Showing posts with label fauxbots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fauxbots. Show all posts

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Now Hiring

AKA The Bot Market's Hot

ISIS still evading detection on Facebook report says
Jul 2020, phys.org

To amass digital territory is their purpose. It's been a while since I thought about the internet as real estate, or rather our eyeballs as real estate...
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) tracked 288 Facebook accounts linked to a particular ISIS network over three months.

The researchers believe that at the centre of the network was one user who managed around a third (90 out of 288) of the Facebook profiles.

This was accomplished by generating real North American phone numbers and looking for associated Facebook accounts.

If it found a match it would request a re-set code to be sent to the phone number, so it could lock out the original account holder and use the Facebook profile to spread content.

The researchers say another key to the survival of ISIS content on the platform was the way in which ISIS supporters have learned to modify their content to evade controls. This included:
  • Breaking up text and using strange punctuation to evade any tools which would search for key words
  • Blurring ISIS branding, or adding Facebook's own video effects
  • Adding the branding of mainstream news outlets over the top of ISIS content
Image credit: Adeen Flinker NYU School of Medicine

Instagram removes hundreds of accounts tied to username hacking
Feb 2021, Reuters

But imagine that we're already semibots, and buying and selling each other.

Fake Amazon reviews 'being sold in bulk' online
Feb 2021, BBC News

It's the Amazon Marketplace, you can buy anything here:
The cost of fake reviews -  £5 each to start. These included "packages" of fake reviews available for sellers to buy for about £15 individually, as well as bulk packages starting at £620 for 50 reviews and going up to £8,000 for 1,000.
Researchers study online 'pseudo-reviews' that mock products
Apr 2021, phys.org

New fakes for the new world. Pseudo-fakes and quasi-forgeries. Pseudo reviews mock the product, like this example:
"I was able to purchase this amazing television with an FHA loan (30 year fixed-rate w/ 4.25% APR) and only 3.5% down. This is, hands down, the best decision I've ever made. And the box it came in is incredibly roomy too, which is a huge bonus, because I live in it now."
Apparently too many pseudo reviews can sway purchaser intent. And if a particular platform becomes infested with them, they can lose credibility altogether. 
via University of Akron: Federico de Gregorio et al. Pseudo-reviews: Conceptualization and consumer effects of a new online phenomenon, Computers in Human Behavior (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106545
Omegle: 'I'm being used as sex-baiting bot' on video chat site
Apr 2021, BBC News

God-level fake operation:

Kid goes to a website where you meet random strangers. An older woman convinces him to take off his clothes and go full Discovery Channel on himself. He does it again with other people. He quits the site, but then one day a year later, he goes back on and gets matched to ... himself. Someone uses his recorded video, overdubbed with typed conversations created in real time, in order to get other people to join. Who knows, maybe that's how he got convinced in the first place. 

"It was like a fully advanced system with different video sequences of me doing different stuff."

One day, the people running this "advanced system" won't be people or even a corporation, but an intelligent entity -- today we call it AI, but it will by then be a combination of people and computers all mashed together so you can't really tell who's who anymore. 

Army of fake fans boosts China’s messaging on Twitter
May 2021, AP News

This isn't really news, I added this one just for posterity.
Good term though: "Counterfeiting Consensus"

Mass scale manipulation of Twitter Trends discovered
June 2021, phys.org
"We found that 47% of local trends in Turkey and 20% of global trends are fake, created from scratch by bots. Between June 2015 and September 2019, we uncovered 108,000 bot accounts involved, the biggest bot dataset reported in a single paper. Our research is the first to uncover the manipulation of Twitter Trends at this scale," Elmas continued. (But don't forget to check how they define bot activity, as this can differ a lot.)
via  Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne: Ephemeral Astroturfing Attacks: The Case of Fake Twitter Trends. arXiv:1910.07783v4 [cs.CR] arxiv.org/abs/1910.07783
Conservatives more susceptible to believing falsehoods
Jun 2021, phys.org

Sorry guys:
Researchers found that liberals and conservatives in the United States both tended to believe claims that promoted their political views, but that this more often led conservatives to accept falsehoods while rejecting truths.

"But the deck is stacked against conservatives because there is so much more misinformation that supports conservative positions. As a result, conservatives are more often led astray."

Although the information environment was the primary reason conservatives were susceptible to misinformation, it may not be the only one.

Results showed that even when the information environment was taken into account, conservatives were slightly more likely to hold misperceptions than were liberals.

"It is difficult to say why that is," Garrett said. "We can't explain the finding with our data alone."

Conservatives also showed a stronger "truth bias," meaning that they were more likely to say that all the claims they were asked about were true.

"We show that the media environment is shaping people's ability to do this very basic, fundamental task."
via Ohio State University: R.K. Garrett el al., "Conservatives' susceptibility to political misperceptions," Science Advances (2021).

Post Script (Don't even try it)
The double-down is real: Correcting online falsehoods might make matters worse
May 2021, phys.org
Not only is misinformation increasing online, but attempting to correct it politely on Twitter can have negative consequences, leading to even less-accurate tweets and more toxicity from the people being corrected, according to a new study co-authored by a group of MIT scholars.
...
On Twitter, people seem to spend a relatively long time crafting primary tweets, and little time making decisions about retweets.
via Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Mohsen Mosleh et al, Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking: Being Corrected by Another User for Posting False Political News Increases Subsequent Sharing of Low Quality, Partisan, and Toxic Content in a Twitter Field Experiment, Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2021). DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445642
Post Post Script (Then again)
Artificial intelligence system could help counter the spread of disinformation
May 2021, phys.org

In total, they compiled 28 million Twitter posts from 1 million accounts, during the 2017 French elections, and found bots with 96% accuracy. Note that the way you define a bot is important in these studies. But also note that they've gone beyond using mere activity levels as their metric, they also look at how each bot causes the network as a whole to change and amplify messages, and at the bot's behaviors such as whether they interact with foreign media or what language they use.

Also, this approach looks at not just bots but the real people too, and how they all impact the network as a whole. 

via MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Artificial Intelligence Software Architectures and Algorithms Group: Steven T. Smith et al, Automatic detection of influential actors in disinformation networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2011216118DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2011216118

Friday, July 10, 2020

Fake Game Strong


Israeli soldiers duped by Hamas 'fake women' phone ruse
Feb 2020, BBC News

Hey, let's chat!
Who the f*** downloads a link to get pictures on their phone? Nobody: 1998 dial-up users:

North Carolina Facebook page labelled fake news
Feb 2020, BBC News

50,000 followers in one month is apparently a good score for a fake news site. They did all the right things: labeling the page "satire" gets it past the fact-checking algorithms, and so does using real stories. Only thing is, the stories could be from anywhere and old as hell. Doesn't matter, got clicks.

The site administrators also said they were a research group from North Carlina University  conducting social media research, good one.

Facebook removes 'foreign interference' operations from Iran and Russia
Feb 2020, BBC News

"Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour"

All 16 Dead Sea Scroll fragments in the Museum of the Bible are fakes
Apr 2020, Ars Technica

Somebody stop me! "The Museum of the Bible" though.

Researchers use machine learning to unearth underground Instagram 'pods'
May 2020, phys.org

More inauthentic coordinated behavior.

Fake game on overdrive with this one. This press article starts with a good rule of thumb -- not all engagement is organic.

NYU/Drexel researchers found a coordinated group of inauthentic users who game algorithms and artificially amplify content. And they give us a new term as well -- "reciprocity abuse".

Reciprocity abuse can only be done with groups of disingenuous agents all working together; this is not something that one can do by themselves, especially in a social network where the power lies in the network and not in the individual.

Some findings:
Seventy percent of users experienced a two-fold or greater increase in interaction level on control posts after they began posting in pods, and on average, these users saw a five-fold increase in comments

Each pod had, on average, about 900 users, though some had as many as 17,000 users

And there's way more to come: "Already there is evidence of recently increasing adoption of this strategy: the pods we discovered have emerged at an accelerating pace over the last two years." -NYU Ph.D. student Janith Weerasinghe

'Fake' meat on the menu as China reopens restaurants
May 2020, BBC News

Can't tell whether this is fake fake meat or just fake meat. Must investigate. Meatgate.

And would you look at that, it's just China trying to get-in on the plant-based burger wave. Guaranteed headline by next summer, "Fake fake meat on the menu...".

Fake America Great Again
Aug 2018, MIT Technology Review [soft paywall]

Reminding us of the origins of deepfake in reddit and porn, and also generative adversarial networks.

Fake Drugs, Fake Board Games, Fake Blog Posts
Network Address, 2018

-image source: Fake America Great, Bruce Peterson
As I look at this picture of the iconic red Make America hat and with the eyes of a draughtsman, I conclude that the text is shopped, because it doesn't match the curve of the hat as it turns away, especially visible on the bottom half where it should start tilting upwards after the midpoint. But the letters do get smaller as they recede. Maybe it's just a great photo taken at just the right angle.


Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Fauxbots



Robots are already taking over.

Human computer programmers are influencing memetic propagation algorithms which are influencing human social media users. Another way of articulating this is to say that we are outfitting ourselves with a cybernetic limbic system. I'm channeling both Elon Musk's far-out interview about artificial emotional intelligence ecologies and Jaron Lanier's recent behavior modification talks (with a bit of Robert Sapolsky's Human Behavior lectures).

As if it wasn't a surprise, news has it that a script designed to spread information is better than us at doing just that. Coupled with the fact that misinformation spreads faster than factual information, we can easily see what a bad idea it was to offload water-cooler-style information-spreading to an algorithm optimized to sell consumer goods and services to a hypertargeted audience.

This is not to talk trash about technology, or social media, or even human nature; there's plenty of good things to come of all this. I mean, ALS, right?

It is an alert, however, that the things that we fear from far away (robot overlords etc), they tend to look a lot different by the time they get right under our nose. And this is a great example. Note that researcher Tim Hwang was doing work with SocialBots back in 2012, when he ran a competition to see who could influence the most people on Twitter with an automated fauxbot. By the end of the competition we learned two things - 1.It's not hard at all to make people think you're a person when you're not, and 2.It's very very ethically questionable to do these kinds of experiments.

Not that it matters much. Using a social media platform waives your right to be free from experimentation.

In what I guess I will call traditional research, if your experiment involves people, you have to take some ethics classes, and your plan has to pass a group of people who's job it is to make sure you're not doing anything ethically dubious to your subjects. In very simple terms, you're not supposed to do harm to your subjects (only people though, sorry animals).

But when you participate in social media, you're willfully participating in the experiment that is the platform's digital ecosystem (and because the programs aren't programming themselves, not yet, the platform's corporate culture has influence here as well). The whole thing is an experiment from the moment you log in.

So what happens when you are that poor schmuck who fell in love with Tim Hwang's socialbot and then got his heart broken when the competition ended? Tough shit?

Or when you realize the "woman" you've been chatting up for the past two days is really a feature designed by the dating app itself to keep you engaged at the most opportune moments; what is a melted snowflake to do? Who to sue?

Listening to the news last night, two people are talking about results from a recent Facebook experiment that showed we can make people act nicer to each other through pretty simple and very subtle programming changes. Or make people happier by showing them happier news in their feed. (It's called a feed for f's sake.)

Is a social media platform responsible for the death of a teen who may have been only a few happy newsclips away from making that final decision?

Nope. Not right now at least. Not until we face the hard facts about how powerful it is to effect mass population manipulation with only minor changes in program code.


Post Script:
The chances you've been involved in one of these experiments already? 100%

"Low-credibility content" is the new fake news, and "auto amplification" is the act of spreading it.

The reason automated amplification works is because of herd mentality. A great experiment I read recently in Geoffrey West's book Scale - a researcher took 100 crowdfunding campaigns that had been at $0 for a minute already and donated $1 to half of them. The ones who got no donation stayed at zero, and the others gained at least some extra donations. There are dozens of other names for this such as the law of accumulative advantage, the Matthew Effect, and the rich get richer.


Notes:
Study: It only takes a few seconds for bots to spread misinformation
Nov 2018, Ars Technica

The spread of low-credibility content by social bots
Nature, 2018

The spread of true and false news online
Science, 2018

The spread of true and false information online
MIT, 2018

I'm Not a Real Friend, But I Play One on the Internet
Tim Hwang, HOPE#9, July 2012

SocialBots
Network Address, 2012

Institutional Review Board
also known as an independent ethics committee, ethical review board, or research ethics board, is a type of committee that applies research ethics by reviewing the methods proposed for research to ensure that they are ethical

Post Post Script Script:
Looks like something is real popular in the news right now:

On Twitter, limited number of characters spreading fake info
Jan 2019, phys.org

Washington fears new threat from 'deepfake' videos
Jan 2019, The Hill