Slashdot Mirror


Internet Water Army On the March

New submitter kermidge sends in an article at the Physics arXiv blog about what's called the "Internet Water Army," large groups of people in China who are paid to "flood" internet sites with comments and reviews about various products. Researchers at the University of Victoria went undercover to figure out exactly how these informational (or disinformational) floods operate, and what they learned (PDF) could lead to better spam-detection software. Quoting: "They discovered that paid posters tend to post more new comments than replies to other comments. They also post more often with 50 per cent of them posting every 2.5 minutes on average. They also move on from a discussion more quickly than legitimate users, discarding their IDs and never using them again. What's more, the content they post is measurably different. These workers are paid by the volume and so often take shortcuts, cutting and pasting the same content many times. This would normally invalidate their posts but only if it is spotted by the quality control team. So Cheng and co built some software to look for repetitions and similarities in messages as well as the other behaviors they'd identified. They then tested it on the dataset they'd downloaded from Sina and Sohu and found it to be remarkably good, with an accuracy of 88 per cent in spotting paid posters."

7 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. SPAM race by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just another SPAM arms race, the fact that nobody is challenging the reviewers yet is why it's so easy.

    1. Re:SPAM race by formfeed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's why I love /. !!

      A thorough review process makes sure that only the best and top quality posts make it to the front side, where intelligent and well educated people can add their remarks. A volunteer group of unbiased moderators that show the almost dream-like ability to not mistake witty irony for trollish flamebait then judges the comments purely on their merits. Wonderful!

  2. Re:Wu mao dang (50 cent gang) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some things are racist, this sounds more like cultural bias, if you will. I would say similar thing about social norms, but given the context, the same words can be deemed racist, or enlightening.

  3. Re:Feedback loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but to counter this method you need to be more unique i.e. put more time into each post, it is an economic weapon increasing the cost of abuse significantly and therefore reducing post quantity and number of sites economically target-able.

  4. Unfortunately this is the status quo by gearloos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unfortunately this is the status quo. It's been long known companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Blockbuster, have been paying hordes to scavenge google or bing for posts like " Win 7 sucks" or Win 7 just as bad, and then post things like " I don't know, I have 3 computers running it and have zero issues like you say. Might be your hardware. This is just bringing it to the mainstreams attention IMO. I guess the days are coming to an end when I go to Best Buy to get something and look it up on my phone to get reviews. Now the kicker: How many times have you went to buy something from a non name brand and looked them up before using your credit card? Say you Google " mom and pop xx widgets R us" and the word scam or fraud. Well, when do the scammers start flooding the results to show stellar listings for the latest fraud sites? Kind of changes the whole community concept doesn't it? .. Just something to think about.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
    1. Re:Unfortunately this is the status quo by Elbereth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because someone never had issues with something that you dislike doesn't mean that they're a shill. This is something that bothers me a lot about modern discourse on the internet. You can't say anything without being accused of being a shill, troll, or fanboy. On the other hand, people credulously read outrageously biased review sites that give every single product they review 4/5 or 5/5. The absolute worst are tech and gaming sites. I forget which site it was (I think it was AnandTech), but a few years ago, one of the writers did a bit of investigative journalism and put out feelers to see how open hardware review sites were to the idea of paying for positive reviews. A small number of them (they refused to divulge who, unfortunately) openly agreed to it.

      The internet is full of trolls, fanboys, and shills, to be sure, but they're not hiding under every rock. Sometimes, it's just a normal person who's trying to express a legitimate opinion. Simply saying that you didn't have any problems with a product is not enough for any accusations, or else you risk labeling every single satisfied customer a shill (and, believe it or not, there a whole lot of easily satisfied people out there, and they simply won't be annoyed by the things that drive you fucking crazy).

  5. Re:Spammers are like the Climate "Skeptic" Communi by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not "Our little corner of academia." It's every major academy of science in the entire world. And they aren't focused on "messaging" because they are scientists, not PR flacks.

    It's true that in recent years the coordinated propaganda of the fossil fuel industry has managed to sway masses of uneducated people against the scientific community. But that's not because the fault of the scientific community. Some people out there are just going to believe whoever has the loudest microphone or the endorsement of their local pastor, no matter what the science says.