Facebook and Twitter fast became major electoral battlegrounds in the 2017 general election. It is here that campaigns had the potential to be won or lost. Young voters in particular turned to social media as their primary source of political news and information.

Worryingly, multiple reports noted that political parties used controversial micro-targeting techniques to reach key demographics with highly personalised messages. Independent research of how these sites are used by political actors during election periods is therefore vital in order to provide a level playing field, and to allow voters to understand the techniques that are used to influence their opinions.

Twitter gives researchers access to 1% of its daily data for free via the streaming API. Our team at the Oxford Internet Institute used this to investigate the political conversation on the platform in the lead-up to the UK general election. We examined the use of bots to disseminate political content as well as the spread of junk news across social media.

Labour won social media election, digital strategists say Read more

Our data memos showed that conversation about the Labour party on Twitter grew over time and dominated election-related traffic on the platform. Labour party-associated hashtags generated about 62% of party-specific traffic compared to 17% associated with Conservative party hashtags. In addition, data from the Democracy Club showed that 88% of Labour candidates were registered with an account, in comparison to 73% of Conservative candidates. We also showed that the number of automated high-frequency accounts, or “bots”, tweeting about UK politics increased as the campaign developed. Our most recent memo, just days before the election, identified over 500 accounts behaving in this manner, more than double the number present in early May. Importantly, the vast majority of these were distributing content about both major political parties.

There is, however, evidence to suggest that some of the more targeted and controversial activity may have been occurring on Facebook, not Twitter. Given that over half of the UK population uses Facebook, the platform has a reach that traditional media companies can only dream of. Unlike Twitter, Facebook does not provide access to its data.

While we may have already lost the battle to fully understand the influence of Facebook in the 2017 election, we appeal to the company to become a responsible member of future elections. There are three ways Facebook could be more transparent.

First, we urge Facebook to disclose the extent to which political parties can purchase sensitive user data that allows them to micro-target key demographics. During the election campaign, there were worrying reports of “dark-ads” sending tailored messages to play on the concerns of individual voters in marginal seats. A “like” or a “share” during the EU referendum became a political bargaining chip that had the potential to be bought and sold with scant regard to data protection, regulation or personal privacy.

Social media networks need to acknowledge their role as influential news providers

Second, Facebook should work further to assist governments in detecting attempted interference by foreign actors. This is a challenge currently hampered by lack of access to the required information, which prevents attribution to any potential foreign influencers.

Finally, the hyper-polarising effect of living our digital lives within politically distinct echo chambers needs to be addressed. Recent political events in western democracies have divided electorates – the highly curated version of reality experienced on social media only serves to magnify this. We are all experiencing a separate version of the world, resulting in little empathy for alternative views. Facebook must do more to encourage exposure to a range of political conversations.

Social media networks need to mature from identifying solely as technology firms and acknowledge their role as influential news providers. Additionally, Facebook should do more to cooperate with election officials, civil society groups, and researchers to allow for proper scrutiny of campaigns and political behaviour online.

During the election campaign, Twitter fostered the kinds of election conversations we have come to expect from our previous research. Users shared mostly good-quality information, interwoven with a small proportion of junk news, under a looming spectre of bot activity. On Facebook, this could be a different story. We may never know.