Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 09 2016, @02:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the astroturfers-gets-a-trim dept.

An algorithm developed at Carnegie Mellon University makes it easier to determine if someone has faked an Amazon or Yelp review or if a politician with a suspiciously large number of Twitter followers might have bought and paid for that popularity.

The method, called FRAUDAR, marks the latest escalation in the cat-and-mouse game played by online fraudsters and the social media platforms that try to out them. In particular, the new algorithm makes it possible to see through camouflage that fraudsters use to make themselves look legitimate, said Christos Faloutsos, professor of machine learning and computer science.

In real-world experiments using Twitter data for 41.7 million users and 1.47 billion followers, FRAUDAR fingered more than 4,000 accounts not previously identified as fraudulent, including many that used known follower-buying services such as TweepMe and TweeterGetter.

Bad news for the nascent astroturfing industry.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by dyingtolive on Friday September 09 2016, @03:27PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Friday September 09 2016, @03:27PM (#399646)

    Of all the people I know, only one of them is actually saying that they're going to vote for Hillary. Wait wait don't mod me offtopic yet! So, I'm talking a sample set of maybe 30 people who I know well enough to want to talk to about such a thing to begin with. They range in age groups from about 25 to a few in the 50-70 range. Maybe half of them know my political spectrum.

    Of all those people, the vast majority of them hate Clinton and Trump just like "everyone else". One of them is voting for Trump because she's "seen the situation in Europe first hand and doesn't want it coming here". One of them is loudly okay with Clinton because "lesser of two evils" and Trump "is an evil racist and would be our Mussolini". I mean, judge them however you see fit. I know I do, nodding, eager to hear more while silent about how much I'm judging them myself.

    Of the rest, they're split pretty evenly between third parties and shaking their heads saying that they just don't think they're going to be a part of this.

    Now, what I've done here is not scientific; it's not data, and it has been collected rather horribly on my part. At the same time, I look at my convenient anecdote and scratch my head wondering where the Trump/Clinton supporters are.

    All I can think is it must be one of the following:
    - I don't go among "those people", despite the wide swath of backgrounds/incomes/gender/race in there.
    - The 'silent half' is going to go for Clinton/Trump.
    - (This is where this stops being offtopic) The vast majority of Trump/Clinton supporters don't reflect actual opinion.
    - What I like to call the Default Assumption: I'm an idiot and no one is responding to me seriously.

    Note that I'm not opposed to it being a combination of all of the above, but it's got me wondering: What if there's really not the support for either of the "main" candidates there? What if it's all propaganda/CTR/spam? That would explain why the polls radically shift every other day.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=4, Interesting=2, Underrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @03:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @03:48PM (#399656)

    I don't go among "those people"

    Probably this and maybe a bit of the 'silent half'.

    Your sample is not as broad or as non-biased as you think.

  • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Thexalon on Friday September 09 2016, @03:51PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 09 2016, @03:51PM (#399659)

    Relatively small sample size probably has something to do with it.

    I know personally at least a dozen vocal Clinton supporters who I don't have reason to believe were bought off, so I know they exist. They range from those who believe her to be some kind of feminist icon (she isn't one), or think corruption is just part of the game and everyone does it so it's basically OK.

    The most interesting poll numbers to me this cycle are the favorability-unfavorability [gallup.com] numbers. Basically, the Republicans managed to nominate the most hated major party candidate since Gallup started keeping track in 1956. The Democrats, for their part, managed to nominate the most hated candidate in the history of their party, so she might in fact manage to lose to the other guy. At least 1 out of 5 Americans hate both of them, and 1 out of 10 are saying they'll vote for a third-party candidate.

    I definitely don't blame people who are thinking of sitting this one out. I'm in the "hold-my-nose-and-vote-Clinton" camp, because I believe that she and her people will at least have some sort of clue what they're doing in the Oval Office.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:02PM (#399662)

      A single vote has a statistically insignificant chance of changing the result of the presidential election.

      Why don't you just vote for who you think is the best? You won't be responsible for the outcome of the election either way.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Friday September 09 2016, @04:19PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09 2016, @04:19PM (#399670) Journal

        A single vote has a statistically insignificant chance of changing the [election] result.... Why don't you just vote for who you think is the best?

        If most people did this, instead of insisting to themselves and others the propaganda position that there are "only two choices", the two-parties-two-choices stranglehold would be broken within a couple cycles.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday September 09 2016, @05:01PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday September 09 2016, @05:01PM (#399697) Journal

        That assumes the person you think is the best can be voted for. If you think Bernie Sanders is the best, whom will you vote for?

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @05:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @05:10PM (#399702)

          I guess it depends on the ballot, but you could write-in whoever you want.

          I don't vote for candidates that I don't like, so I leave the vote blank if I need to.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 09 2016, @05:12PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 09 2016, @05:12PM (#399703)

          At this point, what's the margin of reelection for an Obama third term?
          We're ignoring the 4th, the 5th, and often the 1st. I'm pretty sure half of the country would be fine with ignoring the 22nd just this one time...

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Friday September 09 2016, @05:22PM

          by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday September 09 2016, @05:22PM (#399709) Homepage

          In the case of a true Bernie believer I would say that Jill Stein would likely be the best choice, or maybe Alyson Kennedy of the Socialist Workers Party depending on where you fall on other issues. Those are the ones who are on the MN ballot who at a first glance seem likely to be the best fit.

          --
          T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:02PM (#399663)

      Found a neat 'trick' yesterday. Found it on a conservative forum.

      If you are in a 'battleground' state. NC/OH/FL etc. Goto craigslist. Pick a city. Goto jobs and search for 'outreach'.

      You will quickly come across items like this http://charlotte.craigslist.org/csr/5772276212.html [craigslist.org]
      "Community Outreach Group is hiring canvassers to knock on doors and convince people to vote and vote for our endorsed candidates"

      Some are a bit more blatant.
      http://miami.craigslist.org/mdc/npo/5749027375.html [craigslist.org]

      Have not figured out the conservative keyword yet to search for.

      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday September 09 2016, @04:24PM

        by vux984 (5045) on Friday September 09 2016, @04:24PM (#399675)

        Did you somehow think there candidates that weren't hiring people all over the place to help them get elected? To help them convince voters to elect them. I mean from Reince Preibus and the interim person at the DNC on down through the ranks... that's basically what their job is.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:48PM (#399690)
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:31PM (#399682)

        Knocking on doors to pester citizens to vote for your candidate is as American as apple pie.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 09 2016, @07:50PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday September 09 2016, @07:50PM (#399767) Journal

      You don't want people who know how to do what the Clintons know how to do anywhere near the Oval Office.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 09 2016, @08:22PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 09 2016, @08:22PM (#399777)

        What exactly do you think the Clintons know how to do that should be kept so far away from the Oval Office? I mean, if they were going to pull something truly nefarious and dangerous, I'd think they'd have done so last time they were there late in Bill's last term.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday September 10 2016, @12:23AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday September 10 2016, @12:23AM (#399847) Journal

          They are part and parcel of the Deep State corruption that has brought the country to ruin. They cannot be allowed to return to the Whitehouse. Trump's no paragon, but he might stop TPP and kick a few Wall Street bankers in the nuts. Hillary 100% won't.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:19PM (#399669)

    Where I live. I think people are scared to say who they are voting for. There are pretty much 0 signs. I have lived here fore 20 years. I have never seen this time of year with 0 signs. It is usually fucking bonkers how many signs. People usually have 3 or 4 in their yards. All intersections have 15-20 of them. This year? None.

    I also never hear of a Hillary voter saying they are afraid of what a trump supporter will do. But the other way around I hear people saying things like 'I am just keeping it to myself as I dont want any trouble'.

    That would explain why the polls radically shift every other day.
    The polls are massaged every day to keep them 'close'. To the media organizations this is their Christmas. Most of these groups hemorrhage money. This is when they make bank on everything. So keep it close, keep people tuning in. Take the CNN one from a few days ago. At first Trump is up by 2. They change it around a bit and he is down by 2 a 4 point swing. They can pretty much make those numbers say what they want. Do you think they actually like talking about Trump? They obviously hate the hell out of him. But those left who are paying attention to them it draws viewers. They desperately need viewers. CNN once the powerhouse of 24/7 news is down to 600-700k viewers per day. Estimates are 500k of those are 'default stations'. Basically walk into a bank and CNN will be on the TV there, walk through and airport. So they are putting more and more outrageous stuff up to draw viewers. They are mixing the polls up a bit to keep people looking. If it just says one or the other all the way down people will ignore them and the org publishing them.

    If we look at historical voting. it usually is about 49.7 to 49.7 with a small group of people actually picking the winners. Hell the 2000 election came down to a couple of hundred people deciding it. The spread will be a bit wider this year as Johnson will snag some from both groups but not as much as he is polling by. Historically it has been ~3-5% for someone like him.

    • (Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday September 09 2016, @04:43PM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday September 09 2016, @04:43PM (#399689)

      With a 50/50 split, you don't need to massage the number to have the "horse-race" swing 1 or 2 points every day. The polls are only accurate to within 2%. Every 20 days or so, the poll will be off by more than that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @05:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @05:24PM (#399713)

        MoE for pretty much all of the polls are 5-9% right now. That is a pretty big range and lets room for interpretation (by design, I think someone like NBC can figure out how to do a poll by now). If they really had them in in the 1-2% range I could give them a bit more credence. One major aggregate poll is using data from May as a bellweather of how the election is going.

        Usually until about 1-2 weeks out there is surprisingly 20% or so people who 'dont know'. But it almost always ends up 50/50. The news stations make it seem like it is close and all over the place. They *need* viewers to sell to their customers. The whole news media is imploding. No one wants print anymore. People are cutting the cord. Sound bites rule the internet. Investigative journalism takes time and large amounts of resources. If someone gave you 1 million dollars to invest. Would you put money into a news media company? You would think long and hard about that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @05:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @05:26PM (#399715)

      I also never hear of a Hillary voter saying they are afraid of what a trump supporter will do. But the other way around I hear people saying things like 'I am just keeping it to myself as I dont want any trouble'.

      This may not count since it's online and I'm posting AC, but I will likely vote for Clinton. I am terrified of what a Trump supporter may do. I realize they're not all nutbars, but enough of them are. I'm not even really afraid of Trump himself. It's his supporters. Even before Trump was a candidate, what would become the alt-right this year were getting themselves riled up and physically intimidating people they thought were trying to make Christmas illegal.

      I've been seeing Trump bumper stickers. A house on my street has a Trump flag. A flag for a political candidate! Flying at the same height as the US flag! But I've also noticed the yard signs are missing.

      Trump won't be the end of it. Trump wasn't the start of it. After the total economic collapse in 2017, this all will finally ignite violent riots in every major city by 2018. A race war? Hah. Not just a race war.

      I'm only voting for Clinton because I don't want to be quietly rounded up for the FEMA concentration camps because of a medical condition that the alt-right believe is unpossible. They can round me up because I post here instead. The FEMA concentration camps are coming whether Trump or Clinton wins.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09 2016, @06:11PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09 2016, @06:11PM (#399738) Journal

    I'm a moderate and a Clinton supporter.
     
    You don't really get much traction with moderate arguments on the internet and sometimes voicing a pro-Clinton stance will get you hammered by the internet hate machine. So, I think we mostly keep quite and watch the polls.

  • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday September 09 2016, @06:12PM

    by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Friday September 09 2016, @06:12PM (#399739)

    What I like to call the Default Assumption: I'm an idiot and no one is responding to me seriously

    I think is backed up by "....judge them however you see fit. I know I do, nodding, eager to hear more while silent about how much I'm judging them myself." It's highly probably that the disdain you have for their opinions is known, and you're not as good at dissembling as you think. Further, your swarmy judgement is not something they want to put up with.

    I know a lot of people who are voting for Hillary, either because they liked her/her husband back in the 90's or because they want to vote against Trump. I know people who want to vote for Trump, either because he's an outsider/businessman or because "the Supreme Court must get a Republican to replace Scalia".

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 09 2016, @07:48PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday September 09 2016, @07:48PM (#399766) Journal

    I'm going to vote for Trump, but that's because I hate the Clintons and the Establishment they're part of. Normally I'm a progressive and would much rather have been able to vote for Bernie.

    That said, on the 8,500 mile roadtrip i took around the country this summer, from New York to Whidbey Island, to the Bay Area through the Southwest and then across the South, i couldn't count the number of Trump bumper stickers, billboards, and yard signs i saw. Even in the bluest of blue areas like Seattle, Portland, Eugene, OR, San Francisco, and Madison, WI, i did not see a single sign fof any kind for Hillary anywhere. Bernie stickers and a couple for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, but none for Hillary. Finally in Mesa Verde i saw a guy with a Hillary shirt on. He turned out to live a couple blocks away from me in my Brooklyn neighborhood and worked at her Brooklyn campaign HQ.

    That's a massive enthusiasm gap. And the more Wikileaks stuff that comes out and the more of her corruption that comes to light, the more it's going to suppress her turnout. Everybody knows that Americans mostly don't pay any attention to the race until the final 4 weeks, so all Trump has to do is run a "Morning in America" campaign, braced up with some Willie Horton attack ads and he'll win by a substantial margin. As it is, Hillary has massively outspent Trump only to see her lead in the polls evaporate.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2016, @09:16PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09 2016, @09:16PM (#399794) Journal
    I bet a key problem here is that people won't vote the way they talk. There's probably going to be a fair number of voters who will vote for either Clinton or Trump, but won't admit to it. I have to wonder what voter turnout will be like in this situation. Under 50% participation for a major election seems likely, for example.