The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Can One Tamper with the Sample API?: Toward Neutralizing Bias from Spam and Bot Content
Abstract
While social media mining continues to be an active area of research, obtaining data for research is a perennial problem. Even more, obtaining unbiased data is a challenge for researchers who wish to study human behavior, and not technical artifacts induced by the sampling algorithm of a social media site. In this work, we evaluate one social media data outlet that gives data to its users in the form of a stream: Twitter's Sample API. We show that in its current form, this API can be poisoned by bots or spammers who wish to promote their content, jeopardizing the credibility of the data collected through this API. We design a proof-of-concept algorithm that shows how malicious users could increase the probability of their content appearing in the Sample API, thus biasing the content towards spam and bot content and harming the representativity of this data outlet.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Bots and spamming accounts use tricks such as hijacking "trending" hashtags or keywords to gain visibility, and can distort statistics of datasets collected from social platforms.
“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 Morstatter et al., 2016
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 10.1109/ASONAM.2014.6921610 · DOI
- 10.1145/2567948.2576952 · DOI · Paper page
- F. Morstatter, J. Pfeffer, H. Liu, and K. M. Carley. Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparing Data from Twitter's Streaming API with Twitter's Firehose. In ICWSM, pages 400--408, 2013.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective
Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3137597.3137600 · Cited by 3,304
Self-citationSocial 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
“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 (Morstatter et al., 2016; Pfeffer et al., 2018).”
MethodTampering with Twitter’s Sample API
Pfeffer, J., Mayer, K., & Morstatter, F. (2018) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0178-0 · Cited by 135
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Morstatter, F., Dani, H., Sampson, J., & Liu, H.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web - WWW 16 Companion
- Published
- 2016-04-11
- Pages
- 81-82
- OpenAlex
- W2340204089
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 4.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N000141410095)
- Department of Defense under the MINERVA Initiative through the Office of Naval Research (N00014131083)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- data poisoning, spam, sampling bias, data representativeness, data credibility
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