The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tampering with Twitter’s Sample API
Open accessAbstract
Social media data is widely analyzed in computational social science. Twitter, one of the largest social media platforms, is used for research, journalism, business, and government to analyze human behavior at scale. Twitter offers data via three different Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). One of which, Twitter’s Sample API, provides a freely available 1% and a costly 10% sample of all Tweets. These data are supposedly random samples of all platform activity. However, we demonstrate that, due to the nature of Twitter’s sampling mechanism, it is possible to deliberately influence these samples, the extent and content of any topic, and consequently to manipulate the analyses of researchers, journalists, as well as market and political analysts trusting these data sources. Our analysis also reveals that technical artifacts can accidentally skew Twitter’s samples. Samples should therefore not be regarded as random. Our findings illustrate the critical limitations and general issues of big data sampling, especially in the context of proprietary data and undisclosed details about data handling.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Such accounts use tricks such as hijacking “trending” hashtags of keywords to gain visibility (Thomas et al., 2011), and can (purposefully or accidentaly) distort the statistics of datasets collected from social platforms”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Pfeffer et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“However, the Twitter Streaming API is like a black-box with a lack of transparency in the sampling methodology [41,42], yet this is one of the few forms of unfettered and large-scale social media data access to researchers outside social media companies [43] and has been used in prior research, including in health-related studies [35,44,45].”
From Psychosocial Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Large-scale Quasi-Experimental Study on Social Media (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“Recent research has also questioned the credibility of the “1% Twitter stream” aspect, noting that actual sampling data was smaller than what it ideally should have been [41].”
From Psychosocial Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Large-scale Quasi-Experimental Study on Social Media (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008) · now publishers, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1561/9781601981516 · Cited by 6,957
Opinion mining and sentiment analysis
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000011 · Cited by 6,372
VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text
Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 · Cited by 6,087
Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-6804 · Cited by 3,657
Earthquake shakes Twitter users
Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772777 · Cited by 3,631
Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1167742 · Cited by 3,365
Twitter as a Corpus for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Pak, A., & Paroubek, P. (2010) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/47akcj8foo4d · Cited by 2,784
Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P., & Welpe, I. M. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14009 · Cited by 2,647
The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., & Vespignani, A. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248506 · Cited by 2,523
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Elmer G, Langlois G, Redden J (2015) Compromised data: from social media to big data. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York
- Gaffney D, Puschmann C (2013) Data collection on Twitter, pp. 55–67. Peter Lang, New York
- Neuberger C, vom Hofe J, Nuernbergk C (2014) The use of Twitter by professional journalists. results of a newsroom survey in Germany. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M, Puschmann C (eds) Twitter and society. Peter Lang, New York, pp 345–357
- Elmer G, Langlois G, Redden J (2015) Compromised data: from social media to big data. Bloomsbury Publishing, USA
- Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M, Puschmann C Twitter and Society, vol. 89. P. Lang
- de Saint-Exupéry A (1943) The Little Prince. Reynal & Hitchcock, New York
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763
“, 2011), and can (purposefully or accidentaly) distort the statistics of datasets collected from social platforms (Morstatter et al., 2016; Pfeffer et al., 2018).”
BackgroundAssessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics
Gallotti, R., Valle, F., Castaldo, N., Sacco, P., & De Domenico, M. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00994-6 · Cited by 591
Sentiment analysis of Twitter data during critical events through Bayesian networks classifiers
Ruz, G. A., Henríquez, P. A., & Mascareño, A. (2020) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.01.005 · Cited by 348
Psychosocial Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Large-scale Quasi-Experimental Study on Social Media
Saha, K., Torous, J., Caine, E. D., & De Choudhury, M. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22600 · Cited by 166
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kiciman, E. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2886526 · Cited by 763
Metadata
- Authors
- Pfeffer, J., Mayer, K., & Morstatter, F.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pfeffer, Jürgen
- Venue
- EPJ Data Science
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2193-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2904605268
- Cited by
- 135
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 10
- FWCI
- 23.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- EPJ Data Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Technische Universität München
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Big Data Technologies and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- sampling bias, tweets, data manipulation, random sampling, technical artifacts, proprietary data, social media data
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tampering with Twitter’s Sample API. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0178-0
- The paper
- Pfeffer, J., Mayer, K., & Morstatter, F. (2018). Tampering with Twitter’s Sample API. EPJ Data Science. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0178-0
