Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3465336.3475108acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

DECIFE: Detecting Collusive Users Involved in Blackmarket Following Services on Twitter

Published: 29 August 2021 Publication History

Abstract

The popularity of Twitter has fostered the emergence of various fraudulent user activities - one such activity is to artificially bolster the social reputation of Twitter profiles by gaining a large number of followers within a short time span. Many users want to gain followers to increase the visibility and reach of their profiles to wide audiences. This has provoked several blackmarket services to garner huge attention by providing artificial followers via the network of agreeable and compromised accounts in a collusive manner. Their activity is difficult to detect as the blackmarket services shape their behavior in such a way that users who are part of these services disguise themselves as genuine users. In this paper, we propose DECIFE, a framework to detect collusive users involved in producing 'following' activities through blackmarket services with the intention to gain collusive followers in return. We first construct a heterogeneous user-tweet-topic network to leverage the follower/followee relationships and linguistic properties of a user. The heterogeneous network is then decomposed to form four different subgraphs that capture the semantic relations between the users. An attention-based subgraph aggregation network is proposed to learn and combine the node representations from each subgraph. The combined representation is finally passed on to a hypersphere learning objective to detect collusive users. Comprehensive experiments on our curated dataset are conducted to validate the effectiveness of DECIFE by comparing it with other state-of-the-art approaches. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to detect collusive users involved in blackmarket 'following services' on Twitter.

References

[1]
Anupama Aggarwal, Saravana Kumar, Kushagra Bhargava, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2018. The follower count fallacy: detecting Twitter users with manipulated follower count. In SAC. ACM, 1748--1755.
[2]
Anupama Aggarwal and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2015. What they do in shadows: Twitter underground follower market. In IEEE PST. 93--100.
[3]
Udit Arora, Hridoy Sankar Dutta, Brihi Joshi, Aditya Chetan, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2020. Analyzing and Detecting Collusive Users Involved in Blackmarket Retweeting Activities. ACM TIST, Vol. 11, 3 (2020), 1--24.
[4]
Mikel Artetxe and Holger Schwenk. 2019. Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 7 (2019), 597--610.
[5]
Jacopo Castellini, Valentina Poggioni, and Giulia Sorbi. 2017. Fake Twitter Followers Detection by Denoising Autoencoder. In WI. 195--202.
[6]
Aditya Chetan, Brihi Joshi, Hridoy Sankar Dutta, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2019. CoReRank: Ranking to Detect Users Involved in Blackmarket-Based Collusive Retweeting Activities. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 330--338.
[7]
Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2014. A Fake Follower Story: improving fake accounts detection on Twitter. IIT-CNR, Tech. Rep. TR-03 (2014).
[8]
Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2015. Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers. Decision Support Systems (2015).
[9]
Carlo De Micheli and Andrea Stroppa. 2013. Twitter and the underground market. In 11th Nexa Lunch Seminar, Vol. 22. 1--6.
[10]
Hridoy Sankar Dutta and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2019. Blackmarket-Driven Collusion Among Retweeters--Analysis, Detection, and Characterization. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 15 (2019), 1935--1944.
[11]
Hridoy Sankar Dutta and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2020. Blackmarket-driven collusion on online media: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.13102 (2020).
[12]
Hridoy Sankar Dutta, Aditya Chetan, Brihi Joshi, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2018. Retweet us, we will retweet you: Spotting collusive retweeters involved in blackmarket services. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 242--249.
[13]
Hridoy Sankar Dutta, Vishal Raj Dutta, Aditya Adhikary, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2020 a. HawkesEye: Detecting fake retweeters using Hawkes process and topic modeling. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 15 (2020), 2667--2678.
[14]
Hridoy Sankar Dutta, Mayank Jobanputra, Himani Negi, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2020 b. Detecting and analyzing collusive entities on YouTube. arxiv:2005.06243 (2020).
[15]
Shehroze Farooqi, Fareed Zaffar, Nektarios Leontiadis, and Zubair Shafiq. 2017. Measuring and mitigating oauth access token abuse by collusion networks. In IMC. 355--368.
[16]
Emilio Ferrara, Onur Varol, Clayton Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2016. The Rise of Social Bots. Commun. ACM (2016), 96--104.
[17]
Meng Jiang, Peng Cui, Alex Beutel, Christos Faloutsos, and Shiqiang Yang. 2014. Catchsync: catching synchronized behavior in large directed graphs. In ACM SIGKDD .
[18]
Haewoon Kwak, Hyunwoo Chun, and Sue Moon. 2011. Fragile online relationship: a first look at unfollow dynamics in twitter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1091--1100.
[19]
Lee, Mahmud, Chen, Zhou, and Nichols. 2015. Who will retweet this? detecting strangers from twitter to retweet information. ACM TIST (2015).
[20]
Huayi Li, Arjun Mukherjee, Bing Liu, Rachel Kornfield, and Sherry Emery. 2014. Detecting Campaign Promoters on Twitter Using Markov Random Fields (ICDM '14). 290--299.
[21]
Yuli Liu, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2016. Pay Me and I'll Follow You: Detection of Crowdturfing Following Activities in Microblog Environment. In IJCAI .
[22]
Marco Lui and Timothy Baldwin. 2012. langid. py: An off-the-shelf language identification tool. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations. 25--30.
[23]
Ashish Mehrotra, Mallidi Sarreddy, and Sanjay Singh. 2016. Detection of fake Twitter followers using graph centrality measures. In IEEE IC3I. 499--504.
[24]
Marti Motoyama, Damon McCoy, Kirill Levchenko, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M Voelker. 2011. An analysis of underground forums. In ACM SIGCOMM. ACM, 71--80.
[25]
Lukas Ruff, Robert Vandermeulen, Nico Goernitz, Lucas Deecke, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Alexander Binder, Emmanuel Müller, and Marius Kloft. 2018. Deep one-class classification. In International conference on machine learning. 4393--4402.
[26]
Neil Shah, Alex Beutel, Brian Gallagher, and Christos Faloutsos. 2014. Spotting suspicious link behavior with fbox: An adversarial perspective. In IEEE ICDM. 959--964.
[27]
Neil Shah, Hemank Lamba, Alex Beutel, and Christos Faloutsos. 2017. The Many Faces of Link Fraud. In IEEE ICDM. 1069--1074.
[28]
H. Shen and X. Liu. 2015. Detecting Spammers on Twitter Based on Content and Social Interaction. In 2015 International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers. 413--417.
[29]
Yi Shen, Jianjun Yu, Kejun Dong, and Kai Nan. 2014. Automatic fake followers detection in chinese micro-blogging system. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 596--607.
[30]
Monika Singh, Divya Bansal, and Sanjeev Sofat. 2016. Followers or fradulents? An analysis and classification of Twitter followers market merchants. Cybernetics and Systems, Vol. 47, 8 (2016), 674--689.
[31]
Jonghyuk Song, Sangho Lee, and Jong Kim. 2015. Crowdtarget: Target-based detection of crowdturfing in online social networks. In ACM SIGSAC. 793--804.
[32]
Gianluca Stringhini, Manuel Egele, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. 2012. Poultry markets: on the underground economy of twitter followers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 42, 4 (2012), 527--532.
[33]
Gianluca Stringhini, Gang Wang, Manuel Egele, Christopher Kruegel, Giovanni Vigna, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. 2013. Follow the green: growth and dynamics in twitter follower markets. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference. 163--176.
[34]
Yizhou Sun and Jiawei Han. 2013. Mining heterogeneous information networks: a structural analysis approach. Acm Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter, Vol. 14, 2 (2013), 20--28.
[35]
Kurt et all Thomas. 2013. Trafficking Fraudulent Accounts: The Role of the Underground Market in Twitter Spam and Abuse. In USENIX Symposium. 195--210.
[36]
Minjie Wang, Lingfan Yu, Da Zheng, Quan Gan, Yu Gai, Zihao Ye, Mufei Li, Jinjing Zhou, Qi Huang, Chao Ma, et al. 2019. Deep Graph Library: Towards Efficient and Scalable Deep Learning on Graphs. (2019).
[37]
Janith Weerasinghe, Bailey Flanigan, Aviel Stein, Damon McCoy, and Rachel Greenstadt. 2020. The Pod People: Understanding Manipulation of Social Media Popularity via Reciprocity Abuse. In The WebConf. 1874--1884.
[38]
Jamaal Hay Wenpeng Yin and Dan Roth. 2019. Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approach. In EMNLP. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00161
[39]
Yi Zhang and Jianguo Lu. 2016. Discover millions of fake followers in Weibo. Social Network Analysis and Mining, Vol. 6, 1 (2016), 16.
[40]
Zhedi Zhang, Futai Zou, Li Pan, Bei Pei, and Jianhua Li. 2016. Detection of zombie followers in SINA Weibo. In IEEE ICCC. 2476--2480.
[41]
Zhen-hui Zhu, Yang Zhi, and Ya-fei Dai. 2016. A New Approach to Detect User Collusion Behavior in Online QA System. In CNCT. Atlantis Press.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Are We All in a Truman Show? Spotting Instagram Crowdturfing through Self-Training2023 32nd International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN)10.1109/ICCCN58024.2023.10230134(1-10)Online publication date: Jul-2023
  • (2023)DAC-BiNet: Twitter crime detection using deep attention convolutional bi-directional aquila optimal networkMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-023-17250-483:15(44121-44145)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2023
  • (2022)Blackmarket-Driven Collusion on Online Media: A SurveyACM/IMS Transactions on Data Science10.1145/35179312:4(1-37)Online publication date: 17-May-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. DECIFE: Detecting Collusive Users Involved in Blackmarket Following Services on Twitter

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HT '21: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
      August 2021
      306 pages
      ISBN:9781450385510
      DOI:10.1145/3465336
      • General Chair:
      • Owen Conlan,
      • Program Chair:
      • Eelco Herder
      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 ACM 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: 29 August 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. OSNs
      2. blackmarket
      3. collusion
      4. followers
      5. twitter

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      HT '21
      Sponsor:
      HT '21: 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
      August 30 - September 2, 2021
      Virtual Event, USA

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 378 of 1,158 submissions, 33%

      Upcoming Conference

      HT '24
      35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
      September 10 - 13, 2024
      Poznan , Poland

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)19
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
      Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2023)Are We All in a Truman Show? Spotting Instagram Crowdturfing through Self-Training2023 32nd International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN)10.1109/ICCCN58024.2023.10230134(1-10)Online publication date: Jul-2023
      • (2023)DAC-BiNet: Twitter crime detection using deep attention convolutional bi-directional aquila optimal networkMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-023-17250-483:15(44121-44145)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2023
      • (2022)Blackmarket-Driven Collusion on Online Media: A SurveyACM/IMS Transactions on Data Science10.1145/35179312:4(1-37)Online publication date: 17-May-2022
      • (2022)Characterizing the role of bots’ in polarized stance on social mediaSocial Network Analysis and Mining10.1007/s13278-022-00858-z12:1Online publication date: 4-Feb-2022

      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