Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 64 references

Exploration of the Dynamics of Buy and Sale of Social Media Accounts

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that only 19.71% of social media accounts advertised for sale were inactive at collection time, an outcome it reads as weak platform enforcement.

desk verdict First cross-platform census of the account-resale economy, with real data and a plausible descriptive core; the 19.71% detection-efficacy headline is an upper bound, not a clean take-down rate. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14985 v1 pith:XHIDYPRG submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CR

Mario Beluri , Bhupendra Acharya , Soheil Khodayari , Giada Stivala , Giancarlo Pellegrino , Thorsten Holz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords socialmediaaccounttradingmarketplacesscamtaxonomyfraudulentengagementplatformdetectionefficacyundergroundmarketseconomicanalysisofcybercrimelifecycle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the buying and selling of social media accounts is a large, organized economy that platforms are mostly failing to police. Between February and June 2024, the authors counted 38,253 advertised accounts across 11 marketplaces, with combined asking prices above $64 million and a median price of $157 per account. They then tracked 11,457 accounts whose listings included a visible social media link, collected public metadata and more than 200,000 posts, and classified 18,792 of those posts into six scam families. The headline finding is that only 2,259 of the 11,457 tracked accounts (19.71%) were inactive at collection time, which the authors interpret as the platforms' detection efficacy. A sympathetic reader would care because the result implies that roughly 80% of advertised accounts were still live, leaving a ready stock of aged, follower-rich profiles available for fraud.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a three-stage measurement pipeline: a crawler that collects listings from 11 public marketplaces; platform API queries that recover public metadata and posts from the 11,457 advertised profiles that link to a social media handle; and a topic-modeling stack that embeds the 205,583 posts, reduces their dimension, clusters them into 86 groups, and leaves 16 clusters for manual vetting into six scam families. The load-bearing measurement is the account status check: each advertised profile is queried through the platform API, and the returned status — 'Forbidden', 'Not Found', 'Page Not Found', or 'does not exist' — is coded as inactive, producing the 19.71% efficacy figure.

What would settle it

Take a sample of the 2,259 inactive accounts and check whether a large fraction can be re-found under new handles or via archived snapshots using their stored metadata, such as the same profile description, email, or phone number; if many are re-found, the 19.71% figure would not be a valid measure of platform detection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper asserts that this is the first large-scale empirical study of marketplaces selling social media accounts on X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, and its central measurable claim is a detection gap: of 11,457 advertised accounts with visible profile links, only 2,259 (19.71%) were returned by platform APIs as forbidden, not found, or nonexistent, and the authors count all of those as platform deactivations or blocks. The supporting census claims are that the 38,253 advertised accounts represent over $64 million in combined asking price, that these accounts are pre-tailored to mimic organic profiles, and that their posts cluster into six scam types: financial scams, engagement bait, phishing, product and service fraud, adult content, and impersonation. The conclusion the authors draw is that platforms face challenges in detecting and mitigating this threat, leaving users exposed to fraudulent accounts that resemble legitimate profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating API status messages like 'Not Found' and 'does not exist' as evidence that the platform removed the account, when those same messages can also mean the owner renamed or voluntarily deleted it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 19.71% figure holds, roughly 9,200 of the 11,457 tracked accounts were still live when the census ended, meaning marketplace-advertised profiles are a substantial ready inventory for fraud.
  • The six scam families give platforms concrete signals to monitor: crypto and NFT narratives, like/follow/subscribe bait, and impersonation of public figures are the most frequent patterns among the 18,792 scam posts.
  • The price and follower distributions imply sellers invest in niche appeal such as humor, luxury, gaming, and fashion, so detection that only targets trending topics will keep missing a large share of traded accounts.
  • The per-platform spread — TikTok and Instagram near 46-48%, X near 19%, Facebook and YouTube near 5% — suggests enforcement is uneven and that a uniform detection benchmark would be a useful next step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the 19.71% figure is best read as an upper bound on platform enforcement, because 'Not Found' and 'does not exist' statuses also cover sellers renaming or deleting accounts before transfer; the true takedown rate could be lower.
  • A testable extension suggested by the data is to re-contact the same handle cohort after a fixed interval and measure how many statuses change, which would separate voluntary deletion from platform action.
  • A natural next study would link purchase timestamps with post-sale behavior changes such as location, device, and posting frequency to measure how quickly bought accounts are repurposed for scams, a step the paper's cross-sectional design does not take.
  • The marketplaces' payment mix, preferring cryptocurrency and digital wallets over traditional rails, implies that payment-sided monitoring, such as flagging addresses tied to these marketplaces, could complement platform-side takedowns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper measures the market for buying and selling social media accounts. Between February and June 2024 the authors crawled 11 public marketplaces and manually collected data from six underground forums, obtaining 38,253 advertised accounts across X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, with a combined asking price of $64,228,836; 11,457 of these listings contained visible links to social media profiles, for which the authors collected metadata and 205,583 posts via platform APIs. The authors cluster posts with BERTopic/UMAP/HDBSCAN and manually vet clusters to produce a six-family scam taxonomy (18,792 posts, 3,769 accounts), analyze profile metadata and account creation dates, perform attribute-based network clustering, and report in Section 8 a 'detection efficacy' figure of 19.71% (2,259 of 11,457 accounts inactive at collection time). The paper concludes that platforms face challenges detecting these accounts and offers recommendations for platforms, payment providers, and policymakers.

Significance. The study is a substantial measurement contribution if its headline results survive scrutiny. Its strengths are concrete: the crawler and data-collection methodology are described in unusual detail (seed selection, semi-automated crawling, manual underground collection), the reported totals are arithmetically consistent where I checked them (Table 1 sums to 38,253; Table 2 sums to 11,457 and 205,583; Table 5 sums to 3,769 and 18,792), the authors release the collection code, and they performed responsible disclosure to the five platforms. The census alone — 38,253 listings, a $64M total asking price, per-platform price and follower distributions, and the payment-method landscape — is a useful reference for abuse researchers. The detection-efficiency claim in Section 8 is the one result that is load-bearing for the paper's policy conclusion, and it is currently overstated; because the authors hold the raw data, the needed re-estimation is feasible within the scope of revision. The scam taxonomy is a reasonable qualitative contribution but needs precision reporting before its counts can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§8 (Table 8)] The headline 'efficacy' figure of 19.71% conflates platform enforcement with owner-initiated account disappearances, and the paper's own status taxonomy makes this explicit. The text defines X's 'Not Found' status as meaning 'the account owner either changed their UserID or voluntarily deleted the account,' and for Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook the authors only 'suspect' that 'Not Found' or 'does not exist' corresponds to abuse-related profiles. Yet all of these statuses are then counted in the numerator of the 19.71% figure, and the paper calls this 'conservative.' The labeling is inverted: an account whose owner changed the UserID has not been blocked at all, and a voluntarily deleted account is not evidence about platform detection. Pooling these outcomes with confirmed takedowns makes 19.71% an upper bound, not a conservative lower bound, on platform enforcement against marketplace-advertised accounts. I ask the authors to re-estimate the rate with a status taxonomy that separates (i) confirmed suspension or platform deactivation, (ii) renamed account, (iii) voluntary deletion, and (iv) unknown, and to report the resulting ranges; Section 10's claim that 'only 19.7% of identified fraudulent accounts were actioned upon' should be revised accordingly.
  2. [§8] The metric also lacks a baseline and is a one-shot observation. No matched control group of comparable non-advertised accounts is measured, so the absolute inactivity rate of 19.71% does not isolate what platforms do to marketplace-advertised accounts; ordinary account churn (renaming, abandonment, voluntary deletion) also produces 'Not Found' and 'does not exist' responses. In addition, statuses were checked only at collection time (February to June 2024), so accounts suspended after the check are counted as 'not blocked,' while the paper's framing in Section 10 as a general detection gap ignores this right-censoring. A practical fix within the paper's scope is to re-query the 11,457 accounts after a fixed interval and to compare the inactivity rate against a cohort of accounts matched on age and follower count, or at minimum to report the result as a contemporaneous inactivity rate with these caveats stated.
  3. [§8 and §10] Two downstream statements inherit the conflation identified above and should be removed or re-derived. Section 8 states that 'blocked accounts frequently featured names associated with trends like crypto, NFTs, beauty, luxury, animals,' but the accounts in that analysis include renamed and voluntarily deleted profiles, so the claim is about inactive accounts, not blocked ones. Section 10 states that 'only 19.7% of identified fraudulent accounts were actioned upon by social media platforms,' which converts an inactivity observation into an actions claim without support; the data do not distinguish who performed the action. The qualitative conclusion that platforms face challenges in detecting these accounts may survive, but it cannot be quantified with the current numbers.
  4. [§6 (Tables 5-6)] The scam-post counts (18,792 posts, 3,769 accounts) are extrapolated from cluster-level labels whose precision is not reported. The authors manually inspected 25 randomly selected posts per cluster and then counted all posts in the 16 'scam' clusters as scam posts; if a cluster is mixed, the per-category counts in Table 6 are inflated, and the manual step is not calibrated with an inter-annotator agreement or a precision figure. In addition, the pipeline restricts input to English-language posts via CLD2, but Tables 5 and 6 are presented as totals over all 205,583 posts without stating the English-only denominator. Please report the fraction of posts that passed the language filter, the per-cluster scam ratio for the sampled posts, and the resulting precision-corrected counts.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract vs §4.1 and §11] Headline numbers disagree: median price is $157 in the Abstract but $120 in §11, and the category count is 211 in the Abstract versus 212 in §4.1.
  2. [§4.1] The sentence reporting 'a median value of $7,573,348 across the platforms' is unexplained (no plausible median of the five platform totals equals this), and 'The median number of seller accounts was 77' is inconsistent with Table 1, whose six listed seller counts have a median of about 278.
  3. [§4.1] The seller-country counts sum to 38,253 (29,420 + 8,833), which is the number of accounts, not the number of sellers (9,944 in Table 1, 9,949 in the text); the country analysis appears to be per-account and should be relabeled.
  4. [Table 4] The 'All' row is malformed ('0 7,830, 20,500,000') and the column header says 'media' instead of 'median'; additionally, the TikTok median of 1 follower for API-visible accounts contrasts sharply with the marketplace-reported TikTok median of 20,807 followers in §4.1, and the paper should explain which population each number describes.
  5. [§4.1 and §5] Verified-account counts differ (185 in §4.1, restricted to YouTube and not linked via URLs, versus 669 in §5); the two figures should be reconciled or clearly labeled as different populations.
  6. [§2] The citation 'Kurt et al. [57]' does not match reference [57], which is Thomas et al., 'Trafficking fraudulent accounts,' a work also cited earlier in the same section with a different description; the naming and registration study appears to be mis-attributed.
  7. [§8 and §10] The term 'fraudulent accounts' is applied to accounts that were advertised on selling marketplaces; the paper should state explicitly that marketplace listing, rather than independent ground truth, defines the study population, since this is a selection-based definition and not a detected-fraud label.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Section 8's 19.71% 'blocking efficacy' is definitionally inflated: the paper counts owner-side renames and voluntary deletions as platform enforcement, so the detection-gap claim reduces to its own status taxonomy.

  1. self definitional [Section 8, 'Efficacy and Abuse Control'; Table 8; Lessons Learned, 'Social Media Detection Gaps']
    "The Forbidden status indicates that the account was banned due to policy violations, while Not Found suggests that the account owner either changed their UserID or voluntarily deleted the account. ... We classify both scenarios under the efficacy of social media platforms in addressing and deactivating such accounts conservatively."

    The paper's own definition of the API statuses separates platform enforcement (Forbidden/banned) from owner-side events (UserID change, voluntary deletion), yet it then pools both into the 'efficacy of social media platforms in blocking these accounts' numerator (2,259 inactive accounts, 19.71%). By construction, the metric counts voluntary deletions and renames as platform takedowns, so the headline quantity is not an independent measurement of platform action but is assigned by the definition of the status taxonomy. The subsequent conclusion that only 19.7% of fraudulent accounts were 'actioned upon' and that platforms 'face challenges in detecting and mitigating these threats' is therefore an upper bound implied by the definition, not an empirically isolated platform detection rate.

full rationale

The study is primarily an observational census with no fitted parameters, model predictions, or theory-derived quantities, so most of its load-bearing claims are self-contained. The marketplace census (38,253 advertised accounts, $64M aggregate value, median prices), the profile-metadata analysis, the network cluster analysis, and the scam-post taxonomy (18,792 posts clustered into six scam families) are direct measurements of collected data and do not reduce to their inputs. The one definitional circularity is confined to Section 8: 'efficacy' is defined to include owner-side disappearances that the paper itself distinguishes from platform bans, making the 19.71% blocking rate a construct of the status taxonomy rather than a measured platform action rate. Because the abstract and Lessons Learned convert this number into the paper's central policy claim about platform detection gaps, the flaw is load-bearing for that specific conclusion, but the remainder of the empirical contributions stands independently. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems are present; the author self-citations in related work are not used to justify the measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

For an observational measurement study, the ledger is small: no fitted constants and no invented entities. What the analysis depends on are four domain assumptions (marketplace accounts are abusive, asking price approximates market value, a 25-post sample represents a cluster, and inactive statuses reflect enforcement) and three hand-chosen analysis settings (the 25-post labeling budget, unreported clustering hyperparameters, and the cluster minimum size of 2). The headline derived figures, the 19.71% takedown rate and the 18.7K scam-post count, are the direct outputs of these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Manual per-cluster sample size for scam labeling = 25 posts per cluster
    Section 6: 'we randomly selected and manually analyzed 25 sample posts' per cluster; clusters containing scam-like samples are then counted in full, so this hand-chosen number controls the 18.7K scam-post and 3.7K scam-account totals without any sensitivity analysis.
  • HDBSCAN/UMAP clustering hyperparameters = not reported
    Section 6 states HDBSCAN and UMAP are used to form 86 clusters but reports no parameter values (e.g., min_cluster_size, n_neighbors); cluster granularity determines the taxonomy and the resulting scam counts.
  • Network cluster minimum size = 2 accounts
    Section 7 groups accounts into clusters 'containing at least two or more unique UserIDs'; this threshold directly determines the 203 clusters and the under-5% coordinated-campaign finding.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Accounts advertised on these marketplaces are fraudulent or abuse-associated
    Section 8: 'We suspect that accounts labeled as Not Found or Does not exist are likely associated with scammer or abuse profiles.' This identification drives the detection-efficacy interpretation and the scam-prevalence framing.
  • domain assumption Asking prices are a meaningful measure of market value
    Section 4.1 aggregates asking prices into the $64,228,836 total while conceding 'the reasons behind the exceptionally high pricing of some accounts remain unclear' (including one $50 million listing); no transaction data exist to validate prices.
  • domain assumption A 25-post manual sample is representative of its cluster
    Section 6 extrapolates from the sampled posts to the entire cluster when computing scam totals; representativeness is assumed, not checked by a second annotation pass or inter-annotator agreement.
  • domain assumption Inactive profile statuses mark platform or abuse actions rather than owner deletions
    Section 8: the paper states 'We suspect that accounts labeled as Not Found or Does not exist are likely associated with scammer or abuse profiles' and then counts both voluntary deletions and takedowns as platform efficacy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploration of the Dynamics of Buy and Sale of Social Media Accounts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XHIDYPRG

@misc{pith2026241214985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploration of the Dynamics of Buy and Sale of Social Media Accounts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XHIDYPRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14985}
}
abstract

There has been a rise in online platforms facilitating the buying and selling of social media accounts. While the trade of social media profiles is not inherently illegal, social media platforms view such transactions as violations of their policies. They often take action against accounts involved in the misuse of platforms for financial gain. This research conducts a comprehensive analysis of marketplaces that enable the buying and selling of social media accounts. We investigate the economic scale of account trading across five major platforms: X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. From February to June 2024, we identified 38,253 accounts advertising account sales across 11 online marketplaces, covering 211 distinct categories. The total value of marketed social media accounts exceeded \$64 million, with a median price of \$157 per account. Additionally, we analyzed the profiles of 11,457 visible advertised accounts, collecting their metadata and over 200,000 profile posts. By examining their engagement patterns and account creation methods, we evaluated the fraudulent activities commonly associated with these sold accounts. Our research reveals these marketplaces foster fraudulent activities such as bot farming, harvesting accounts for future fraud, and fraudulent engagement. Such practices pose significant risks to social media users, who are often targeted by fraudulent accounts resembling legitimate profiles and employing social engineering tactics. We highlight social media platform weaknesses in the ability to detect and mitigate such fraudulent accounts, thereby endangering users. Alongside this, we conducted thorough disclosures with the respective platforms and proposed actionable recommendations, including indicators to identify and track these accounts. These measures aim to enhance proactive detection and safeguard users from potential threats.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evaluation Setup – Our evaluation setup com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In this graph, we present the cumulative and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of advertised seller accounts on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Date of account creation - In this graph, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three examples of the profile descriptions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://sn2sfdqay6cxztroslaxa36covrhoowe6a5xug6wlm 6ek7nmeiujgvad.link/

    Ares market. https://sn2sfdqay6cxztroslaxa36covrhoowe6a5xug6wlm 6ek7nmeiujgvad.link/

    work page

  2. [2]

    http://blackpyoc3gbnrlvxqvvytd3kxqj7pd226i2gvfyhy sj24ne2snkmnyd.onion/

    Black pyramid. http://blackpyoc3gbnrlvxqvvytd3kxqj7pd226i2gvfyhy sj24ne2snkmnyd.onion/

    work page

  3. [3]

    http://darkmmro6j5xekpe7jje74maidkkkkw265nngjqxrv 4ik7v3aiwdbtad.onion/

    Dark matter. http://darkmmro6j5xekpe7jje74maidkkkkw265nngjqxrv 4ik7v3aiwdbtad.onion/

    work page

  4. [4]

    http://kerberqtg7xpofsc3w47nvjd52sys6hqdejk3h7f z6kbqhyqrds3xgqd.onion/

    Kerberos market. http://kerberqtg7xpofsc3w47nvjd52sys6hqdejk3h7f z6kbqhyqrds3xgqd.onion/

    work page

  5. [5]

    https://mgmsanjqxo4svh35yqkxxe5r54z2xc5tjf6r3ichxd 3m2rwcgabf44ad.xyz/

    Mgm market. https://mgmsanjqxo4svh35yqkxxe5r54z2xc5tjf6r3ichxd 3m2rwcgabf44ad.xyz/

    work page

  6. [6]

    http://nexusabcdkq4pdlubs6wk6ad7pobuupzoomoxi 6p7l32ci4vjtb2z7yd.onion/

    Nexus market. http://nexusabcdkq4pdlubs6wk6ad7pobuupzoomoxi 6p7l32ci4vjtb2z7yd.onion/

    work page

  7. [7]

    https://huggingface.co/sen tence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2

    Sentence Transformer all-mpnet-base-v2. https://huggingface.co/sen tence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2

    work page

  8. [8]

    http://sglgj2fytneccvyn6n4u3pacj4zhdhscfoptnhxxes 3uvljmontru2yd.onion/

    Torzon market. http://sglgj2fytneccvyn6n4u3pacj4zhdhscfoptnhxxes 3uvljmontru2yd.onion/

    work page

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    http://hn2paw7zaahbikbejiv6h22zwtijlam65y2c77xj2y pbilm2xs4bnbid.onion/

    We the north. http://hn2paw7zaahbikbejiv6h22zwtijlam65y2c77xj2y pbilm2xs4bnbid.onion/

  2. [10]

    {Fact-Saboteurs}: A taxonomy of evidence manipulation attacks against{Fact-Verification} systems

    Abdelnabi, S., and Fritz, M. {Fact-Saboteurs}: A taxonomy of evidence manipulation attacks against{Fact-Verification} systems. In USENIX Security (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    E., Schönherr, L., and Holz, T

    Acharya, B., Lazzaro, D., López-Morales, E., Oest, A., Saad, M., Cinà, A. E., Schönherr, L., and Holz, T. The imitation game: Ex- ploring brand impersonation attacks on social media platforms. In USENIX Security (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    E., Schönherr, L., Nguyen, H

    Acharya, B., Saad, M., Cinà, A. E., Schönherr, L., Nguyen, H. D., Oest, A., V adrevu, P., and Holz, T. Conning the crypto conman: End-to-end analysis of cryptocurrency-based technical support scams. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P) (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    What they do in shadows: Twitter underground follower market

    Aggarwal, A., and Kumaraguru, P. What they do in shadows: Twitter underground follower market. InAnnual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Apify instagram scraper api

    Apify. Apify instagram scraper api. https://apify.com/apify/instagra m-scraper, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Facebook scraper

    Apify. Facebook scraper. https://apify.com/streamers/facebook- scraper, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Youtube scraper

    Apify. Youtube scraper. https://apify.com/streamers/youtube-scraper, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P) (2023)

    Bitaab, M., Cho, H., Oest, A., Lyu, Z., W ang, W., Abraham, J., W ang, R., Bao, T., Shoshitaishvili, Y., and Doupé, A.Beyond phish: Toward detecting fraudulent e-commerce websites at scale. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE S&P) (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    CLD2-CFFI – Python (CFFI) Bindings for Compact Lan- guage Detector 2

    Bowyer, G. CLD2-CFFI – Python (CFFI) Bindings for Compact Lan- guage Detector 2. https://github.com/GregBowyer/cld2-cff, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Uncovering large groups of active malicious accounts in online social networks

    Cao, Q., Y ang, X., Yu, J., and Palow, C. Uncovering large groups of active malicious accounts in online social networks. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Phi.sh$ocial: the phishing landscape through short urls

    Chhabra, S., Aggarwal, A., Benevenuto, F., and Kumaraguru, P. Phi.sh$ocial: the phishing landscape through short urls. In Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference (EMASC) (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake twitter followers.Decision Support Systems (2015)

    Cresci, S., Di Pietro, R., Petrocchi, M., Spognardi, A., and Tesconi, M. Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake twitter followers.Decision Support Systems (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    F., Pottinger, T., Savage, S., Voelker, G

    DeKoven, L. F., Pottinger, T., Savage, S., Voelker, G. M., and Leon- tiadis, N. Following their footsteps: Characterizing account automa- tion abuse and defenses. In ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Compa: Detecting compromised accounts on social networks

    Egele, M., Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., and Vigna, G. Compa: Detecting compromised accounts on social networks. In Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Gao, H., Hu, J., Wilson, C., Li, Z., Chen, Y., and Zhao, B. Y. Detect- ing and characterizing social spam campaigns. In ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC) (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    @ spam: the underground on 140 characters or less

    Grier, C., Thomas, K., Paxson, V., and Zhang, M. @ spam: the underground on 140 characters or less. InACM conference on Computer and communications security (CCS) (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    KeyBERT: Minimal Keyword Extraction with BERT

    Grootendorst, M. KeyBERT: Minimal Keyword Extraction with BERT. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4461265, 2020

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class- based TF-IDF procedure

    Grootendorst, M. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class- based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv arXiv:2203.05794 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Social media scams are on the rise as more people use the platforms to connect

    IDRC. Social media scams are on the rise as more people use the platforms to connect. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/post/social- media-scams-are-on-the-rise-as-more-people-use-the-platforms- to-connect/, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Jain, M., Mowar, P., Goel, R., and Vishwakarma, D. K. Clickbait in social media: detection and analysis of the bait. InInformation Sciences and Systems (CISS) (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jr., T. H. Social media scams: Stunning statistics and tips to protect yourself. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/12/americans-lose-billions- to-social-media-scams-red-flags-to-spot.html, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Detecting fake followers in twitter: A machine learning approach

    Khalil, A., Hajjdiab, H., and Al-Qirim, N. Detecting fake followers in twitter: A machine learning approach. International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Understanding and analyzing appraisal systems in the underground marketplaces

    Li, Z., and Liao, X. Understanding and analyzing appraisal systems in the underground marketplaces. In Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Malla: Demystifying real- world large language model integrated malicious services

    Lin, Z., Cui, J., Liao, X., and W ang, X. Malla: Demystifying real- world large language model integrated malicious services. arXiv arXiv:2401.03315 (2024). 14

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The cynicism of modern cybercrime: Automating the analysis of surface web marketplaces

    Lykousas, N., Koutsokostas, V., Casino, F., and Patsakis, C. The cynicism of modern cybercrime: Automating the analysis of surface web marketplaces. In IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE) (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Maras, M.-H., and Ives, E. R. Deconstructing a form of hybrid invest- ment fraud: Examining ‘pig butchering’in the united states. Journal of Economic Criminology (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    HDBSCAN: Hierarchical Density Based Clustering

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., and Astels, S. HDBSCAN: Hierarchical Density Based Clustering. Journal of Open Source Software (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    UMAP: Uniform Mani- fold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., and Melville, J. UMAP: Uniform Mani- fold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. arXiv arXiv:1802.03426 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    International confer- ence on contemporary computing and informatics (ic3i)

    Mehrotra, A., Sarreddy, M., and Singh, S. International confer- ence on contemporary computing and informatics (ic3i). In 2016 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I) (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Apify telegram scraper api

    Milevski, D. Apify telegram scraper api. https://apify.com/danielmi levski9/telegram-channel-scraper, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Telemetrio telegram scraper api

    Milevski, D. Telemetrio telegram scraper api. https://telemetr.io/, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sharp rise in blackmail of children asked to share explicit images

    Milmo, D. Sharp rise in blackmail of children asked to share explicit images. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/12/sharp- rise-in-blackmail-of-children-asked-to-share-explicit-images, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Identifying and analyzing cryptocurrency manip- ulations in social media

    Mirtaheri, M., Abu-El-Haija, S., Morstatter, F., Ver Steeg, G., and Galstyan, A. Identifying and analyzing cryptocurrency manip- ulations in social media. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (IEEE TCSS) (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Motoyama, M., McCoy, D., Levchenko, K., Savage, S., and Voelker, G. M. An analysis of underground forums. In ACM SIGCOMM Confer- ence on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Ftc data shows consumers report losing $2.7 billion to social media scams since 2021

    News, F. Ftc data shows consumers report losing $2.7 billion to social media scams since 2021. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ess-releases/2023/10/ftc-data-shows-consumers-report-losing-27- billion-social-media-scams-2021, 2023

    2021

  37. [45]

    J’finfluencers’ charged for promoting unauthorised trading scheme

    News, F. J’finfluencers’ charged for promoting unauthorised trading scheme. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/finfluencers- charged-promoting-unauthorised-trading-scheme, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    News, W. P. The rise of sextortion and responses to a growing crime. https://www.weprotect.org/issue/sextortion/

  39. [47]

    Job scams report – 2,670 social media posts reveal scammers top tactics

    Popovici, M. Job scams report – 2,670 social media posts reveal scammers top tactics. https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/job-scam- social-media-study/, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Fake shipping notification emails and text messages: What you need to know this holiday season

    Puig, A. Fake shipping notification emails and text messages: What you need to know this holiday season. https://consumer.ftc.gov/con sumer-alerts/2023/12/fake-shipping-notification-emails-and-text- messages-what-you-need-know-holiday-season, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embed- dings using Siamese BERT-Networks

    Reimers, N., and Gurevych, I. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embed- dings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Profiling online social behaviors for compromised account detection

    Ruan, X., Wu, Z., W ang, H., and Jajodia, S. Profiling online social behaviors for compromised account detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (ITIFS) (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Social media scams: Stunning statistics and tips to protect yourself

    Sebastain, N. Social media scams: Stunning statistics and tips to protect yourself. https://www.goodfirms.co/resources/social-media- scams-statistics-and-tips-for-protection, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Deceptive previews: A study of the link preview trustworthiness in social platforms

    Stivala, G., and Pellegrino, G. Deceptive previews: A study of the link preview trustworthiness in social platforms

  45. [53]

    Poultry markets: on the underground economy of twitter followers

    Stringhini, G., Egele, M., Kruegel, C., and Vigna, G. Poultry markets: on the underground economy of twitter followers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Detecting Spammers on Social Networks

    Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., and Vigna, G. Detecting Spammers on Social Networks. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC) (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Stringhini, G., W ang, G., Egele, M., Kruegel, C., Vigna, G., Zheng, H., and Zhao, B. Y. Follow the green: growth and dynamics in twitter follower markets. In ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measure- ment Conference (IMC) (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Buy and Sale of Social Media Code and Data

    SysSec. Buy and Sale of Social Media Code and Data. https://github.c om/CISPA-SysSec/social_media_buy_and_sale, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    {Trafficking} fraudulent accounts: The role of the underground mar- ket in twitter spam and abuse

    Thomas, K., McCoy, D., Grier, C., Kolcz, A., and Paxson, V. {Trafficking} fraudulent accounts: The role of the underground mar- ket in twitter spam and abuse. In USENIX Security (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Evaluating algorithms for detection of compromised social media user accounts

    Trång, D., Johansson, F., and Rosell, M. Evaluating algorithms for detection of compromised social media user accounts. In 2015 Second European Network Intelligence Conference (2015), European Network Intelligence Conference (ENIC)

    2015

  51. [59]

    User detail twitter api

    Twitter. User detail twitter api. https://developer.twitter.com/en/d ocs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api- reference/get-users-lookup, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    User timelines twitter api

    Twitter. User timelines twitter api. https://developer.twitter.com/en /docs/twitter-api/tweets/timelines/introduction, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    A., Crovella, M., Guha, S., Gummadi, K

    Viswanath, B., Bashir, M. A., Crovella, M., Guha, S., Gummadi, K. P., Krishnamurthy, B., and Mislove, A. Towards detecting anoma- lous user behavior in online social networks. In Usenix Security (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    The growth of fake products on social media

    Williams, R. The growth of fake products on social media. https: //www.redpoints.com/blog/the-growth-of-fake-products-on-social- media/, 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    M., and Hwa, T

    Xiao, C., Freeman, D. M., and Hwa, T. Detecting clusters of fake accounts in online social networks. In ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AIS) (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    K., Khodeir, S., Jin, Y., Li, F., Shan, S., Patel, S., Freeman, D., and Pearce, P

    Xu, T., Goossen, G., Cevahir, H. K., Khodeir, S., Jin, Y., Li, F., Shan, S., Patel, S., Freeman, D., and Pearce, P. Deep entity classification: Abusive account detection for online social networks. In USENIX Security (2021). A PUBLIC MARKETPLACES PAYMENT METHODS ADDITIONAL DET...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.