skip to main content
10.1145/2567948.2579323acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Challenges of computational verification in social multimedia

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Fake or misleading multimedia content and its distribution through social networks such as Twitter constitutes an increasingly important and challenging problem, especially in the context of emergencies and critical situations. In this paper, the aim is to explore the challenges involved in applying a computational verification framework to automatically classify tweets with unreliable media content as fake or real. We created a data corpus of tweets around big events focusing on the ones linking to images (fake or real) of which the reliability could be verified by independent online sources. Extracting content and user features for each tweet, we explored the fake prediction accuracy performance using each set of features separately and in combination. We considered three approaches for evaluating the performance of the classifier, ranging from the use of standard cross-validation, to independent groups of tweets and to cross-event training. The obtained results included a 81% for tweet features and 75% for user ones in the case of cross-validation. When using different events for training and testing, the accuracy is much lower (up to %58) demonstrating that the generalization of the predictor is a very challenging issue.

References

  1. F. Benevenuto, G. Magno, T. Rodrigues, and V. Almeida. Detecting spammers on twitter. In Collaboration, Electronic messaging, Anti-abuse and Spam conference (CEAS), volume 6, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. K. R. Canini, B. Suh, and P. L. Pirolli. Finding credible information sources in social networks based on content and social structure. In IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pages 1--8. IEEE, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, V. Murdock, and F. Silvestri. Know your neighbors: Web spam detection using the web topology. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference, pages 423--430. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, and B. Poblete. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 675--684. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. F. Cheong and C. Cheong. Social media data mining: A social network analysis of tweets during the 2010--2011 australian floods. In PACIS, page 46, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Gupta and P. Kumaraguru. @ twitter credibility ranking of tweets on events #breakingnews. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Gupta and P. Kumaraguru. Twitter explodes with activity in mumbai blasts! a lifeline or an unmonitored daemon in the lurking? 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Gupta, H. Lamba, P. Kumaraguru, and A. Joshi. Faking sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on twitter during hurricane sandy. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web companion, pages 729--736. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Z. Gyongyi and H. Garcia-Molina. Web spam taxonomy. In First international workshop on adversarial information retrieval on the web (AIRWeb 2005), 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. P. Kanske and S. A. Kotz. Leipzig affective norms for german: A reliability study. Behavior research methods, 42(4):987--991, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Mendoza, B. Poblete, and C. Castillo. Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we rt? In Proceedings of the first Workshop on Social Media Analytics, pages 71--79. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Redondo, I. Fraga, I. Padrón, and M. Comesana. The spanish adaptation of anew (affective norms for english words). Behavior research methods, 39(3):600--605, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. E. Seo, P. Mohapatra, and T. Abdelzaher. Identifying rumors and their sources in social networks. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing, pages 83891I--83891I. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. E. Spyromitros-Xioufis, S. Papadopoulos, I. Kompatsiaris, G. Tsoumakas, and I. Vlahavas. An empirical study on the combination of surf features with vlad vectors for image search. In 13th International Workshop on Image Analysis for Multimedia Interactive Services (WIAMIS), pages 1--4. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. G. Stringhini, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna. Detecting spammers on social networks. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 1--9. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Yang, R. Harkreader, J. Zhang, S. Shin, and G. Gu. Analyzing spammers' social networks for fun and profit: a case study of cyber criminal ecosystem on twitter. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, pages 71--80. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Challenges of computational verification in social multimedia

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WWW '14 Companion: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web
      April 2014
      1396 pages
      ISBN:9781450327459
      DOI:10.1145/2567948

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      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]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader