Cited by 84Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionMedia and Digital CommunicationSocial Media and Politics

Tweets are forever: a large-scale quantitative analysis of deleted tweets

Almuhimedi, Hazim, Wilson, Shomir, Liu, Bin, Sadeh, Norman, Acquisti, Alessandro·2013·Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work

Abstract

This paper describes an empirical study of 1.6M deleted tweets collected over a continuous one-week period from a set of 292K Twitter users. We examine several aggregate properties of deleted tweets, including their connections to other tweets (e.g., whether they are replies or retweets), the clients used to produce them, temporal aspects of deletion, and the presence of geotagging information. Some significant differences were discovered between the two collections, namely in the clients used to post them, their conversational aspects, the sentiment vocabulary present in them, and the days of the week they were posted. However, in other dimensions for which analysis was possible, no substantial differences were found. Finally, we discuss some ramifications of this work for understanding Twitter usage and management of one's privacy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2441776.2441878

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • About 2.4% of tweets posted during 1 week in 2013 by about 300 million users were later deleted, with about half of users deleting at least one tweet from that period.

    “Almuhimedi et al. (2013) that about 2.4% of tweets posted during 1 week in 2013 by about 300 million users, were later deleted (with about half of users deleting at least one tweet from that period).”

    From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Almuhimedi et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Almuhimedi, H., Wilson, S., Liu, B., Sadeh, N., & Acquisti, A.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
Publisher
ACM
Published
2013-02-23
Pages
897-908
OpenAlex
W2032695641
Cited by
84
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
20.40
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • European Commission
  • King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology
  • Army Research Office
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
Twitter, social media privacy, retweets and replies, geotagging

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