Cited by 24Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

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

Morstatter, Fred, Dani, Harsh, Sampson, Justin, Liu, Huan·2016·Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web - WWW 16 Companion

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

Crossref · 10.1145/2872518.2889372

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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

  1. 10.1109/ASONAM.2014.6921610 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/2567948.2576952 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 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

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