Badly Evolved? Exploring Long-Surviving Suspicious Users on Twitter

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10539)

Abstract

We study the behavior of long-lived eventually suspended accounts in social media through a comprehensive investigation of Arabic Twitter. With a threefold study of (i) the content these accounts post; (ii) the evolution of their linguistic patterns; and (iii) their activity evolution, we compare long-lived users versus short-lived, legitimate, and pro-ISIS users. We find that these long-lived accounts – though trying to appear normal – do exhibit significantly different behaviors from both normal and other suspended users. We additionally identify temporal changes and assess their value in supporting discovery of these accounts and find out that most accounts have actually being “hiding in plain sight” and are detectable early in their lifetime. Finally, we successfully apply our findings to address a series of classification tasks, most notably to determine whether a given account is a long-surviving account.

References

  1. 1.
    Benevenuto, F., Magno, G., Rodrigues, T., Almeida, V.: Detecting spammers on Twitter. In: Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-abuse and Spam Conference (CEAS), vol. 6, p. 12 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, J.M., Morgan, J.: The ISIS Twitter census: defining and describing the population of ISIS supporters on twitter. In: The Brookings Project on US Relations with the Islamic World, vol. 3, no. 20 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3(Jan), 993–1022 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B.: Information credibility on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 675–684. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M.R., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: Political polarization on Twitter. ICWSM 133, 89–96 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., West, R., Jurafsky, D., Leskovec, J., Potts, C.: No country for old members: user lifecycle and linguistic change in online communities. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 307–318. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, C.A., Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Botornot: a system to evaluate social bots. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pp. 273–274. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrara, E., Wang, W.-Q., Varol, O., Flammini, A., Galstyan, A.: Predicting online extremism, content adopters, and interaction reciprocity. In: Spiro, E., Ahn, Y.-Y. (eds.) SocInfo 2016. LNCS, vol. 10047, pp. 22–39. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47874-6_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grier, C., Thomas, K., Paxson, V., Zhang, M.: @ spam: the underground on 140 characters or less. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 27–37. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu, X., Tang, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, H.: Social spammer detection in microblogging. In: Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz, S.: Estimation of probabilities from sparse data for the language model component of a speech recognizer. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Sig. Process. 35(3), 400–401 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    King, G., Pan, J., Roberts, M.E.: How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. Harvard University (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, K., Caverlee, J., Webb, S.: Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots+ machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 435–442. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, P.C., Huang, P.M.: A study of effective features for detecting long-surviving twitter spam accounts. In: 2013 15th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), pp. 841–846. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lotan, G., Graeff, E., Ananny, M., Gaffney, D., Pearce, I., et al.: The Arab spring| the revolutions were tweeted: information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Int. J. Commun. 5, 31 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meng, X., Bradley, J., Yavuz, B., Sparks, E., Venkataraman, S., Liu, D., Freeman, J., Tsai, D., Amde, M., Owen, S., et al.: Mllib: machine learning in apache spark. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17(34), 1–7 (2016)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mustafaraj, E., Metaxas, P.T.: From obscurity to prominence in minutes: political speech and real-time search. In: Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M.R., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. ICWSM 11, 297–304 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song, J., Lee, S., Kim, J.: Spam filtering in Twitter using sender-receiver relationship. In: Sommer, R., Balzarotti, D., Maier, G. (eds.) RAID 2011. LNCS, vol. 6961, pp. 301–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23644-0_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Starbird, K., Palen, L.: (How) will the revolution be retweeted?: information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 7–16. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., Vigna, G.: Detecting spammers on social networks. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 1–9. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas, K., Grier, C., Paxson, V.: Adapting social spam infrastructure for political censorship. In: LEET (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomas, K., Grier, C., Song, D., Paxson, V.: Suspended accounts in retrospect: an analysis of Twitter spam. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 243–258. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, A.H.: Don’t follow me: spam detection in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wei, W., Joseph, K., Liu, H., Carley, K.M.: The fragility of Twitter social networks against suspended users. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015, pp. 9–16. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang, C., Harkreader, R.C., Gu, G.: Die free or live hard? Empirical evaluation and new design for fighting evolving Twitter spammers. In: Sommer, R., Balzarotti, D., Maier, G. (eds.) RAID 2011. LNCS, vol. 6961, pp. 318–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23644-0_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zaharia, M., Chowdhury, M., Das, T., Dave, A., Ma, J., McCauley, M., Franklin, M.J., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: Resilient distributed datasets: a fault-tolerant abstraction for in-memory cluster computing. In: Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, p. 2. USENIX Association (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations