open-source automation frameworks, allowing operators to maintain large fleets despite API constraints. Such advancements heightened the challenge of distinguishing automation from genuine activity, as evidenced by longitudinal bot detection benchmarks showing declining efficacy of rule-based methods against these networks.

Technical Implementation

Core Mechanisms and APIs

Twitter bots interface with the platform's RESTful API, primarily version 1.1 prior to its deprecation, to execute automated actions including posting status updates via the /statuses/update endpoint, following users through /friendships/create, and querying content with /search/tweets. Authentication relies on OAuth 1.0a protocol, which generates signed HTTP requests using consumer keys, secrets, access tokens, and signatures, enabling secure delegation of user-level permissions without exposing passwords. This user-context authentication distinguishes bot operations from app-only modes, allowing read-write interactions tied to specific accounts. API rate limits fundamentally constrain bot architecture, with endpoints like /statuses/update capped at 300 requests per 3-hour window under user authentication, while search queries permit 180 calls every 15 minutes. These per-app or per-user quotas, enforced via HTTP 429 responses and headers like x-rate-limit-remaining, compel developers to implement exponential backoff, request queuing, or multi-account distribution to sustain activity without suspension. Such limitations arise from server capacity and abuse prevention, shaping bots toward bursty, low-frequency patterns rather than continuous high-volume operations. Implementation commonly occurs in scripting languages like Python or JavaScript, leveraging libraries to abstract API complexities. In Python, Twython provides comprehensive wrappers for v1.1 endpoints, managing OAuth signing, JSON serialization, and pagination for timelines or searches. Tweepy offers similar functionality with streamlined classes for streaming, cursors, and error handling, facilitating concise code for tasks like tweet retrieval. These libraries mitigate boilerplate for URL encoding, timestamp generation, and nonce creation required in raw OAuth flows. Core operational logic centers on event-driven loops that poll endpoints periodically, such as querying /statuses/mentions_timeline for triggers, followed by conditional responses within rate constraints. For timed actions, bots integrate system schedulers like Unix cron jobs to invoke scripts at intervals—e.g., */15 * * * * python responder.py for quarterly checks—ensuring persistence across sessions without resource-intensive always-on processes. This decoupled approach aligns with API polling mechanics, where bots fetch deltas via since_id parameters to simulate real-time reactivity while adhering to query limits.

Evolution to AI-Driven Bots

The transition from rule-based Twitter bots to AI-driven variants gained momentum following the release of advanced machine learning models around 2018, enabling automated accounts to produce semantically varied and contextually adaptive content that better emulated human posting styles. Early rule-based bots relied on scripted patterns and keyword triggers, but the integration of large language models (LLMs) like those akin to GPT allowed for generative outputs that incorporated nuance, idioms, and topical relevance, reducing reliance on repetitive templates. This shift marked a departure from deterministic automation toward probabilistic, human-like text synthesis, with bots achieving detection scores that blurred distinctions from authentic users. Empirical studies analyzing Twitter activity from 2021 to 2023 documented the proliferation of these AI-enhanced bots, which employed LLMs such as variants of ChatGPT to craft tweets indistinguishable from human ones in benchmarks, often scoring 0.69 on average in bot classification tools like BotHunter. For instance, during the 2021 COVID-19 discourse, bots amplified anti-vaccine narratives using generated content that mimicked emotional appeals and social pressure tactics, contributing up to 20% of event-related chatter while evading traditional filters through stylistic variability. Similarly, in the 2020 U.S. elections, AI-augmented bots spiked to 43% of active users in polarized threads, leveraging model-generated replies to sustain echo chambers with apparent organic diversity. To counter evolving detection algorithms, AI-driven bots from this period adopted evasion tactics informed by machine learning, including the insertion of obfuscatory elements like Chinese proverbs or random four-character strings into otherwise coherent posts, which disrupted pattern-based classifiers without fully compromising readability. These bots also simulated human irregularity by varying posting cadences and interaction sequences—such as prioritizing replies over retweets in ratios closer to observed user norms—further complicating behavioral profiling. Such adaptations, evidenced in longitudinal datasets of billions of tweets, elevated bot sophistication, allowing sustained influence campaigns that integrated real-time topical framing from external prompts or feeds for dynamic, non-scripted responses.

Classification

Utility and Informational Bots

Utility and informational bots on Twitter automate the distribution of factual updates, such as news headlines, weather forecasts, stock market alerts, or emergency notifications, serving practical functions without manipulative intent. These bots typically aggregate data from reliable APIs or public feeds and post in real-time, enhancing accessibility for users seeking timely information. For example, bots like those disseminating academic paper alerts or event notifications operate by scanning predefined sources and tweeting summaries or links, thereby streamlining information flow for researchers and the public. Such bots provide demonstrable benefits in real-time data provision, particularly during crises. The @LastQuake bot, developed by the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre, detects and tweets details on felt earthquakes within seconds, including magnitude, location, and potential impacts, facilitating public awareness and response coordination. Studies highlight how these automated systems accelerate information spread; for instance, bots have been used to foster positive behaviors by intervening in social media during events, enabling faster dissemination than manual posting alone. Empirical analyses underscore their role in informational content generation. A Pew Research Center study of 1.2 million tweeted links from mid-2017 found that the 500 most active suspected bot accounts produced 22% of links to popular news and information websites, indicating substantial bot contributions to non-partisan informational tweets. However, limitations persist, as automated aggregation can propagate errors from upstream sources, such as unverified feeds, leading to occasional inaccuracies in reported data without human oversight for fact-checking.

Engagement and Amplification Bots

Engagement and amplification bots constitute a category of automated Twitter accounts engineered to elevate interaction metrics, including likes, retweets, and replies, thereby exploiting platform algorithms to propagate content more widely. These bots prioritize quantitative boosts over substantive contributions, often forming networks that simulate organic popularity to trigger visibility-enhancing mechanisms like trending topics or recommended feeds. Unlike utility bots that provide information, these focus solely on metric inflation to benefit specific accounts or posts. Fake follower networks exemplify this approach, where clusters of dormant or minimally active bots follow target accounts en masse to fabricate high follower counts, signaling credibility and prompting algorithmic prioritization. Services offering such followers, documented in analyses of social media manipulation, can deploy thousands of accounts rapidly, with studies estimating that up to 20% of engagement signals in certain campaigns derive from such artificial inflation. Bridging bots, as classified in a 2023 empirical study of Twitter activity during geopolitical events, further amplify by linking unrelated conversation clusters through cross-retweets or mentions, extending reach across siloed user groups without generating novel content. Observable patterns in bot-driven engagement include synchronized bursts of activity, such as rapid retweet cascades occurring within seconds across hundreds of accounts, which deviate from human temporal distributions. In non-political domains like entertainment discussions, these clusters manifest as abrupt spikes in retweets for viral media clips, where bots replicate identical actions to farm impressions and evade initial detection thresholds. Research on bot-human behavioral disparities highlights how such farming sustains visibility loops, with bots contributing disproportionately to initial traction that draws genuine users. Technically, these bots distinguish themselves through high-volume interactions paired with low behavioral variety, including repetitive retweet patterns, uniform response timings, and limited lexical diversity in replies—traits that contrast with human users' irregular pacing and contextual nuance. Detection frameworks leverage these signals, noting that amplification bots often operate from shared IP ranges or exhibit minimal profile evolution, such as static bios or avatar reuse, enabling sustained metric padding until platform interventions.

Malicious and Spam Bots

Malicious bots on X (formerly Twitter) primarily engage in fraudulent activities such as cryptocurrency scams, phishing attempts through direct messages and replies, and coordinated spam flooding to promote illicit schemes. These bots often impersonate legitimate users or celebrities to lure victims into fake investment opportunities, resulting in substantial financial losses; for instance, global cryptocurrency-related fraud exceeded $2.1 billion by mid-2025, with X identified as a key vector for such scams due to its real-time engagement features. Economic incentives underpin their proliferation, as operators exploit low-cost automation tools to generate revenue through stolen funds, affiliate link clicks, or wallet drains, where the marginal cost of deploying bots via proxies and AI scripts is minimal compared to potential payouts from deceived users. Spam bots contribute significantly to platform clutter by inundating reply threads with irrelevant or deceptive content, such as promotional links to malware or counterfeit goods. In October 2025, X removed 1.7 million such bots specifically targeting reply spam, highlighting the scale of automated disruption aimed at evading user attention for fraudulent gains. Empirical analyses indicate that bots drive a disproportionate share of spam traffic; for example, referral traffic from X to external sites has shown up to 75% bot-generated activity in audited samples, amplifying the economic viability of fraud by inflating perceived engagement for scam networks. These bots' operations are sustained by affiliate fraud models, where automated accounts simulate human interactions to boost click-through rates on malicious links, yielding commissions or direct theft. Studies of bot behavior underscore how such networks prioritize volume over subtlety, with rapid account creation and deployment enabling persistent spam cycles despite platform interventions. The causal link between these incentives and bot persistence is evident in the adaptation of tactics, such as shifting from overt promotion to subtle DM phishing, which exploits user trust for higher conversion rates in scams.

Political and Coordinated Bots

Political and coordinated bots on Twitter refer to automated accounts programmed to influence political discourse, often operating in networks to mimic organic support, amplify partisan messages, or suppress opposing views through tactics like astroturfing. These bots target elections and geopolitical events to shape public opinion, with coordination evident in synchronized posting patterns, shared content, and rapid dissemination of narratives. Empirical studies identify such bots by metrics including high posting frequency, repetitive phrasing, and network clustering, distinguishing them from individual users. During the 2016 US presidential election, social bots generated an estimated 15-20% of election-related tweets, disproportionately amplifying low-credibility articles that favored certain candidates while distorting broader online discussions. Coordinated campaigns, including those linked to foreign actors, retweeted partisan content at volumes far exceeding human users, contributing to polarized echo chambers. Similar patterns emerged in the 2018 midterms, where influential bots employed harassment, misinformation, and polarization strategies in debates over immigration, with networks supporting varied ideological positions rather than a single side. Astroturfing efforts from 2016 to 2020 involved domestic and international actors simulating grassroots activism, as seen in amplified misinformation sharing during the 2020 election cycle. In global events like the 2023 Chinese spy balloon incident amid US-China tensions, tens of thousands of bots engaged in coordinated battles to steer narratives, categorized into general bots for volume flooding, news bots for article propagation, and bridging bots that linked the event to broader political agendas. These bridging bots, in particular, facilitated narrative connections across disparate topics, enhancing opinion shaping in real-time discourse. Empirical reviews highlight that while foreign state-linked operations receive prominent attention, domestic political entities and NGOs deploy comparable bot networks for advocacy amplification, underscoring a broader ecosystem of coordinated influence beyond overhyped interstate interference claims.

Detection and Mitigation

Manual and Behavioral Indicators

Manual indicators for identifying Twitter bots include scrutiny of account profiles for inconsistencies such as the use of default avatars, stock photographs, or stolen images rather than personalized photos. Bios often appear generic, incomplete, keyword-stuffed for search optimization, or absent entirely, lacking the personal details typical of human users. Behavioral patterns reveal further discrepancies, with bots exhibiting continuous activity across all hours without diurnal variations associated with human sleep cycles or work schedules. Posting frequencies for bots average higher than humans, with empirical analyses showing monthly tweet volumes around 303 for bots versus 192 for humans, and extremes exceeding 100 posts per day signaling automation. Repetitive phrasing, identical or near-identical content across posts, and a predominance of retweets over original tweets further indicate scripted behavior. Follower-to-following ratios provide additional manual checks, where bots often display extremes such as following thousands while maintaining few followers, or ratios skewed by mass-following tactics to evade detection thresholds. Humans typically follow around 500 accounts on average, contrasting with bots averaging 1,400 follows. Users can conduct follower audits by manually reviewing lists for clusters of suspicious accounts sharing uniform traits, such as synchronized joining dates or mutual follows without organic engagement. Recent account creation combined with rapid activity spikes serves as a contextual red flag when cross-referenced with these patterns.

Algorithmic and Machine Learning Methods

Algorithmic detection of Twitter bots employs supervised and unsupervised machine learning models trained on engineered features derived from user metadata, behavioral patterns, content, and network structures. Common approaches include random forests, support vector machines, and deep neural networks, which classify accounts based on thresholds for bot-like anomalies such as repetitive posting schedules or low follower diversity. Graph-based methods analyze the Twitter follower-followee networks to identify structural irregularities, such as dense clusters of reciprocal follows or isolated high-outdegree nodes indicative of coordinated campaigns. Graph neural networks (GNNs) propagate features across these edges to capture relational dependencies, outperforming traditional node-level classifiers in benchmarks by modeling propagation patterns. Natural language processing techniques scrutinize tweet content for hallmarks of automation, including lexical repetition, unnatural sentiment distributions, or deviations from human-like syntactic complexity via transformer-based embeddings. Recent integrations leverage large language models to detect generated text, though these struggle against advanced AI outputs mimicking organic discourse. Multimodal frameworks, emerging prominently by 2025, fuse these modalities—profile attributes, textual semantics, and graph embeddings—using architectures like multi-input neural networks or invariant risk minimization to enhance robustness across data types. Evaluated on datasets such as TwiBot-22, which comprises over 22 million nodes and diverse bot subtypes, these models report laboratory accuracies exceeding 90% in controlled settings, surpassing unimodal baselines by 5-10 percentage points. Despite gains, limitations persist due to adversarial adaptations by bot operators, who employ AI to evade detection, rendering static models obsolete as bot behaviors evolve faster than retraining cycles. False positives arise from confounding correlations, such as prolific human users exhibiting bot-like metrics (e.g., high tweet volume or scripted replies), highlighting the need for causal inference to disentangle activity from intent rather than relying on proxy features alone.

Platform Policies and Enforcement

X's platform policies explicitly prohibit automation intended to manipulate conversations, artificially amplify content, or engage in spam, including the creation of fake accounts and malicious automation. These rules, updated periodically since 2017, ban tactics such as coordinated inauthentic behavior, duplicative posting, and using bots to influence trending topics or evade detection. Violations can result in account suspensions or permanent bans, with enforcement guided by transparency reports detailing millions of actions annually. Prior to Elon Musk's 2022 acquisition, Twitter conducted periodic purges targeting spam and fake accounts, suspending accounts en masse for platform manipulation, though specific bot-focused removal figures from 2018-2022 remain limited in public disclosures beyond general transparency data indicating ongoing efforts against millions of violating accounts yearly. Post-acquisition, enforcement intensified in targeted campaigns, such as the removal of 1.7 million bot accounts flooding reply sections with spam on October 13, 2025, as announced by X's Head of Product. Earlier actions included a 2024 purge of accounts violating manipulation rules, reflecting a focus on visible spam amid claims of broader reductions. Musk-era changes, including the introduction of paid verification via X Premium in 2022-2023, aimed to deter low-effort bot creation by requiring financial commitment, with Musk claiming in June 2023 that the platform had eliminated at least 90% of scams. However, independent analyses contrast this, estimating bot prevalence at 24-37% of active users in 2022-2023 and noting potential growth post-acquisition due to reduced barriers and oversight. X maintains that fewer than 5% of monetizable daily active users are spam or fake, per its filings and a 2022 third-party study, yet user reports and 2024-2025 transparency data show persistent high-volume suspensions—over 463 million accounts in the first half of 2024—indicating incomplete efficacy. Significant staff reductions, slashing the workforce from approximately 7,500 to 1,500 by mid-2023 including cuts to trust and safety teams handling moderation, have created empirical gaps in proactive enforcement, exacerbating bot resurgence despite algorithmic reliance. Critics, including former employees and researchers, argue these cuts—reducing moderation staff below peer platforms—led to slower response times and higher tolerance for inauthentic activity, as evidenced by studies showing no net decline in bot-like behaviors or related harms like amplified spam post-2022. While X reports robust suspension volumes, the persistence of bot-driven spam in high-visibility areas underscores limitations in scaling enforcement without proportional human oversight.

Prevalence and Measurement

Empirical Estimates from Studies

A 2017 academic study estimated that up to 15% of Twitter accounts were bots, based on analysis of account behaviors and network patterns. Similar pre-2022 estimates from analysts placed the proportion of active bot accounts at 9-15%, drawing from datasets of user activity and automated posting signatures. These figures relied on supervised machine learning classifiers trained on features like posting frequency, content repetition, and follower ratios, though methodological challenges such as evolving bot evasion tactics introduced uncertainty. More recent analyses indicate an increase in bot prevalence. A March 2025 study published in Scientific Reports examined social media chatter around global events across platforms including Twitter (now X), determining that approximately 20% of contributions originated from bots versus 80% from humans, derived from behavioral profiling of millions of posts. This aligns with a large-scale evaluation of roughly 200 million users, which corroborated the 20% bot estimate through comparative analysis of linguistic patterns, timing anomalies, and interaction graphs. Variations exist by topic, with bot densities reaching 20-30% in political discussions—often due to coordinated amplification—compared to lower rates of 5-10% in entertainment feeds, as measured in community-specific detection models. Detection tools like Botometer, widely used in these studies, face critiques for limitations including high false positive rates (up to 15-20% in some validations) and reduced efficacy against AI-generated bots that mimic human variability in language and timing. These issues stem from reliance on static features vulnerable to adversarial adaptations, prompting calls for hybrid approaches incorporating real-time graph analysis over legacy heuristics. Despite such constraints, convergent evidence from multiple peer-reviewed datasets supports the upward trend in bot proportions, emphasizing the need for ongoing empirical validation.

Factors Influencing Bot Populations

Changes in platform access policies, such as API restrictions and paid verification requirements, have acted as key deterrents to bot proliferation by increasing operational costs and barriers to entry. Prior to 2023, Twitter's free API tier enabled widespread automated account creation and activity, facilitating the deployment of low-effort bots for various purposes. The introduction of paid API tiers starting in February 2023, limiting free access to basic read-only functions, reduced spam and scraping bots reliant on unrestricted data pulls, though it disproportionately impacted benign research tools. Similarly, the shift to subscription-based verification in late 2022 raised costs for mimicking authentic users, curbing some fraudulent networks but allowing persistent actors with resources to adapt by purchasing premium features. Economic incentives drive bot operators toward fraud and spam, where low development costs yield high returns through scams, ad fraud, or market manipulation, contrasting with ideological motives focused on coordinated amplification of narratives. Bots engaged in financial schemes, such as pump-and-dump stock operations, exploit platform reach for profit, often scaling via cheap automation until detection raises risks. Ideological campaigns, however, prioritize persistence over immediate gains, using bots to flood discourse with partisan content or suppress opposition, as seen in networks promoting specific political stances without direct monetization. These motives intersect with platform enforcement; reductions in moderation staff post-2022 correlated with rises in both spam bots and coordinated ideological activity, as weaker oversight diminished removal rates for violating accounts. State-sponsored operations represent a global driver of sophisticated bot networks, with governments across regions deploying automation to shape narratives on domestic and international issues. Russian entities have utilized AI-generated profiles to impersonate users and bolster propaganda, such as support for military actions, sustaining campaigns despite platform purges. Chinese state-linked accounts have coordinated to counter criticism, while actors from Gulf states and other nations employ bots for regional influence, highlighting how geopolitical incentives sustain bot investments independent of platform economics. These efforts thrive amid inconsistent enforcement, as reduced proactive monitoring post-policy shifts allows foreign operations to embed and adapt, amplifying their causal role in population dynamics.

Impacts

Beneficial Effects

Automated accounts on Twitter, often referred to as bots, have demonstrated utility in accelerating the dissemination of critical information during natural disasters and emergencies. For instance, the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre's @LastQuake bot, operational since 2013, rapidly detects and tweets details on global felt earthquakes, enabling users to report shaking intensity and facilitating real-time situational awareness for affected populations. This automation supports crisis management by aggregating user-submitted data on needs and locations post-disaster, which authorities and relief organizations leverage for targeted responses. Bots enhance overall information flow by systematically sharing links to news and events at scales unattainable by individual humans, with suspected automated accounts posting approximately 66% of tweeted links to popular websites between July 27 and September 11, 2017. Examples include dedicated news bots like the CNN Breaking News Bot, which provide instantaneous updates on developing stories, thereby broadening access to timely factual content without reliance on sporadic human posting. Such programmatic aggregation and relay mitigate human limitations in continuous monitoring, ensuring persistent coverage of high-volume data streams. Empirical interventions further illustrate bots' capacity to promote positive behaviors. In a 2014 experiment, researchers deployed 39 bots to propagate 12 positive hashtags related to health tips and activities, reaching 25,000 real users over four months; this resulted in over 100 retweets and likes per hashtag, with virality amplified by repeated exposures from decentralized bot networks, suggesting efficacy for public health campaigns or breaking informational silos. For academic research, bots' high-volume link sharing—such as 66% of links to aggregation sites—supplies structured datasets for analyzing information cascades and network dynamics, comprising a substantial portion of observable Twitter activity amenable to quantitative study. These functions underscore automation's role in scaling efficient, unbiased propagation of verifiable updates.

Detrimental Effects

Twitter bots have been shown to distort trending topics and public sentiment by generating artificial engagement, such as inflated likes, retweets, and replies, which skews algorithmic recommendations and misrepresents genuine user interest. A 2024 study found that automated accounts significantly amplify certain posts to viral status, reducing the platform's reliability as a gauge of organic discourse. This fake engagement not only wastes advertiser resources—estimated in millions annually through fraudulent metrics—but also burdens platform moderation efforts by flooding feeds with low-quality interactions. Bots exacerbate the spread of harmful content, including hate speech, by amplifying divisive narratives through coordinated posting and retweeting. Following the 2022 platform ownership change, empirical analyses documented a 50% increase in overall hate speech volume, coinciding with rises in bot prevalence across categories like spammers and propagandists, though direct causation remains tied to reduced enforcement rather than bot initiation alone. Specific slurs, such as transphobic terms, surged up to 260%, with bots contributing to sustained visibility despite platform policies. On usability, bot-driven spam overwhelms user timelines, diminishing platform value through repetitive promotions, phishing links, and irrelevant replies that erode trust and engagement. Users report increased frustration from "ghost town" effects, where authentic interactions are drowned out, leading to reduced active participation. Bots foster polarization by reinforcing echo chambers via targeted amplification of partisan content, with network models demonstrating that elevated bot centrality heightens misinformation diffusion and divides user opinions. Empirical simulations indicate this effect arises even with low bot penetration, as automated accounts bridge or entrench divides, though deployment occurs bidirectionally across ideological spectrums rather than favoring one side.

Controversies

Claims of Electoral Manipulation

Claims emerged following the 2016 U.S. presidential election attributing Donald Trump's victory to Russian-linked Twitter bots amplifying pro-Trump narratives and disinformation. However, a comprehensive analysis of 14.5 million election-day tweets by researchers at Indiana University Bloomington found that Russian bots accounted for less than 2% of the total conversation volume, with no detectable causal impact on voter behavior or election outcomes. Twitter's retrospective review identified approximately 3,814 accounts linked to the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA), which generated about 10% of the platform's IRA-related activity but represented a minuscule fraction amid millions of domestic automated accounts and genuine users. These findings counter overstated attributions in mainstream media and congressional reports, which privileged foreign interference narratives despite empirical evidence prioritizing organic factors like voter turnout and economic sentiment as primary causal drivers. Subsequent studies reinforced limited bot influence, noting that social media automation primarily reinforces existing echo chambers rather than swaying undecided voters, consistent with political science meta-analyses showing minimal campaign effects on vote choice—typically under 1-2 percentage points. Exposure to IRA content reached only about 1% of U.S. Twitter users during the election period, with diffusion patterns indicating amplification within partisan networks but negligible crossover to swing demographics. Domestic bot operations, including commercial automation and partisan scripts from U.S.-based actors, outnumbered foreign efforts, yet received less scrutiny, reflecting systemic biases in academic and media institutions toward external threats over internal manipulation. In the 2020 U.S. election cycle, similar accusations targeted bots for spreading election fraud claims and polarizing content, but analyses revealed a blend of domestic and foreign automation, with no evidence of decisive sway. Researchers estimated bots comprised up to 25% of debate-related tweets, yet these disproportionately engaged hyper-partisan users, limiting broader electoral impact per diffusion models. Balanced examinations highlighted coordinated domestic astroturfing across ideologies, including left-leaning networks amplifying activist narratives on issues like voter suppression, which mirrored right-leaning efforts in volume but differed in institutional underreporting. Meta-level reviews of 2016-2020 data underscore that bot-driven amplification, while inflating perceived virality, failed to alter aggregate outcomes, as causal chains favored ground-level mobilization over digital noise. For the 2024 cycle, preliminary bot detections showed persistent low-level foreign probing alongside amplified domestic automation, but empirical baselines from prior elections indicate continued marginal influence, with organic socioeconomic drivers—such as inflation and migration—outweighing synthetic signals in voter decision-making. This pattern aligns with first-principles assessment: bots excel at volume but falter in persuasion, as human cognition resists rapid ideological shifts absent repeated real-world reinforcement.

Debates on Platform Responsibility

Prior to Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, the platform's content moderation practices, which included periodic bot purges, were criticized for opacity that obscured the true scale of automated account activity and its integration with human-driven narratives. Internal policies emphasized algorithmic detection and manual review, but selective enforcement often prioritized narrative alignment over comprehensive bot removal, potentially understating prevalence estimates reported to users and regulators. Post-acquisition transparency initiatives, such as the release of internal documents, revealed that pre-existing moderation frameworks had not eradicated bot persistence, instead channeling efforts toward viewpoint-specific interventions that masked systemic vulnerabilities. Philosophical disputes hinge on balancing free expression with governance: aggressive bot elimination risks collateral suppression of legitimate automation, including developer tools for data aggregation or user alerts, which comprise a non-negligible portion of automated activity. Musk positioned reduced moderation as essential for an "everything app" ecosystem where open discourse enables organic truth discernment, arguing that prior overreach equated to de facto censorship under the guise of bot control. This approach posits that platforms function best as neutral conduits, with users adapting via blocking, muting, or community verification rather than relying on fallible top-down algorithms prone to false positives. Section 230 immunity underpins these tensions by shielding platforms from liability for third-party content, including bots, but empirical critiques highlight how this fosters incentives for minimal proactive measures against coordinated automation that amplifies low-quality signals. Reform advocates contend liability adjustments could compel verifiable bot mitigation without dismantling protections, yet opponents warn such changes would escalate moderation biases observed in pre-2022 Twitter, where detection thresholds varied by topic sensitivity. Instead, user-empowerment strategies—like mandatory payments for verification implemented in 2023 to deter spam bots—shift responsibility downward, empirically reducing automated posting volumes through economic disincentives rather than opaque enforcement. This framework aligns with causal dynamics where decentralized vigilance outperforms centralized purges in sustaining platform integrity amid evolving bot tactics.

Evidence of Bias in Bot Narratives

Media coverage and academic analyses of Twitter bots have disproportionately emphasized foreign adversaries, such as Russian state-linked networks, and domestic right-wing actors, often framing bot activity as predominantly conservative or anti-establishment in orientation. This narrative overlooks empirical findings from neutral bot deployment studies indicating that platform amplification mechanisms, rather than inherent bot partisanship, drive visibility disparities across ideological lines. For instance, a 2021 experiment using neutral bots to follow varied news sources revealed algorithmic biases favoring certain echo chambers, but no systematic evidence of bots themselves exhibiting unilateral political skew in content sharing. Further scrutiny reveals symmetric bot engagement in polarized debates, challenging one-sided portrayals. Simulations of bot deployment on opposing sides of opinion spectra demonstrate that balanced inauthentic activity exacerbates polarization equivalently, regardless of ideological direction. In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War from 2022 onward, analyses of Twitter discourse identified coordinated pro-Ukraine bot clusters interacting with human users, amplifying narratives aligned with Western governmental positions—activity that parallels but receives less alarmist coverage than pro-Russian counterparts. Between 2023 and 2025, such bots contributed to "pulsing" patterns in information dissemination, including on accounts like @UAWeapons, which exhibited bot-like retweeting behaviors to boost pro-Western military updates. This selective focus stems from incentives among researchers and outlets, many institutionally inclined toward scrutinizing state or right-leaning threats while underreporting non-state actors, including NGOs or advocacy groups potentially leveraging automation for progressive causes. Peer-reviewed assessments, such as those finding no overall liberal-conservative imbalance in bot-linked content, underscore causal realism: bots serve any coordinated interest with sufficient resources, yet domestic left-leaning networks evade equivalent detection efforts due to lower perceived threat levels in prevailing discourses. Underreporting thus reflects methodological priors favoring high-profile foreign cases over comprehensive audits of symmetric domestic usage.

Recent Developments

Changes Under X Ownership

Following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter on October 27, 2022, the platform implemented several measures aimed at curbing bot activity, including the introduction of paid API access tiers in February 2023, which ended free developer access previously exploited by automated accounts. This shift required payment for API usage, intended to deter low-effort bot creation by imposing financial barriers, with further restrictions in August 2025 limiting free-tier access to likes and follows to combat spam and manipulative behaviors. The rebranding to X in July 2023 coincided with these technical adjustments but did not directly alter bot detection mechanisms, though platform-wide policy emphasis on verification fees for new accounts—such as a small nominal charge proposed in April 2024—sought to filter automated sign-ups. Significant staff reductions post-acquisition, including 15% of the trust and safety team in November 2022 and further cuts to content moderation units by January 2023, contributed to temporary surges in bot-driven spam and inauthentic activity, as reduced human oversight strained automated systems. These layoffs, reducing overall workforce from approximately 8,000 to 1,500 by mid-2023, correlated with reports of diminished moderation efficacy, enabling short-term increases in bot prevalence despite Musk's stated goals. Musk asserted in 2023 that X had eliminated "well over 90%" of scams and bots, a claim reiterated in subsequent updates through 2025, positioning these reductions as evidence of successful reforms. However, empirical analyses contradict this, with a 2024 arXiv study finding increased prevalence of most bot types post-acquisition and a February 2025 PLOS One analysis documenting no substantial decline in inauthentic accounts alongside rises in associated spam metrics. Bot persistence estimates hover around 20-40% in user-facing interactions based on 2024-2025 traffic audits, highlighting a gap between executive statements and observable platform dynamics. In October 2025, X executed a targeted purge removing 1.7 million bots primarily engaged in reply spam, announced on October 12 by Head of Product Nikita Bier, with subsequent focus shifting to direct message spam cleanup. While xAI's Grok chatbot, integrated with X for real-time data access since 2023, supports user-level OSINT tasks like bot indicator detection via profile analysis, its role in core platform-wide bot mitigation remains ancillary rather than transformative. These actions reflect ongoing iterative responses to persistent challenges, though independent studies indicate limited net reduction in overall bot populations since 2022.

Persistent Challenges and Responses

Despite advancements in detection algorithms, sophisticated AI-driven bots continue to evade identification on X (formerly Twitter), contributing to approximately 20% of chatter on global events as of March 2025. These bots exhibit distinct behavioral patterns from human users, such as higher posting frequencies and coordinated amplification, yet incorporate multimodal features like varied text generation and graph-based interactions to mimic authenticity. A 2025 analysis highlights how AI-generated disinformation spreads widely while bypassing traditional filters, with benchmarks showing evasion rates in text-based campaigns. Persistent spam and hate amplification by bots have led users to describe parts of the platform as a "cesspool," with weekly hate speech rates rising about 50% post-2022 ownership change and remaining elevated into 2025. Inauthentic accounts, including those promoting spam, show no significant reduction, undermining discourse quality in political and entertainment discussions. In response, X implemented profile transparency tools in October 2025, displaying account creation dates, username change histories, and locations to aid user verification. The platform also removed 1.7 million reply-spam bots in early October 2025, targeting direct message spam next, as part of ongoing purges exceeding millions annually. Fundamentally, economic and ideological incentives for bot deployment—such as disinformation campaigns and scams—endure, necessitating hybrid human-AI moderation that prioritizes scalability without excessive content suppression. Overreliance on automated systems risks false positives, while under-enforcement perpetuates manipulation; empirical data suggests iterative, evidence-based refinements remain essential.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6459664/
  2. https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/9/1/tyac015/6972135
  3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-96372-1
  4. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.4139
  5. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/9/4105
  6. https://news.iu.edu/live/news/25569-study-twitter-bots-played-disproportionate-role
  7. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/
  8. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/12872/10749?inline=1
  9. https://socialnomics.net/2013/01/23/the-history-of-twitter/
  10. https://apievangelist.com/2023/02/05/twitter-is-the-most-important-api/
  11. https://www.kasada.io/what-are-twitter-bots-and-how-can-you-spot-them/
  12. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-rise-of-twitter-bots
  13. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/23006/4908
  14. https://www.news-future.com/p/how-bots-invaded-social-media-and
  15. https://hbr.org/2015/06/how-bots-took-over-twitter
  16. https://blog.x.com/developer/en_us/a/2012/changes-coming-to-twitter-api
  17. https://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/3263481/twitter-api-third-party-developers
  18. https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/11/Data-Memo-US-Election.pdf
  19. https://cacm.acm.org/research/the-rise-of-social-bots/
  20. https://cacm.acm.org/research/a-decade-of-social-bot-detection/
  21. https://developer.x.com/en/docs/x-api/v1
  22. https://developer.x.com/en/docs/x-api/v1/rate-limits
  23. https://www.tweepy.org/
  24. https://realpython.com/twitter-bot-python-tweepy/
  25. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/how-malicious-twitter-bots-evolve-to-evade-detection-1.4036515
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404820300031
  27. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2023.992654/full
  28. https://viterbischool.usc.edu/news/2017/09/twitter-bots-good-usc-isi-study-reveals-information-spreads-social-media/
  29. https://towardsdatascience.com/limitations-of-twitter-data-94954850cacf
  30. https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/social-media-bots-and-the-amplification-effect/
  31. https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00440-3
  32. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-52471-z
  33. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13278-025-01435-w
  34. https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto/x-bot-problem-crypto-scams/
  35. https://yellow.com/en-US/research/crypto-fraud-in-2025-hits-record-highs-from-youtube-deepfakes-to-pig-butchering-scams
  36. https://spideraf.com/articles/twitter-bot-problem-how-bad-is-it-for-businesses
  37. https://www.ledger.com/academy/topics/security/the-state-of-crypto-scams-in-2025
  38. https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/elon-musk-s-x-removes-1-7-million-bots-flooding-replies-here-s-what-s-on-radar-next-11760316588104.html
  39. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-02-28/twitter-x-fighting-bot-problem-as-ai-spam-floods-the-internet/103498070
  40. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/10/12/164
  41. https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto/x-twitter-bribery-scandal-crypto-scammers-buy-back-banned-accounts/
  42. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19331681.2021.2004287
  43. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7090/5653
  44. https://theconversation.com/how-twitter-bots-affected-the-us-presidential-campaign-68406
  45. https://wapor.org/wp-content/uploads/Zhao-Who-is-Spreading-Misinformation_-Social-Bots-Misinformation-and-2020-U.S.-Presidential-Election.pdf
  46. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2414259-armies-of-bots-battled-on-twitter-over-chinese-spy-balloon-incident/
  47. https://arxiv.org/html/2401.05501v1
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10166499/
  49. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/shss_dcar_etd/185/
  50. https://bytescare.com/blog/how-to-spot-x-twitter-bots
  51. https://arxiv.org/html/2408.06900v1
  52. https://www.propastop.org/en/2025/03/25/the-silent-infiltrators-spot-the-bot-and-see-how-they-shape-social-media/
  53. https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~tysong/files/TWEB19.pdf
  54. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2380/paper_58.pdf
  55. https://www.erinshellman.com/bot-or-not/
  56. https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00499-6
  57. https://postiz.com/blog/bots-following-me-on-twitter-how-to-identify-and-remove-them
  58. https://www.brandshield.com/blog/fake-profiles-ai-powered-scams/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391610020_Twitter_Bot_Detection_Using_Machine_Learning_and_Deep_Learning_Techniques
  60. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6662
  61. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04564
  62. https://twibot22.github.io/
  63. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.03775
  64. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.00037
  65. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44163-025-00448-w
  66. https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/x-automation
  67. https://transparency.x.com/en/reports/platform-manipulation
  68. https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies
  69. https://www.reuters.com/technology/do-spam-bots-really-comprise-under-5-twitter-users-elon-musk-wants-know-2022-05-13/
  70. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/social/elon-musks-x-removes-1-7-million-bots-sow-sets-sights-on-dm-spam/articleshow/124516233.cms
  71. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/04/04/musks-x-says-its-purging-bots-heres-how-the-platform-has-struggled-to-squash-its-bot-problem/
  72. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/09/x-twitter-bots-republican-primary-debate-tweets-increase
  73. https://brothke.medium.com/bots-are-spelling-the-demise-of-x-604e83a9b76b
  74. https://twitter.com/i/grok/share/A5avW6p4PCdDKli0jyyNLcJIG
  75. https://blog.getaura.ai/twitter-layoffs
  76. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-07/elon-musk-cuts-more-twitter-staff-overseeing-content-moderation
  77. https://www.wired.com/story/twitters-moderation-system-is-in-tatters/
  78. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/x-has-significantly-fewer-moderation-staff/714650/
  79. https://x.com/i/grok/share/Z2qYRBvyTMBBh3Bb0yiAaYmhZ
  80. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1381368076367531/posts/1432285694609102/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370216/
  82. https://x.com/i/grok/share/VgrOmNCnPCjDkTzf78XPFAIj4
  83. https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.954.pdf
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7580919/
  85. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/44ca5241-a390-4ed6-a555-bcd3be272a5e/download
  86. https://www.wired.com/story/twitters-api-crackdown-will-hit-more-than-just-bots/
  87. https://techpolicy.press/twitter-api-changes-set-to-disrupt-public-interest-research
  88. https://thewire.in/tech/hate-speech-elon-musk-twitter-x-surge
  89. https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-disinformation
  90. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/politics/china-twitter-disinformation-bots-state-department
  91. https://pomeps.org/tracking-adversaries-and-first-responding-to-disinfo-ops-the-evolution-of-deception-and-manipulation-tactics-on-gulf-twitter
  92. https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/09/CyberTroop-Report19.pdf
  93. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/05/social-media-bot-engagement-communication
  94. https://targetinternet.com/resources/social-media-spam-bots-and-fake-engagement
  95. https://www.clickguard.com/blog/twitter-spam-bots/
  96. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313293
  97. https://theconversation.com/hate-speech-on-x-surged-for-at-least-8-months-after-elon-musk-takeover-new-research-249603
  98. https://viterbischool.usc.edu/news/2025/02/a-platform-problem-hate-speech-and-bots-still-thriving-on-x/
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268022000623
  100. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74032-0
  101. https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/russia-twitter-bots-trump-election/
  102. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/nature_study_trump_bots_twitter.php
  103. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906420116
  104. https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00464-3
  105. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/commentaries/russian-bots-plenty-of-interference-but-little-influence/
  106. https://today.usc.edu/election-2020-twitter-social-media-bots-foreign-interference-usc-study/
  107. https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/one-in-four-debate-tweets-comes-from-a-bot-heres-how-to-spot-them/
  108. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08404-9
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10673860/
  110. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.12603
  111. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.10006
  112. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/what-the-twitter-files-reveal-about-free-speech-and-social-media
  113. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11441/10079
  114. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/elonmusk-and-twitter-the-problem-with-social-media-is-misaligned-recommendation-systems-not-free-speech/
  115. https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2021/04/social-media-bots-and-section-230
  116. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=wmblr
  117. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-25/elon-musks-x-harmful-content-amid-transparcency-report-scrutiny-twitter
  118. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25738-6
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8458339/
  120. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08944393241270382
  121. https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00528-y
  122. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20570473231166157
  123. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/is-there-a-bot-behind-that-tweet
  124. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenaebarnes/2023/02/03/twitter-ends-its-free-api-heres-who-will-be-affected/
  125. https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/22/x-pulls-the-ability-to-like-and-follow-from-its-developer-apis-free-tier/
  126. https://www.pymnts.com/news/social-commerce/2024/elon-musk-says-x-will-charge-fee-to-reduce-bots/
  127. https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/4/23441404/twitter-trust-safety-staff-layoffs-content-moderation
  128. https://twitter.com/i/grok/share/Sh4GBhHOBbN8VSTjCQKvFrLM8
  129. https://arxiv.org/html/2304.04129v3
  130. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1j31jlm/just_how_many_bots_are_on_twitterx_llms_short/
  131. https://securityboulevard.com/2025/08/grokint-using-grok-ai-for-x-osint/
  132. https://phys.org/news/2025-02-speech-rose-musk-acquisition-analysis.html
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12351547/
  134. https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/02/13/study-finds-persistent-spike-in-hate-speech-on-x/
  135. https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/15/twitter_x_bot_show_user_info/
  136. https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/409953/
  137. https://cyberpress.org/ai-driven-bad-bots-now-make-up/
  138. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/02/ai-driven-disinformation/
  139. https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00536-y