It appears most of us have short term memories, in 2018, the FBI seized Cambridge Analytics servers, where the majority of the data being collected was sourced from Facebook. It was an enormous psychological means of analysing and influencing the way that people think and how they vote apart from making lots of money. Since Meta launched Threats 30 million people signed up due to the fact they were already Instagram users, so they were automatically given accounts on Threads. So I pose the question, is Threads safer, better than Facebook?
Think about it, 30 million peoples thoughts and associated lives are now exposed and potentially analysed, which is a great source of data for analysis purposes. Now apply it to Generative AI models, and the result will be...
The following article suggests this is not the case, so does your organisation have a policy on the use of Instagram and Threads within your organisations?
Why are people so gullible to think Threads would be safer than using Twitter?
Will we see another similar case to Cambridge Analytica occurring or is actually occurring in front of our eyes? Or in fact is being developed without people realising it is happening already?
All social media poses the same approximate risk by design. They all facilitate disclosure/collection/publication of my business that nobody else really needs to know. To me, Joshua found the best answer -- the only winning move is not to play.
In my mind, the only difference between Twitter and Threads is that the former apparently has a corporate death-wish.
@denbesten @CraginS According to the latest statistics there is 97 million people who automatically joined Threads via Instagram or just do not care about their own privacy and their associated data at all.
So, if Threads then sold that accumulated data to a Cambridge Analytica like service, they would be doing very well indeed. Imagine the amount of data fed into ChatGPT or other Foundation AI models....
I do not see risk with signing up for social media accounts, presuming a bit of identity-stealthiness. Some sites (e.g. the local newspaper) are more forthcoming if one has authenticated. And for a few days, the head-twit, even thought it was a good idea to hide their entire platform behind authentication.
The problem comes about with posting to the account. Since I never post, "like" or "follow" anything, all they really get is partial viewing habits for someone they don't really know.
If threads did not require a mobile app, I probably would have already signed up for it (using incognito mode) just to poke the Musk-Zuck bear.
@denbesten I suggest you read up on one of the Whistle Blowers of Cambridge Analytica, I think you might change your tune, some what, when you realise the implications - it is quite illuminating to say the same.
However, due to the title of the book, from the original author, who gives his inside account, ISC2 would not be very happy with me sending the title across its messaging systems.
Incidentally, the Russian's have engaged in a similar approach for over 20 years, and in many ways the results are flourishing.
The whistleblowers details are shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie
Undoubtedly, the motivation for all these "free" social media services is data collection, selling either that data or access to their users. It's somewhat the same model that newspapers and magazines have used - here's access to our subscriber base. However, there were lines traditional media didn't cross that social media does. In terms of the quantity of data and the detail being read into it. Of course, that was maybe more a function of the medium and technology of the day than real strategy.
When people express shock at the depth of data collection and analysis, I wonder under what rock were they educated. A $100 billion company with no tangible product (at least at the time of their IPO), what did you think people were buying? They were and continue to buy influence. While politicians may occasionally slap their wrists (while also coveting that very influence). the ability to sell something to the most gullible portion of the population remains extremely profitable.
Arguably the success of social media reflects the failure of education. If you strip away everything from education, its primary goal should be to produce people capable of thinking on their own. Yet we have millions who crave the validation of a "like" (or dare I say, kudo?) on social media platforms.
"Since Meta launched Threats"
I really enjoyed the instantaneous nature of Twitter. A word search could rapidly tell me what was going on, from tornadoes to small-town news stories. If your intention was to react, then Twitter became a sewer.
Maybe I should stop expecting other social media companies to re-create Twitter, because I'm far too conscious nowadays about avoiding such pattern-seeking activity.