Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2808797.2809292acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reverse Engineering Socialbot Infiltration Strategies in Twitter

Published: 25 August 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Online Social Networks (OSNs) such as Twitter and Facebook have become a significant testing ground for Artificial Intelligence developers who build programs, known as socialbots, that imitate actual users by automating their social-network activities such as forming social links and posting content. Particularly, Twitter users have shown difficulties in distinguishing these socialbots from the human users in their social graphs. Frequently, legitimate users engage in conversations with socialbots. More impressively, socialbots are effective in acquiring human users as followers and exercising influence within them. While the success of socialbots is certainly a remarkable achievement for AI practitioners, their proliferation in the Twitter-sphere opens many possibilities for cybercrime. The proliferation of socialbots in the Twitter-sphere motivates us to assess the characteristics or strategies that make socialbots most likely to succeed. In this direction, we created 120 socialbot accounts in Twitter, which have a profile, follow other users, and generate tweets either by reposting messages that others have posted or by creating their own synthetic tweets. Then, we employ a 2k factorial design experiment in order to quantify the infiltration effectiveness of different socialbot strategies. Our analysis is the first of a kind, and reveals what strategies make socialbots successful in the Twitter-sphere.

References

[1]
"Creating a bot on Wikipedia," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot.
[2]
"Pandora Bots," http://www.pandorabots.com/.
[3]
Z. Chu, S. Gianvecchio, H. Wang, and S. Jajodia, "Detecting automation of twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg?" IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 811--824, Nov. 2012.
[4]
J. Edwards, "There Are 20 Million Fake Users On Twitter, And Twitter Can't Do Much About Them -- Business Insider," http://tinyurl.com/twitter-20M-fake-users, Apr 2013.
[5]
"Let's make candidates pledge not to use bots," http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/01/02/lets-make-candidates-pledge-not-to-use-bots/.
[6]
F. Benevenuto, G. Magno, T. Rodrigues, and V. Almeida, "Detecting Spammers on Twitter," in Proc. Annual Collaboration, Electronic messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference (CEAS), 2010.
[7]
K. Lee, B. D. Eoff, and J. Caverlee, "Seven Months with the Devils: A Long-Term Study of Content Polluters on Twitter," in Proc. AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 2011.
[8]
B. Viswanath, A. Post, K. P. Gummadi, and A. Mislove, "An analysis of social network-based sybil defenses," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 363--374, Aug. 2010.
[9]
E. Ferrara, O. Varol, C. Davis, F. Menczer, and A. Flammini, "The Rise of Social Bots," ArXiv e-prints, Jul. 2014, http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5225.
[10]
J. Messias, L. Schmidt, R. Rabelo, and F. Benevenuto, "You followed my bot! Transforming robots into influential users in Twitter," First Monday, vol. 18, no. 7, July 2013.
[11]
L. M. Aiello, M. Deplano, R. Schifanella, and G. Ruffo, "People are Strange when you're a Stranger: Impact and Influence of Bots on Social Networks," in Proc. AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 2012.
[12]
R. Jain, The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis: Techniques for Experimental Design, Measurement, Simulation, and Modeling. John Wiley and Sons, INC, 1991.
[13]
"Klout --- The Standard for Influence," http://klout.com/.
[14]
Y. Boshmaf, I. Muslukhov, K. Beznosov, and M. Ripeanu, "The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money," in Proc. Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), 2011.
[15]
Z. Coburn and G. Marra, "Realboy: Belieavable Ttwitter Bots," 2008, http://ca.olin.edu/2008/realboy/.
[16]
"Web Ecology Project," http://www.webecologyproject.org/.
[17]
C. Wagner, S. Mitter, C. Körner, and M. Strohmaier, "When social bots attack: Modeling susceptibility of users in online social networks," in Proc. Workshop on Making Sense of Microposts (with WWW), 2012.
[18]
R. Wald, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, A. Napolitano, and C. Sumner, "Which Users Reply to and Interact with Twitter Social Bots?" in Proc. IEEE Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), Nov 2013.
[19]
C. Wagner, V. Liao, P. Pirolli, L. Nelson, and M. Strohmaier, "It's not in their tweets: modeling topical expertise of Twitter users," in Proc. AASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), 2012.
[20]
S. Ghosh, M. B. Zafar, P. Bhattacharya, N. Sharma, N. Ganguly, and K. Gummadi, "On Sampling the Wisdom of Crowds: Random vs. Expert Sampling of the Twitter Stream," in Proc. ACM Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM), 2013.
[21]
G. Barbieri, F. Pachet, P. Roy, and M. D. Esposti, "Markov Constraints for Generating Lyrics with Style," in Proc. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2012.
[22]
D. Jurafsky and J. H. Martin, Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition, 1st ed. Prentice Hall PTR, 2000.
[23]
"Shutting down spammers," Apr 2012, https://blog.twitter.com/2012/shutting-down-spammers.
[24]
M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K. P. Gummadi, "Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy," in Proc. AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 2010.
[25]
"Klout -- Wikipedia," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klout.
[26]
J. D. M. William R. Avison and B. A. P. (Eds.), Mental Health, Social Mirror. Springer, 2007.
[27]
"46% of Twitter users have less than 100 followers - Simplify360," http://simplify360.com/blog/46-of-twitter-users-have-less-than-100-followers/.
[28]
S. Ghosh, B. Viswanath, F. Kooti, N. K. Sharma, G. Korlam, F. Benevenuto, N. Ganguly, and K. P. Gummadi, "Understanding and Combating Link Farming in the Twitter Social Network," in Proc. World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2012.
[29]
E. Kouloumpis, T. Wilson, and J. Moore, "Twitter Sentiment Analysis: The Good, the Bad and the OMG!" in Proc. AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 2011.
[30]
S. Chhabra, A. Aggarwal, F. Benevenuto, and P. Kumaraguru, "Phi.sh/$oCiaL: The Phishing Landscape through Short URLs," in Proc. Collaboration, Electronic messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference (CEAS), 2011.
[31]
J. Ratkiewicz, M. Conover, M. Meiss, B. Gonçalves, S. Patil, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer, "Truthy: Mapping the Spread of Astroturf in Microblog Streams," in Proc. World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2011.
[32]
M. Orcutt, "Twitter mischief plagues mexico's election," http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428286/twitter-mischief-plagues-mexicos-election/, Jun. 2012.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Towards understanding bogus traffic service in online social networks在线社交网络中的虚假流量服务挖掘Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering10.1631/FITEE.230006825:3(415-431)Online publication date: 23-Mar-2024
  • (2024)BotGSL: Twitter Bot Detection with Graph Structure LearningThe Computer Journal10.1093/comjnl/bxae02067:7(2486-2497)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Exploring the Design of Technology-Mediated Nudges for Online MisinformationInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.2301265(1-28)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By
  1. Reverse Engineering Socialbot Infiltration Strategies in Twitter

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ASONAM '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015
    August 2015
    835 pages
    ISBN:9781450338547
    DOI:10.1145/2808797
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 25 August 2015

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    ASONAM '15
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 116 of 549 submissions, 21%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)55
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
    Reflects downloads up to 28 Sep 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Towards understanding bogus traffic service in online social networks在线社交网络中的虚假流量服务挖掘Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering10.1631/FITEE.230006825:3(415-431)Online publication date: 23-Mar-2024
    • (2024)BotGSL: Twitter Bot Detection with Graph Structure LearningThe Computer Journal10.1093/comjnl/bxae02067:7(2486-2497)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Exploring the Design of Technology-Mediated Nudges for Online MisinformationInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2023.2301265(1-28)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2024
    • (2023)Social Bots and Information Propagation in Social Networks: Simulating Cooperative and Competitive Interaction DynamicsSystems10.3390/systems1104021011:4(210)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Covid-19 Aşı Karşıtlığı Tutumunda Çok Yüksek Etkileşime Sahip Trollerin Ortak Özelliklerini Belirlemeye İlişkin Bir AraştırmaA Research On Determining the Common Characteristics of Trolls with Very High Interaction in the Covid-19 Anti-Vaccine AttitudeTürkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi10.17829/turcom.1121642(19-38)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2023
    • (2023)Detecting bots in social-networks using node and structural embeddingsJournal of Big Data10.1186/s40537-023-00796-310:1Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Uneven Hybrid Clickstream Generation Based on Multi-Layer Perceptron2023 Eleventh International Conference on Advanced Cloud and Big Data (CBD)10.1109/CBD63341.2023.00051(247-254)Online publication date: 18-Dec-2023
    • (2023)Who Posts Fake News? Authentic and Inauthentic Spreaders of Fabricated News on Facebook and TwitterJournalism Practice10.1080/17512786.2023.217635217:10(2103-2122)Online publication date: 12-Feb-2023
    • (2023)Bot Detection in Twitter: An OverviewFlexible Query Answering Systems10.1007/978-3-031-42935-4_11(131-144)Online publication date: 7-Sep-2023
    • (2022)Could Social Bots’ Sentiment Engagement Shape Humans’ Sentiment on COVID-19 Vaccine Discussion on Twitter?Sustainability10.3390/su1409556614:9(5566)Online publication date: 5-May-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media