Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2009.04885

"Is it a Qoincidence?": An Exploratory Study of QAnon on Voat

Antonis Papasavva·Jeremy Blackburn·Gianluca Stringhini·Savvas Zannettou·Emiliano De Cristofaro
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Online fringe communities offer fertile grounds for users seeking and sharing ideas fueling suspicion of mainstream news and conspiracy theories. Among these, the QAnon conspiracy theory emerged in 2017 on 4chan, broadly supporting the idea that powerful politicians, aristocrats, and celebrities are closely engaged in a global pedophile ring. Simultaneously, governments are thought to be controlled by "puppet masters," as democratically elected officials serve as a fake showroom of democracy. This paper provides an empirical exploratory analysis of the QAnon community on Voat.co, a Reddit-esque news aggregator, which has captured the interest of the press for its toxicity and for providing a platform to QAnon followers. More precisely, we analyze a large dataset from /v/GreatAwakening, the most popular QAnon-related subverse (the Voat equivalent of a subreddit), to characterize activity and user engagement. To further understand the discourse around QAnon, we study the most popular named entities mentioned in the posts, along with the most prominent topics of discussion, which focus on US politics, Donald Trump, and world events. We also use word embeddings to identify narratives around QAnon-specific keywords. Our graph visualization shows that some of the QAnon-related ones are closely related to those from the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and so-called drops by "Q." Finally, we analyze content toxicity, finding that discussions on /v/GreatAwakening are less toxic than in the broad Voat community.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Antonis Papasavva, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Savvas Zannettou, Emiliano De Cristofaro. 2021-02-14. "Is it a Qoincidence?": An Exploratory Study of QAnon on Voat. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04885

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Cross-Section of Stock Returns and AI Exposure

We study 380 trillion tokens of realized AI consumption across more than four hundred LLMs. We build a high-frequency AI factor and show that a long-short strategy based on firms' AI exposure earns significantly positive returns. The average strategy return is larger based on intensive, frontier-oriented AI consumption but smaller based on casual or open-weight usage. Internationally, the return spread is significant in developed countries but insignificant in emerging markets. Examining occupational AI exposure, we find more positive exposure in occupations intensive in nonroutine interactive tasks and more negative exposure in those intensive in nonroutine analytical tasks.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

What fidelity metrics miss: a structural check on synthetic educational data

Secondary use of educational records is increasingly mediated by platforms that share a differentially private synthetic version of a dataset and validate specific findings against the real data on request. The synthetic version is evaluated by comparing summary statistics of each variable, yet reported confirmation rates suggest that such comparisons do not predict which findings survive. We propose a structural check: the number of connected components of a weekly proximity graph over learners, tracked across a term. Across four annual cohorts of lower-secondary study-habit logs, the synthetic versions reproduced the level of this quantity and the shape of the weekly partition, but its variation across the term was between 2.6 and 4.9 times smaller than in the real data at a common working point, without exception, and those changes fell in different weeks: the synthetic cohorts single out the term's examination weeks and the real cohorts do not. We also show that a routine rule for setting the graph threshold makes naive comparisons between two datasets invalid, and illustrate this with an error of our own. The real curves are also distinguishable from marginal-preserving surrogates of themselves in all four cohorts, where three of the four synthetic ones are not, a comparison that needs no real data; these differences trace to what the generator was given.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

AI-Moderated Interviews for Market Research and Digital Twins Calibration

AI-moderated interviews are emerging as a scalable market-research method for generating consumer insights and building consumer "digital twins." Yet it remains unclear whether they match human-moderated interviews or improve on simpler, static data collection methods. In a pre-registered, between-subjects study (N = 317) with three industry partners, we compare AI-moderated (N = 139), human-moderated (N = 24), and static interviews (N = 154). AI moderation matches human moderation in depth, covers more themes, and, holding budget constant, recovers significantly more customer needs than human moderation or static interviews. However, participants sound more emotionally engaged when speaking to a live human. We then create digital twins using interview data and evaluate each twin against the participant's own held-out responses to six real-world marketing stimuli. We find that digital twins created from AI-moderated interviews predict consumer responses better than demographics-only personas. However, the additional richness from AI moderation does not translate into better quantitative predictions compared to static interviews. By analyzing open-ended thoughts generated from humans versus their twins, we find that prediction errors are connected both to differences in (self-reported) thinking styles between twins and humans, and to gaps between training and validation data (i.e., asking questions that are too far out of distribution).

cs.CY↗