Inaccurate analysis had politicians accusing others of social media manipulation.
A recent Twitter Audit analysis of the followers of Helen Zille, the federal chairperson of South Africa’s official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), revealed that nearly half of her 1.4 million followers are “fake.” Zille accused her political opponents of running these accounts to manufacture outrage against her and “destroy her online.”
Although Twitter Audit is a popular and well-known botspotting service, research conducted in 2014 found that it has inherent limitations that render its analysis incomplete, especially for accounts with large numbers of followers. Its methodology, besides being opaque and undocumented, was labeled “flawed” by Twitter itself. Twitter Audit should be used with its limitations in mind, and using it as the basis for claims of a coordinated social media campaign by political opponents presents a risk of over-prescription. While awareness of automation on social media platforms has drastically increased over the last few years, it has also created a tendency for users to label disagreeable content as the stuff of “bots.”
In retort to Zille’s tweets, the radical left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) stated that the fake accounts following Zille were created by the Democratic Alliance to shore up support for Zille online. Godrich Gardee, the EFF’s former secretary general, also accused the DA of using the very same tactics against him, claiming he was “stalk[ed] and harass[ed]” by DA bots.
Both politicians used the analysis by Twitter Audit to accuse their opponents of driving inauthentic behavior against them but failed to provide additional evidence or take into account the shortfalls of the tool used to provide the analysis.
Zille and Gardee’s comments were made within a South African information environment that has a history of targeted online harassment of journalists, editors, and politicians, especially using social media.
Social media manipulation in South Africa was thrust into a stark spotlight in November 2016 when independent researchers in South Africa discovered scores of sockpuppet accounts attempting to triage the reputation of the Gupta brothers, three well-connected businessmen with close ties to former President Jacob Zuma. (In December 2017, the DFRLab reported on seemingly U.S. bots that were posting in an effort to sway the African National Congress — of which Zuma was a member — elections.)
Sockpuppets are social media accounts that pose as something or someone else, often with the intent to deceive an audience and sway public perception. Many of these ostensibly South African accounts could be traced back to the Gupta’s home country of India, yet masqueraded as South African citizens. They created and amplified disinformation websites and coordinated personal attacks against anyone critical of the Gupta family. They were later colloquialized as the “Guptabots” and ultimately leveraged racial tensions to divert attention away from their less-than-stellar public image.
It later transpired that the Guptas also commissioned British public relations firm Bell Pottinger to manage the family’s public image during this time as well through their main holding company, Oakbay Investments. The Oakbay account eventually led to Bell Pottinger’s downfall, when it emerged that the firm was using racially divisive tactics to sanitize the Gupta family’s public image.
Former Bell Pottinger employees admitted they created similar websites and social media accounts to leverage racial and class tensions for the Gupta’s benefit.
During this time, journalists, editors, and politicians were frequently targeted by scores of these accounts, and exposés on their personal lives were published on anonymous websites.
Although the experience sensitized many South African social media users to the threat of social media manipulation and its associated risks, it also instilled a tendency among social media users to label any opposing view as a “bot.”
The reactions of both politicians are hardly surprising within this context, but both shot wide of the mark because they did not scrutinize the methodology underlying the analysis.
Twitter Audit is one of several online tools that claim to identify the fakes among an account’s followers. It presents a simple user interface that only requires a visitor to enter the username of the account to be analyzed.
But how does it work? According to Twitter Audit’s website, each audit samples up to 5,000 Twitter followers for that user and calculates a score for each. This score is based on number of tweets, the date of the last tweet, and the account’s ratio of followers to friends.
Twitter Audit adds a disclaimer to its results though, citing that its “scoring method is not perfect but it is a good way to tell if someone with lots of followers is likely to have increased their follower count by inorganic, fraudulent, or dishonest means.”
The flaws in Twitter Audit’s methodologies were highlighted in a conference paper published in June 2014. The five authors criticized Twitter Audit in addition to three similar platforms and highlighted the inadequacies of these tools in programmatically identifying fake followers. They conclude that the results of these tools are at the very least questionable and that the platforms’ results likely lack any reliability.
Their research also found that Twitter Audit samples the last 5,000 accounts that followed the target of an audit and not a randomized sample of 5,000 followers. This injects a chronological bias into the sample that may influence the results when applied across the much larger following. For example, there is a higher likelihood of finding new accounts in a given account’s most recent 5,000 followers than in a randomized sample of 5,000 of the account’s followers.
While the study found that this sampling bias is not a concern for accounts with less than 10,000 followers, accounts with more than 10,000 followers quickly reached a point where the bias invalidated the integrity of the results.
Twitter Audit limits each account to only one audit. In order to refresh the analysis, or sample a larger following, a user must upgrade to one of Twitter Audit’s paid plans. This means that the sampling could have been performed on an outdated sample that is no longer representative of the account’s followers.
The scoring system used by Twitter Audit makes use of three metrics to score a follower: the number of tweets made by the account, the number of followers and following the account has, and the date time of its most recent tweet.
Twitter Audit then applies an opaque algorithm to these three metrics to arrive at a score out of five. Among the four tools the study tested, Twitter Audit was the only one that did not classify inactive accounts separately, and the study surmised that this leads to a higher proportion of legitimate, but inactive, accounts being included as fakes. They also noted that larger accounts displayed increasingly disparate results between the different tools.
Unless Twitter Audit’s releases the details of its algorithms, it is impossible to establish exactly how an account would qualify as a “fake” or not, and edge cases remain susceptible to false positives. Zille’s followers commented on this fact when she undertook to block all suspicious accounts on her profile, many of which claimed they need to tweet anonymously for fear of online reprisals.
In Zille’s case, the sample size of 5,000 accounts would amount to an insignificant 0.35 percent of her total followers (more than 1.4 million, as of January 14). Even Gardee only sampled less than 5 percent of his total followers.
The analysis on which Zille based her accusation was performed nearly six years ago and would hardly be representative of her social media accounts today. In order to refresh the analysis of her account, Zille had to purchase one of Twitter Audit’s paid plans. When she did, the newer, paid-for analysis indicated her fake followers reduced to only 49,500, a 93 percent reduction from the initial figure of 650,000.
There is also another glaring problem with Zille’s claims: Twitter Audit and similar programs cannot divine intent. As much as an account may appear to be suspicious in its behavior, gauging the intent behind the behavior is more art than science. Nothing in the analysis performed by Twitter Audit indicated that the accounts could be attributed to a political opponent, and the accounts labeled as “fake” could have just as easily been supportive of Zille as antagonistic. A fake account, identified based on the metrics assessed by Twitter Audit, could just as easily be orchestrated by either politician, or neither.
To engage in targeted harassment and trolling on Twitter also does not require the harassing account to follow their intended target. As Twitter is an open platform, anyone can access an account’s timeline or comment on their tweets, and coordinated attacks could just as easily be launched without first following their target.
Considering Twitter Audit’s sampling issues for accounts with large follower numbers and the opaque methodologies it employs, social media users, including politicians, would do well to use such tools with significant circumspect. Indeed, the only true way to identify the authenticity of an account or whether it is automated is with access to the operator. Instead, open-source researchers use a combination tools and frameworks such as the DFRLab’s 12 ways to spot a bot to build to a high confidence assessment of inauthentic behavior on Twitter; the more tools or frameworks used, the stronger the assessment.
Suffice it to say, if Helen Zille’s goal was to purge her Twitter followers of people who disliked or harassed her on the platform, her approach was not conducive actually to achieving the goal. As Zille has shown, relying on a single platform to assess behavior can lead to false positives and botched conclusions, especially when that platform is not designed for the goal at hand.
This story has been updated to correct that the sample size for Zille’s Twitter Audit was 0.35 percent and not 0.003 percent.
Jean Le Roux is a Research Associate, Southern Africa, with the Digital Forensic Research Lab and is based in South Africa.
Follow along for more in-depth analysis from our #DigitalSherlocks.
The Digital Forensic Research Lab team in southern Africa works in partnership with Code for Africa.