Listen to the article
Social listening tools have emerged as crucial resources for researchers investigating disinformation and online harms, but they come with significant limitations that can impact national security efforts, experts warn.
These digital tools enable analysts to gather and analyze vast amounts of user-generated content across social media platforms, providing critical insights into disinformation campaigns and harmful online content. However, their effectiveness is increasingly threatened by platform policy changes and technical vulnerabilities.
“While these tools are undoubtedly essential for the researcher’s toolkit, there are inherent pitfalls that may arise from their use, which could have negative repercussions for national security,” notes Tan E-Reng, Research Analyst at the Centre of Excellence for National Security in Singapore.
The landscape of social listening tools currently comprises four main categories. Free and open-source tools like SpiderFoot allow automated data collection and analysis, while platform-specific tools like Meta’s now-defunct CrowdTangle previously offered researchers direct access to platform data and analytics.
Third-party proprietary solutions from companies like Meltwater, Cision, and Brandwatch provide cross-platform monitoring capabilities with AI-driven sentiment analysis. Meanwhile, specialized research organizations often develop custom tools for monitoring fringe websites and services not covered by commercial offerings.
The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab exemplifies how researchers leverage these tools, having used CrowdTangle to investigate disinformation operations worldwide before Meta discontinued the service.
A significant vulnerability affecting all types of social monitoring tools is their dependence on platform Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). When social media companies modify these interfaces, the tools’ functionality can be severely compromised or eliminated entirely.
Twitter (now X) provides a cautionary example. Once a valuable resource with freely accessible API data that supported numerous third-party monitoring tools, the platform’s policy changes under Elon Musk’s ownership have dramatically restricted research capabilities. X discontinued free API access and dropped support for legacy versions, hampering investigations into harmful content on the platform.
“X, upon Musk’s acquisition, announced that it would drop support for legacy versions of its API and discontinue free access, a move many say will negatively affect research into harmful content and disinformation,” Tan explains.
Even well-resourced commercial tools face challenges keeping pace with the evolving digital landscape. When platforms revise their technical architecture, third-party monitoring tools may suddenly lose access or functionality, compromising researchers’ ability to track disinformation campaigns effectively.
To mitigate these risks, experts recommend adopting redundancy strategies. Research teams should utilize multiple tools from different developers simultaneously, triangulating insights rather than relying on a single source.
“Research teams could ensure that multiple tools from different developers are used in parallel, and insights are drawn not from the singular output of any one tool, but rather aggregated and triangulated from all of them,” Tan advises.
Regular risk assessments of monitoring tools should also be conducted to evaluate their continued reliability. Signs of potential disruption might include policy changes like those at X, where the sudden introduction of API paywalls signaled increased risk for dependent research tools.
Despite these challenges, social listening tools remain indispensable for monitoring online disinformation and harmful content. However, researchers must maintain awareness of the tools’ limitations and develop contingency plans for when technical or policy changes disrupt their functionality.
As platform policies continue to evolve and the digital landscape grows increasingly complex, the research community’s ability to maintain effective monitoring capabilities will depend on adaptability, redundancy, and continuous innovation in their approach to social listening technologies.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
Interesting to see the potential national security implications of social listening tool limitations. This underscores the importance of carefully evaluating these tools and their vulnerabilities, to ensure they are used effectively and safely.
This article provides a valuable overview of the social listening tool landscape and the key considerations around their use. Balancing the benefits and risks will be an ongoing challenge, but one that must be addressed to combat online harms effectively.
The article highlights the need for a nuanced approach to social listening tools. While they are essential for researchers, the limitations and vulnerabilities outlined are concerning and must be carefully addressed to ensure their responsible use.
While social listening tools are essential for researchers, the warnings about their limitations and potential national security impacts are worth heeding. Careful evaluation and responsible development of these tools will be critical going forward.
The potential negative repercussions for national security due to the limitations of social listening tools is a concerning point. Disinformation and online harms pose real threats, so it’s crucial that these tools are developed and used responsibly.
The landscape of social listening tools seems to be rapidly evolving, with a mix of free, platform-specific, and proprietary solutions. It will be interesting to see how this market develops and which tools emerge as the most effective and secure options.
This article highlights the complex trade-offs involved in using social listening tools to combat online harms. Maximizing their benefits while mitigating risks will require ongoing collaboration between tool developers, researchers, and policymakers.
Social listening tools seem like a double-edged sword in combating online harms. While they provide valuable insights, the limitations and vulnerabilities highlighted are concerning. Careful consideration is needed to maximize their benefits while mitigating potential security risks.
Agreed. The tools’ effectiveness is threatened by platform policy changes and technical issues, which could undermine their usefulness for researchers and security analysts.
It’s interesting to see the different categories of social listening tools available, from free open-source options to proprietary platform-specific solutions. Each likely has its own tradeoffs in terms of capabilities and access.
Yes, the diversity of tools reflects the evolving needs and challenges in this space. Researchers will have to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of each option to find the best fit for their requirements.
The diversity of social listening tools reflects the evolving needs in this space, but also the challenges in finding the right balance between capabilities, access, and security. Responsible development and use of these tools will be crucial.
This article highlights the importance of social listening tools in the fight against disinformation, but also the need to address their inherent vulnerabilities. Balancing the benefits and risks will be an ongoing challenge for researchers and policymakers.