14,986 research outputs found
Online Deception Detection Refueled by Real World Data Collection
The lack of large realistic datasets presents a bottleneck in online
deception detection studies. In this paper, we apply a data collection method
based on social network analysis to quickly identify high-quality deceptive and
truthful online reviews from Amazon. The dataset contains more than 10,000
deceptive reviews and is diverse in product domains and reviewers. Using this
dataset, we explore effective general features for online deception detection
that perform well across domains. We demonstrate that with generalized features
- advertising speak and writing complexity scores - deception detection
performance can be further improved by adding additional deceptive reviews from
assorted domains in training. Finally, reviewer level evaluation gives an
interesting insight into different deceptive reviewers' writing styles.Comment: 10 pages, Accepted to Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing
(RANLP) 201
Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization
Increasing evidence suggests that a growing amount of social media content is
generated by autonomous entities known as social bots. In this work we present
a framework to detect such entities on Twitter. We leverage more than a
thousand features extracted from public data and meta-data about users:
friends, tweet content and sentiment, network patterns, and activity time
series. We benchmark the classification framework by using a publicly available
dataset of Twitter bots. This training data is enriched by a manually annotated
collection of active Twitter users that include both humans and bots of varying
sophistication. Our models yield high accuracy and agreement with each other
and can detect bots of different nature. Our estimates suggest that between 9%
and 15% of active Twitter accounts are bots. Characterizing ties among
accounts, we observe that simple bots tend to interact with bots that exhibit
more human-like behaviors. Analysis of content flows reveals retweet and
mention strategies adopted by bots to interact with different target groups.
Using clustering analysis, we characterize several subclasses of accounts,
including spammers, self promoters, and accounts that post content from
connected applications.Comment: Accepted paper for ICWSM'17, 10 pages, 8 figures, 1 tabl
Cashtag piggybacking: uncovering spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter
Microblogs are increasingly exploited for predicting prices and traded
volumes of stocks in financial markets. However, it has been demonstrated that
much of the content shared in microblogging platforms is created and publicized
by bots and spammers. Yet, the presence (or lack thereof) and the impact of
fake stock microblogs has never systematically been investigated before. Here,
we study 9M tweets related to stocks of the 5 main financial markets in the US.
By comparing tweets with financial data from Google Finance, we highlight
important characteristics of Twitter stock microblogs. More importantly, we
uncover a malicious practice - referred to as cashtag piggybacking -
perpetrated by coordinated groups of bots and likely aimed at promoting
low-value stocks by exploiting the popularity of high-value ones. Among the
findings of our study is that as much as 71% of the authors of suspicious
financial tweets are classified as bots by a state-of-the-art spambot detection
algorithm. Furthermore, 37% of them were suspended by Twitter a few months
after our investigation. Our results call for the adoption of spam and bot
detection techniques in all studies and applications that exploit
user-generated content for predicting the stock market
POINTER:a GDPR-compliant framework for human pentesting (for SMEs)
Penetration tests have become a valuable tool in any organisationâs arsenal, in terms of detecting vulnerabilities in their technical defences. Many organisations now also âpenetration testâ their employees, assessing their resilience and ability to repel human-targeted attacks. There are two problems with current frameworks: (1) few of these have been developed with SMEs in mind, and (2) many deploy spear phishing, thereby invading employee privacy, which could be illegal under the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation. We therefore propose the PoinTER (Prepare TEst Remediate) Human Pentesting Framework. We subjected this framework to expert review and present it to open a discourse on the issue of formulating a GDPR- compliant Privacy-Respecting Employee Pentest for SMEs
DNA-inspired online behavioral modeling and its application to spambot detection
We propose a strikingly novel, simple, and effective approach to model online
user behavior: we extract and analyze digital DNA sequences from user online
actions and we use Twitter as a benchmark to test our proposal. We obtain an
incisive and compact DNA-inspired characterization of user actions. Then, we
apply standard DNA analysis techniques to discriminate between genuine and
spambot accounts on Twitter. An experimental campaign supports our proposal,
showing its effectiveness and viability. To the best of our knowledge, we are
the first ones to identify and adapt DNA-inspired techniques to online user
behavioral modeling. While Twitter spambot detection is a specific use case on
a specific social media, our proposed methodology is platform and technology
agnostic, hence paving the way for diverse behavioral characterization tasks
Recommended from our members
Should we tolerate climate denial?
At 18.27 on 12 December 2015, Laurent Fabius brought down his gavel to mark the adoption of the Paris Agreement by nearly 200 countries. Even the most optimistic commentators agree that the scale and speed of the action needed to realize the ambitions of the Agreement are daunting. The history of action on climate change gives us no grounds for optimism. But perhaps, we still have grounds for hope (McKinnon 2014).
Many things could snuff out this fragile hope. In this article, I shall address conduct that explicitly aims to do so: climate change denial (from here on in, âclimate denialâ). By âclimate denial,â I mean the deliberate and deceptive misrepresentation of the scientific realities of climate change, such as the fact that climate change is happening, its anthropogenic causes, and its damaging impacts (Dunlap 2013). What I do not mean by âclimate denialâ are minority or outlier positions on aspects of climate science that lie within the range of normal and healthy disciplinary disagreement. There is an established international network of well-funded organizations devoted to organized climate denial, and their activity is on the increase (Boussalis and Coan 2016). The epicenter of this activity is in the United States, where climate denial has had a significant impact on public opinion (Leiserowitz et al. 2014), and has impeded legislation to tackle climate change (Farrell 2016; Oreskes and Conway 2012).
My question is: should we tolerate climate denial? The âweâ in this question refers to broadly liberal people and legislators in democratic societies, for whom principles of toleration and the virtue of tolerance are of fundamental importance in social and political life. Toleration is a matter of principled self-restraint with respect to conduct that would alter, suppress, or prevent the characteristics or conduct of people opposed by the tolerator (McKinnon 2006; McKinnon and Castiglione 2003). The tolerant agent refrains from interfering with those she dislikes or of whom she disapproves even when she believes that her dislike or disapproval is well-grounded. The agents of toleration can be individual peopleâwhen toleration is likely to manifest as a virtue, or as a civic dispositionâor institutions, when fundamental political principles, the constitution, and laws and their implementation, are framed to respect the limits of toleration (McKinnon 2013). Toleration is difficult to justify and hard to practice at both the personal and institutional level, particularly for liberals (Scanlon 2003a). Liberalism is committed to freedom of association, conscience, worship, movement, and expression as a matter of fundamental principle (Rawls 1971). This delivers a distinctive liberal, permissive vision of the limits of toleration with respect to acts of expression. Given that climate denial is achieved through acts of expression, there is a heavy burden of proof attached to any liberal proposal to be intolerant of climate denial.1
My aim in this short article is to identify the proper site for this debate. What are the questions to be answered in deciding whether climate denial lies beyond the limits of liberal toleration? Although I do not answer these questions, by correctly identifying them I hope to show that the burden of proof is perhaps not as heavy as we initially might have thought
Covert research and adult protection and safeguarding: An ethical dilemma?
Purpose: This paper aims to consider the contentious issue of covert research in studying the social contexts of vulnerable groups. It explores its potential utility in areas where overt strategies may be problematic or denied; and examines and problematises the issue of participant consent. Design/methodology/approach: Using a literature-based review and selected previous studies, the paper explores the uses and abuses of covert research in relation to ethics review proceedings governing social research, with an especial focus on vulnerability. Findings: Findings indicate that although the use of covert research is subject to substantial critique by apparently transgressing the often unquestioned moral legitimacy of informed consent, this carries ethical and practical utility for research related to safeguarding concerns. Arguably covert research enables research access to data likely to reveal abusive and oppressive practices. Research limitations/implications: Covert research assists in illuminating the hidden voices and lives of vulnerable people that may otherwise remain inaccessible. Such research needs to be subject to rigorous ethical standards to ensure that it is both justified and robust. Practical implications: Emphasising the need to consider all angles, questions and positions when addressing the social problem of adult protection and safeguarding. Originality/value: Increasingly social research is treated as being as potentially harmful as medical research. Ethics review tends towards conservative conformity, legitimising methodologies that may serve less social utility than other forms of investigation that privilege the safeguarding of vulnerable people. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Why universities and scientific world should stay away from the tobacco industry. Journey in Big Tobacco deception
Universities are institutions dedicated to improving life through the research and dissemination of knowledge. They facilitates the "peer to peer" communication among young people; the acquisition of knowledge and skills to improve personal and community health; the propagation of healthy lifestyles through the emulation of behavior.
Tobacco industry, through commercial policies, enlist young people and transform them, through dependence, into "loyal customers" for many years. The recent introduction of the "reduced risk" products, (the so-called "cold smoke" for example), are a threat for young people who might underestimate the dangers, not even completely known by the experts.
Universities and Scientific world that turn a blind eye to tobacco market, accepting the advantages offered by grants and donations from tobacco industry, become accomplices in spreading the "tobacco epidemic" because the funding comes directly from the sale of tobacco products. This "dirty" money causes illness, suffering and death.
Universities are invested with an important ethical responsibility to help the world reduce and eliminate the tobacco epidemic, with research, training and information.
Universities should have a policy statement that specifically prohibits academic bodies from accepting tobacco industry funding including grant funding.
In the U.S.A. several scientific journals no longer publish tobacco industry- supported researches
- âŠ