Cited by 46Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

Uncovering Fake Likers in Online Social Networks

Badri Satya, Prudhvi Ratna, Lee, Kyumin, Lee, Dongwon, Tran, Thanh, Zhang, Jason (Jiasheng)·2016·Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

Abstract

As the commercial implications of Likes in online social networks multiply, the number of fake Likes also increase rapidly. To maintain a healthy ecosystem, however, it is critically important to prevent and detect such fake Likes. Toward this goal, in this paper, we investigate the problem of detecting the so-called "fake likers" who frequently make fake Likes for illegitimate reasons. To uncover fake Likes in online social networks, we: (1) first collect a substantial number of profiles of both fake and legitimate Likers using linkage and honeypot approaches, (2) analyze the characteristics of both types of Likers, (3) identify effective features exploiting the learned characteristics and apply them in supervised learning models, and (4) thoroughly evaluate their performances against three baseline methods and under two attack models. Our experimental results show that our proposed methods with effective features significantly outperformed baseline methods, with accuracy = 0.871, false positive rate = 0.1, and false negative rate = 0.14.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2983323.2983695

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • The location result supports Facebook's claim that the percentage of accounts that are duplicate or false is meaningfully lower in developed markets such as the United States or United Kingdom and higher in developing markets such as India and Turkey.

    “The location result supports Facebook's claim that 'the percentage of accounts that are duplicate or false is meaningfully lower in developed markets such as the United States or United Kingdom and higher in developing markets such as India and Turkey.' 3”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Badri Satya, P. R., Lee, K., Lee, D., Tran, T., & Zhang, J. (.
Affiliations
  • Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
  • Utah State University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-10-24
Pages
2365-2370
ISSN
2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2535518076
Cited by
46
References
18
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6
FWCI
6.76
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (CNS-1422215, IUSE-1525601, CNS-1553035)
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 › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Keywords
social networking sites, fake account detection, honeypots, user profiling, malicious user detection

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