journal article·2019-10-20Open access

Interaction-Based Behavioral Analysis of Twitter Social Network Accounts

Hafzullah İş, Taner Tuncer

Applied Sciences· Volume 9· Issue 20

Abstract

This article considers methodological approaches to determine and prevent social media manipulation specific to Twitter. Behavioral analyses of Twitter users were performed by using their profile structures and interaction types, and Twitter users were classified according to their effect size values by determining their asset values. User profiles were classified into three different categories, namely popular-active, observer-passive, and spam-bot-malicious by using k-nearest neighbor (K-NN), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN) algorithms. For classification, the study used the basic characteristics of users, such as density, centralization, and diameter, as well as suggested time series such as the simple moving average and cumulative moving average. The highest accuracy was obtained by the K-NN algorithm. The results obtained with K-NN for all classes were higher than the F1-Score values obtained for the other algorithms. According to the results obtained, classification accuracy values were found to reach a maximum of 96.81% and a minimum of 92.33%. Our classification results showed that the proposed method was satisfactory for popular-active, observer-passive, and spam-bot-malicious account separation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Spam and Phishing Detection · Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Misinformation and Its Impacts

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Engineering, Batman University, 72100 Batman, Turkey

Department of Computer Engineering, Firat University, 23119 Elazig, Turkey

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542 ↗
2. Smart Insights (2019, October 02). Global Social Media Research Summary 2019. Available online: https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/.
3. “Facebook to Mobilize, Twitter to Coordinate Protests, and YouTube to Tell the World”: New Media, Cyberactivism, and the Arab Spring
4. Is, H., and Tuncer, T. (2018, January 28–30). Confidence Index Analysis of Twitter Users Timeline. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IDAP), Malatya, Turkey.10.1109/IDAP.2018.8620917 ↗
5. Kantarci, O., and Ozalp, M. (2017). TÜSİAD Digital Trade Report. TÜSİAD/17, TÜSİAD.
6. The rise of social bots10.1145/2818717 ↗
7. Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C.A., Menczer, F., and Flammini, A. (2017). Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. arXiv.10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871 ↗
8. Kalite Ölçekleme Kriterleri ile Sosyal Ağ Hesaplarının Etkinliğinin Belirlenmesi
9. Malicious accounts: Dark of the social networks10.1016/j.jnca.2016.11.030 ↗
10. Ersahin, B., Aktas, Ö., Kılınç, D., and Akyol, C. (2017, January 5–8). Twitter fake account detection. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering, Antalya, Turkey.10.1109/UBMK.2017.8093420 ↗
11. Wang, Y., and Youn, H.Y. (2019). Feature Weighting Based on Inter-Category and Intra-Category Strength for Twitter Sentiment Analysis. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9010092 ↗
12. Alothali, E., Zaki, N., Mohamed, E.A., and Alashwal, H.A. (2018, January 18–19). Detecting Social Bots on Twitter: A Literature Review. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology, Al Ain, UAE.10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2018.8605995 ↗
13. Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D., and McDonald, D.W. (2015, January 14–18). Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in twitter. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1145/2675133.2675208 ↗
14. Gee, G., and The, H. (2010). Twitter Spammer Profile Detection. CS229 Project Report, Stanford University.
15. Benevenuto, F., Magno, G., and Rodrigues, T. (2010, January 13–14). Detecting spammers on Twitter. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference, Redmond, WA, USA.
16. Lee, K., Caverlee, J., and Webb, S. (2010, January 19–23). Uncovering social spammers: Social honeypots + machine learning. Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information, Geneva, Switzerland.10.1145/1835449.1835522 ↗
17. Gao, H., Hu, J., Wilson, C., Li, Z., Chen, Y., and Zhao, B.Y. (2010, January 1–30). Detecting and characterizing social spam campaigns. Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, Melbourne, Australia.10.1145/1879141.1879147 ↗
18. Grier, C., Thomas, K., Paxson, V., and Zhang, M. (2010, January 4–8). @spam: The Underground on 140 Character or Less. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/1866307.1866311 ↗
19. Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., and Vigna, G. (2010, January 6–10). Detecting spammers on social networks. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Austin, TX, USA.10.1145/1920261.1920263 ↗
20. Statistical Features-Based Real-Rime Detection of Drifted Twitter Spam10.1109/TIFS.2016.2621888 ↗
21. Recognizing Human Behaviours in Online Social Networks10.1016/j.cose.2017.06.002 ↗
22. Adewole, K.S., Han, T., Wu, W., Song, H., and Sangaiah, A.K. (2018). Twitter Spam Account Detection Based on Clustering and Classification Methods. J. Supercomput., 1–36.10.1007/s11227-018-2641-x ↗
23. Go, A., Bhayani, R., and Huang, L. (2009). Twitter Sentiment Classification Using Distant Supervision. CS224N Project Report, Stanford University.
24. Truetop: A sybilresilient system for user influence measurement on twitter10.1109/TNET.2015.2494059 ↗
25. De Choudhury, M., Diakopoulos, N., and Naaman, M. (2012, January 11–15). Unfolding the event landscape on Twitter: Classification and exploration of user categories. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1145/2145204.2145242 ↗
26. Vorakitphan, V., Leu, F.-Y., and Fan, Y.-C. (2018, January 4–6). Clickbait Detection Based on Word Embedding Models. Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, Matsue, Japan.10.1007/978-3-319-93554-6_54 ↗
27. Identity Verification Mechanism for Detecting Fake Profiles in Online Social Networks
28. Kiliroor, C.C., and Valliyammai, C. (2019). Social Context Based Naive Bayes Filtering of Spam Messages from Online Social Networks. Soft Computing in Data Analytics, Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-0514-6_66 ↗
29. Cai, C., Li, L., and Zeng, D. (2017, January 22–24). Behavior Enhanced Deep Bot Detection in Social Media. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference Intelligence and Security Informatics, Beijing, China.10.1109/ISI.2017.8004887 ↗
30. Detecting automation of twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg?10.1109/TDSC.2012.75 ↗
31. Gilani, A.Z., Kochmar, E., and Crowcroft, J. (August, January 31). Classification of twitter accounts into automated agents and human users. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, Sydney, Australia.
32. Twitter Turing test: Identifying social machines10.1016/j.ins.2016.08.036 ↗
33. Davis, C.A., Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. (2016, January 11–15). Botornot: A system to evaluate social bots. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/2872518.2889302 ↗
34. Chavoshi, N., Hamooni, H., and Mueen, A. (2016). Debot: Twitter bot detection via warped correlation. ICDM, 817–822.10.1109/ICDM.2016.0096 ↗
35. Kantepe, M., and Ganiz, M.C. (2017, January 5–8). Preprocessing framework for twitter bot detection. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering, Antalya, Turkey.10.1109/UBMK.2017.8093483 ↗
36. (2019, October 02). Confusion Matrix, Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_matrix.
37. (2019, October 02). ROC Curve, Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc_curve.