Many social media studies argue that social media creates echo chambers where some users only interact with peers of the same political orientation. However, recent studies suggest that a substantial amount of Cross-Partisan Interactions (CPIs) do exist --- even within echo chambers, but they may be toxic. There is no consensus about how such interactions occur and when they lead to healthy or toxic dialogue. In this paper, we study a comprehensive Twitter dataset that consists of 3 million tweets from 2020 related to the U.S. context to understand the dynamics behind CPIs. We investigate factors that are more associated with such interactions, including how users engage in CPIs, which topics are more contentious, and what are the stances associated with healthy interactions. We find that CPIs are significantly influenced by the nature of the topics being discussed, with politically charged events acting as strong catalysts. The political discourse and pre-established political views sway how users participate in CPIs, but the direction in which users go is nuanced. While Democrats engage in cross-partisan interactions slightly more frequently, these interactions often involve more negative and nonconstructive stances compared to their intra-party interactions. In contrast, Republicans tend to maintain a more consistent tone across interactions. Although users are more likely to engage in CPIs with popular accounts in general, this is less common among Republicans who often engage in CPIs with accounts with a low number of followers for personal matters. Our study has implications beyond Twitter as identifying topics with low toxicity and high CPI can help highlight potential opportunities for reducing polarization while topics with high toxicity and low CPI may action targeted interventions when moderating harm.

Cross-platform communities are social media communities that have a presence on multiple online platforms. One active community on both Reddit and Discord is dankmemes. Our study aims to examine differences in harmful language usage across different platforms in a community. We scrape 15 communities that are active on both Reddit and Discord. We then identify and compare differences in type and level of toxicity, in the topics of the harmful discourse, in the temporal evolution of toxicity and its attribution to users, and in the moderation strategies communities across platforms. Our results show that most communities exhibit differences in toxicity depending on the platform. We see that toxicity is rooted in the different subcultures as well as in the way in which the platforms operate and their administrators moderate content. However, we note that in general terms Discord is significantly more toxic than Reddit. We offer a detailed analysis of the topics and types of communities in which this happens and why, which will help moderators and policymakers shape their strategies to mitigate the harm on the Web. In particular, we propose practical and effective strategies that Discord can implement to improve its platform moderation.

The introduction of ChatGPT and the subsequent improvement of Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted more and more individuals to turn to the use of ChatBots, both for information and assistance with decision-making. However, the information the user is after is often not formulated by these ChatBots objectively enough to be provided with a definite, globally accepted answer.

From health to education, income impacts a huge range of life choices. Earlier research has leveraged data from online social networks to study precisely this impact. In this paper, we ask the opposite question: do different levels of income result in different online behaviors? We demonstrate it does. We present the first large-scale study of Nextdoor, a popular location-based social network. We collect 2.6 Million posts from 64,283 neighborhoods in the United States and 3,325 neighborhoods in the United Kingdom, to examine whether online discourse reflects the income and income inequality of a neighborhood. We show that posts from neighborhoods with different incomes indeed differ, e.g. richer neighborhoods have a more positive sentiment and discuss crimes more, even though their actual crime rates are much lower. We then show that user-generated content can predict both income and inequality. We train multiple machine learning models and predict both income (R2=0.841) and inequality (R2=0.77).

Smart Voice Assistants are transforming the way users interact with technology. This transformation is mostly fostered by the proliferation of voice-driven applications (called skills) offered by third-party developers through an online market. We see how the number of skills has rocked in recent years, with the Amazon Alexa skill ecosystem growing from just 135 skills in early 2016 to about 125k skills in early 2021. Along with the growth in skills, there is increasing concern over the risks that third-party skills pose to users’ privacy. In this paper, we perform a systematic and longitudinal measurement study of the Alexa marketplace. We shed light on how this ecosystem evolves using data collected across three years between 2019 and 2021. We demystify developers’ data disclosure practices and present an overview of the third-party ecosystem. We see how the research community continuously contribute to the market’s sanitation, but the Amazon vetting process still requires significant improvement. We perform a responsible disclosure process reporting 675 skills with privacy issues to both Amazon and all affected developers, out of which 246 skills suffer from important issues (i.e., broken traceability). We see that 107 out of the 246 (43.5%) skills continue to display broken traceability almost one year after being reported. As a result, the overall state of affairs has improved in the ecosystem over the years. Yet, newly submitted skills and unresolved known issues pose an endemic risk.

Android malware is now pervasive and evolving rapidly. Thousands of malware samples are discovered every day with new models of attacks. The growth of these threats has come hand in hand with the proliferation of collective repositories sharing the latest specimens. Having access to a large number of samples opens new research directions aiming at efficiently vetting apps. However, automatically inferring a reference ground-truth from those repositories is not straightforward and can inadvertently lead to unforeseen misconceptions. On the one hand, samples are often mis-labeled as different parties use distinct naming schemes for the same sample. On the other hand, samples are frequently mis-classified due to conceptual errors made during labeling processes. In this paper, we analyze the associations between all labels given by different vendors and we propose a system called EUPHONY to systematically unify common samples into family groups. The key novelty of our approach is that no a-priori knowledge on malware families is needed. We evaluate our approach using reference datasets and more than 0.4 million additional samples outside of these datasets. Results show that EUPHONY provides competitive performance against the state-of-the-art.