Fake news is one of the more troubling trends of 2017. The term is liberally applied to discredit everything, from stories with perceived bias through to ‘alternative facts’ and downright lies. It has a warping effect on public opinion and spreads misinformation.

Fake news is nothing new – bad journalism and propaganda have always existed – but what is new is its ability to spread through social media.

In this post, we’ll see how graph analysis and visualization techniques can help social networking sites stop the spread of fake news. We’ll see how, like fraud, fake news detection is about understanding networks. We’ll discuss how Neo4j and the KeyLines graph visualization toolkit can power a comprehensive fake news detection process.

A quick note: For simplicity, in this post we’ll limit the term ‘fake news’ to describe completely fictitious and unsubstantiated articles (see examples like PizzaGate and the Ohio lost votes story).

How Is Fake News a Graph Problem?


To detect fake news, it’s essential to understand how it spreads online – between accounts, posts, pages, timestamps, IP addresses, websites, etc. Once we model these connections as a graph, we can differentiate between normal behaviors and abnormal activity where fake content could be shared.

Let’s get started.

Building Our Graph Data Model


When we’re detecting fraud, we usually rely on verifiable, watch-list friendly, demographic data like real names, addresses or credit card details. With fake news, we don’t have this luxury, but we do have data on social networking sites. This can give us useful information, including:
    • Accounts (or Pages)
    • Age, history, connections to other accounts, pages and groups
    • Posts
    • Device fingerprint / IP address, timestamp, number of shares, comments, reactions and ‘Reported’ flags
    • Articles
    • Host URL, WHOIS data, title, content and author
There are many ways to model this data as a graph. We usually start by mapping the main items to nodes: account, post and article. We know that IP addresses are important, so we can add those as nodes too. Everything else is added as a property:

Graph model for fake news detection

Our fake news detection graph model

Detection vs. Investigation


Fake news spreaders are just as determined as regular fraudsters. They’ll adapt their behavior to avoid detection, and employ bots to run brute-force attacks.

Relying on algorithmic or manual detection isn’t enough. We need a hybrid approach that combines automated detection and manual investigation:

The process model for fake news detection between Neo4j and KeyLines

A simplified model showing fake news detection powered by Neo4j and KeyLines

    • Automated detection
    • This uses a Neo4j graph database as the engine for an automated, rule-based detection process. It isolates posts and accounts that match patterns of behavior previously associated with fake news (‘known fraud’).
    • Manual investigation
    • At the same time, a manual investigation process, powered by a KeyLines graph visualization tool, helps uncover new behaviors (‘unknown fraud’).
New behaviors are fed back into the automated process, so automated detection rules can adapt and become more sophisticated.

Detecting Fake News with Neo4j


Once we’ve created our data store, we can run complex queries to detect high-risk content and accounts.

Here’s where graph databases like Neo4j offer huge advantages over traditional SQL or relational databases. Queries that could take hours now take seconds and can be expressed using intuitive and clean Cypher queries.

For example, we know that fake news botnets tend to share content in short bursts, using recently registered accounts with few connections. We can run a Cypher query that:
  • Returns all accounts:
    • that have fewer than 20 friend connections
    • that shared a link to www.example.com
    • between 12.07pm – 12.37pm on 13 February 2017
In Cypher, we’d simply express this as:

MATCH (account:Account)--(ip:IP)--(post:Post)--(article:Article)
      WHERE account.friends < 20 AND article.url = 'www.example.com'
            AND post.timestamp > 1486987620000 
            AND post.timestamp < 1486989420000
RETURN account

Investigating Fake News with KeyLines


To seek out ‘unknown fraud’ – cases that follow patterns that can’t be fully defined yet – our manual investigation process looks for anomalous connections.

Learn how to use KeyLines and Neo4j to detect fake news on social media through graph visualization

Visual investigation tools provide an intuitive way to uncover unusual connections that could indicate fake content

A graph data visualization tool like KeyLines is essential for this.

Building a Visual Graph Model


Let’s define a visual graph model so we can start to load data from Neo4j into KeyLines.

It’s not a great idea to load every node and link in our source data. Instead we should focus on the minimal viable elements that tell the story, and then add other properties as tooltips or nodes later.

We want to see our four key node types, with glyphs to highlight higher-risk data points like:
    • New accounts
    • Posts that have been reported by users
    • URLs that have previously been associated with fake content
This gives us a visual model that looks like this:

A visual data model of high-risk data points using glyphs in KeyLines


Loading the Data


To find anomalies, we need to define normal behavior. Graph visualization is the simplest way to do this.

Here’s what happens when we load 100 Post IDs into KeyLines:

Data loading of Facebook post IDs into KeyLines

Loading the metadata of 100 Facebook posts into KeyLines to identify anomalous patterns

Our synthesized dataset is simplified, with a lower rate of sharing activity and more anomalies than real-world data. But even in this example we can see both normal and unusual behavior:

Normal social media user news sharing behavior

Normal user sharing behavior, visualized as a graph

Normal posts look similar to our data model – featuring an account, IP, post and article. Popular posts may be attached to many accounts, each with their own IP, but generally this linear graph with no red glyphs indicates a low-risk post.

Other structures in the graph stand out as unusual. Let’s take a look at some examples.

1. Monitoring New Users


New users should always be treated as higher risk than established users. Without a known history, it’s difficult to understand a user’s intentions. Using the New User glyph, we can easily pick them out:

Non-suspicious user behavior social media post

A non-suspicious post being shared by a new user

A pattern of unusual user sharing behavior that might be fake news

This structure is much more suspicious, with a new user sharing flagged posts to articles on known fake news domains

2. Identifying Unusual Sharing Behavior


We can also use a graph view to uncover suspicious user behavior. Here’s one strange structure:

A deviant pattern of user sharing behavior that might be fake news

An anomalous structure for investigation

We can see one article has been shared multiple times, seemingly by three accounts with the same IP address. By expanding both the IP and article nodes, we can get a full view of the accounts associated with the link farm.

3. Finding New Fake News Domains


In addition to monitoring users, social networks should monitor links to domains known for sharing fake news. We’ve represented this in our visual model using red glyphs on the domain node. We’ve also used the combine feature to merge articles on the same domain:

Combining domain tracking using graph visualization

Using combos to see patterns in article domains

This view shows the websites being shared, rather than just the individual articles. We can pick out suspicious domains:

Suspicious fake news website domain sharing pattern


Try It for Yourself


This post is just an illustration of how you can use graph visualization techniques to understand the complex connected data associated with social media. We’ve used simplified data and examples to show how graph analysis could become part of the crackdown on fake news.

We’d love to see how this approach works using real-world data. Catch my lightning talk or stop by our table at GraphConnect on 11th May to see how we could work together!

References


The dataset we used here was synthesised from the following two sources: Cambridge Intelligence is a Silver sponsor of GraphConnect Europe. Use discount code CAMBRIDGE30 to get 30% off your tickets and trainings.


Join us at the Europe's premier graph technology event: Get your ticket to GraphConnect Europe and we'll see you on 11th May 2017 at the QEII Centre in downtown London!

Sign Me Up

 

Keywords:  


About the Author

Dan Williams, Product Manager, Cambridge Intelligence

Dan Williams Image

Dan Williams works closely with Cambridge Intelligence customers who are building advanced graph applications, helping them to make the best possible graph visualization tools. He has a Master’s in Physics from Oxford University and a wealth of experience with a variety of software products across many different industry verticals.


1 Comment

ds misell says:

Dan,

please come back if you are available to do a presentatiojn early PM UK time remotely 11 October, we are hosting a BCS (ACM equivalent) event in Cambridge UK jointly with OWASP that day

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bcs-devsecopscybercrime-forensics-owasp-cambridge-social-media-faux-news-forensics-conference-tickets-37915130175

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe

Upcoming Event

 

Neo4j GraphTour Register Now

From the CEO

Emil's Blog


Have a Graph Question?

Stackoverflow
Slack
Contact Us

Share your Graph Story?

Email us: content@neotechnology.com


Popular Graph Topics