Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 357–367 | Cite as

Characterizing user behaviors in location-based find-and-flirt services: Anonymity and demographics

A WeChat Case Study
Article

Abstract

WeChat, both a location-based social network (LBSN) and an online social network (OSN), is an immensely popular application in China. In this paper we specifically focus on a popular WeChat sub-service, namely, the People Nearby service, which is exemplary of a find-and-flirt service, similar to those on Momo and Tinder. Specifically, the People Nearby service reads in the current geographic location of the device to locate a list of other people using WeChat who are in the same vicinity. The user can then request to establish a WeChat friendship relation with any of the users on the list. In this paper, we explore: (i) if one gender tends to use the People Nearby service more than another; (ii) if users of People Nearby are more anonymous than ordinary WeChat users; (iii) if ordinary WeChat users are more anonymous than Twitter users. We also take an in-depth examination of the user anonymity and demographics in a combined fashion and examine: (iv) if ordinary WeChat females are more anonymous than ordinary males; (v) if People Nearby females are more anonymous than People Nearby males. By answering these questions, we will gain significant insights into modern online dating and friendship creation, insights that should be able to inform sociologists as well as designers of future find-and-flirt services.

Keywords

Location-based social networks Anonymity Demographics Find-and-flirt services 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is an extended version of [22]. We would like to thank our 5 labmates for helping classify numerous accounts. This work was supported in part by the NSF under Grant CNS-1318659. This work was also supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant 61571191, in part by the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality under Grant 13JC1403502.

References

  1. 1.
    Barreto M, Ellemers N (2002) The impact of anonymity and group identification on progroup behavior in computer-mediated groups. Small Group Res 33(5):590–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilton N (2014) Tinder, the fast-growing dating app, taps an age-old truth. NY Times 29Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackwell C, Birnholtz J, Abbott C (2014) Seeing and being seen: co-situation and impression formation using grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society, p 1461444814521595Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chesney T, Su D K (2010) The impact of anonymity on weblog credibility. Int J Human-Comput Stud 68 (10):710–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conley T D (2011) Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. J Person Soc Psychol 100(2):309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding Y, Peddinti S T, Ross K W (2014) Stalking beijing from timbuktu: a generic measurement approach for exploiting location-based social discovery. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on security and privacy in smartphones & mobile devices. ACM, pp 75–80Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I H (2009) The weka data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newslett 11(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang J, Qi J, Xu Y, Chen J (2015) A privacy-enhancing model for location-based personalized recommendations. Distrib Parallel Databases 33(2):253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain P, Kumaraguru P, Joshi A (2013) @ i seek’fb. me’: identifying users across multiple online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web companion. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, pp 1259–1268Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lelkes Y, Krosnick J A, Marx D M, Judd C M, Park B (2012) Complete anonymity compromises the accuracy of self-reports. J Exper Soc Psychol 48(6):1291–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li M, Zhu H, Gao Z, Chen S, Yu L, Hu S, Ren K (2014) All your location are belong to us: breaking mobile social networks for automated user location tracking. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc networking and computing. ACM, pp 43–52Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim Ys, Van Der Heide B (2015) Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: the perceived credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp. J Comput-Mediated Commun 20(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu J, Zhang F, Song X, Song Y I, Lin C Y, Hon H W (2013) What’s in a name?: an unsupervised approach to link users across communities. In: Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. ACM, pp 495–504Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nemelka C L, Ballard C L, Liu K, Xue M, Ross K W (2015) You can yak but you can’t hide. In: Proceedings of the third edition of the ACM conference on online social networks. ACMGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peddinti S T, Korolova A, Bursztein E, Sampemane G (2014) Cloak and swagger: understanding data sensitivity through the lens of user anonymity. In: 2014 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, pp 493–508Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peddinti S T, Ross K W, Cappos J (2014) On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog: a twitter case study of anonymity in social networks. In: Proceedings of the second edition of the ACM conference on online social networks. ACM, pp 83–94Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perito D, Castelluccia C, Kaafar M A, Manils P (2011) How unique and traceable are usernames? In: Privacy enhancing technologies. Springer, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Cohn T (2013) Mining user behaviours: a study of check-in patterns in location based social networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference. ACM, pp 306–315Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Souza e Silva A, Frith J (2010) Locative mobile social networks: mapping communication and location in urban spaces. Mobilities 5(4):485–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toch E, Levi I (2013) Locality and privacy in people-nearby applications. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. ACM, pp 539–548Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang G, Wang B, Wang T, Nika A, Zheng H, Zhao B Y (2014) Whispers in the dark: analysis of an anonymous social network. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on internet measurement conference. ACM, pp 137–150Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang R, Xue M, Liu K, Qian H (2015) Data-driven privacy analytics: a wechat case study in location-based social networks. In: Wireless algorithms, systems, and applications. Springer, pp 561–570Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weisskirch R S, Delevi R (2011) Sexting and adult romantic attachment. Comput Human Behav 27 (5):1697–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xue M, Liu Y, Ross K W, Qian H (2015) I know where you are: Thwarting privacy protection in location-based social discovery services. In: 2015 IEEE conference on computer communications workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). IEEE, pp 179–184Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.NYU ShanghaiShanghaiChina
  3. 3.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations