Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36408456›Full record

ArticleApplied network science2022

Organization and evolution of the UK far-right network on Telegram.

Alexandre Bovet, Peter Grindrod

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied network science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Alexandre BovetDepartment of Mathematics and Digital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Peter GrindrodMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The instant messaging platform Telegram has become popular among the far-right movements in the US and UK in recent years. These groups use public Telegram channels and group chats to disseminate hate speech, disinformation, and conspiracy theories. Recent works revealed that the far-right Telegram network structure is decentralized and formed of several communities divided mostly along ideological and national lines. Here, we investigated the UK far-right network on Telegram and are interested in understanding the different roles of different channels and their influence relations. We apply a community detection method, based on the clustering of a flow of random walkers, that allows us to uncover the organization of the Telegram network in communities with different roles. We find three types of communities: (1) upstream communities contain mostly group chats that comment on content from channels in the rest of the network; (2) core communities contain broadcast channels tightly connected to each other and can be seen as forming echo chambers; (3) downstream communities contain popular channels that are highly referenced by other channels. We find that the network is composed of two main sub-networks: one containing mainly channels related to the English-speaking far-right movements and one with channels in Russian. We analyze the dynamics of the different communities and the most shared external links in the different types of communities over a period going from 2015 to 2020. We find that different types of communities have different dynamics and share links to different types of websites. We finish by discussing several directions for further work.

Indexed as

CommunicationCommunity detectionDirected networkEvolutionExtremismOrganizationSocial mediaSocial network

Identifiers

PMID36408456
PMCPMC9667007
OpenAlexW4309347841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.