This text discusses the critical role of social listening tools in the-analysis of disinformation and online harms by researchers, highlighting their importance but also pointing out potential pitfalls. It includes a commentary on the limitations of these tools and suggests strategies to address them.
—
###Introduction
Social listening tools, which enable researchers to gather and analyze user-generated content on online platforms such as social media, have become essential tools for assessing disinformation and online harms. These tools, which include open-source software like SpiderFoot and proprietary solutions like Meltwater and Cision, allow analysts to act as informants, conducting research and intelligence monitoring. However, their use carries risks, particularly if they are vulnerable to changes in social media platforms or fall out of operational readiness.
—
###The Nature of Social Listening Tools
The commentary outlines a classification of social listening tools into four main types: free and open-source tools (e.g., SpiderFoot), built on proprietary platforms (e.g., CrowdTangle), proprietary tools (e.g., Meltwater), and custom tools tailored to specific research needs (e.g., CATOS). While these tools are crucial for analysts, their reliance on these systems increases the risk of disruptions, as they may depend on APIs of social media platforms like Twitter or Meta, which can change predictably.
—
###Pitfalls and Challenges with Social Listening Tools
One of the significant risks associated with social listening tools is their susceptibility to changes in online platforms. For instance, Twitter’s API, once freely accessible, was shut down under Elon Musk’s ownership, effectively erasing access to any third-party tools that depend on it, including those from Meltwater and Cision. Similarly, software like CrowdTangle, used by some research teams on X (a renamed version of Twitter), relied on Twitter’s API and loses its functionality once Musk acquired X.
Another challenge is the potential for tools to face unfavourable reforms. For example, if a tool like GetOldTweets is modified under a paywall after decades of use, it risks functionality that could exacerbate online harms. Additionally, some proprietary tools may become non-reusable due to technical limitations, introducing uncertainty for researchers basing their findings on triages of data.
—
###Managing the Risks
To mitigate these risks, the commentary advises researchers to adopt redundancy and regular risk assessments. For instance, collaborating with multiple developers or using tools from different developers yields a more reliable dataset. Furthermore, conducting periodic assessments for tool compatibility can help detect and address issues that may arise from changes in platforms’ APIs.
—
###Conclusion
While social listening tools are indispensable for studying disinformation and online harms, their reliance on current and potentially vulnerable technologies poses significant risks. Researchers must stay informed about the evolving state of their tools and adapt to changes in social media platforms to ensure their continued usability and safety. Addressing these challenges is crucial for their reliability and effectiveness in achieving their research objectives.