Tag Archive for Social media

| April 30, 2017
Comments Off on A Lifetime on Social Media

A Lifetime on Social Media

From the scary stats department – In 2015, time spent on mobile apps exceeded time spent watching TV for U.S. consumers according to TechCrunch. And now influencer marketing agency MediaKix has calculated more scary social media statistics. Social media users will now spend years online during their lifetime.

Time spent on social media is increasingGrowth on many of the top social media platforms continues to rise as each network rolls out new features and functionalities to better compete for users’ daily time. It must be working, not only is the number of people using social media increasing, and the time people are spending each day on social media is increasing. MediaKix says that just  Facebook (FB) users are spending an average of 50 minutes each day on the site.

Time on popular social media platforms

In order to see how much the average person will spend on social media throughout their life, MediaKix calculated the time spent across today’s most popular social media platforms. Across today’s most popular social media platforms, people are spending the following daily averages:

The advertising firm says these social media consumption rates, across a lifetime will total up to:

  • A lifetime on social mediaYouTube: 1 year, 10 months
  • Facebook: 1 year, 7 months
  • Snapchat: 1 year, 2 months
  • Instagram: 8 months
  • Twitter: 18 days

5 years 4 months on social media

Cumulatively, this adds up for a total of 5 years and 4 months spent on social media across a lifetime. Compare the time spent on social media against more mundane life activities.

  • Social Media: 5 years, 4 months
  • Eating & Drinking: 3 years, 5 months
  • Grooming: 1 year, 10 months
  • Socializing: 1 year, 3 months
  • Laundry: 6 months

The Santa Monica, CA firm projected the social media figures across an entire lifetime and put the numbers into the infographic below.

rb-

I have argued for a while that the social media fake news issue is a result of the American educational system. They are obsessed with teaching the common core. They don’t teach any analytical skills. Schools need to reinstate current events and media literacy classes.

Quartz cited a survey that found that teens prefer Facebook as a news source (41%). Tweens break between YouTube (41%) and Facebook (37%). By huge margins, girls prefer Facebook for news, and boys, YouTube.

The converging trends of more time spent online, preferring social media as a news source and no education is putting democracy at risk.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

 

Search Engine Journal offers some good suggestions on how to evaluate if a story is real or fake.

What is the Site? most major recognized sources for news journalism are not going to be producing clickbait fake news. Most of the fake news sites go for “shock” value and produce fake stories that are not as recognized. Look into the source itself and see whether it is a website that can be trusted.

Check the Domain – Many fake news stories use similar URLs and domain names to mimic reputable news sources, but rather than using a .com they use .com.co endings

What are the Authors’ Sources? – Good news stories contain links to other reputable reporting by respected organizations. Be wary of sources that cannot substantiate their claims.

Fact Check! – When in doubt, fact-check the information that you read! You can start with a simple search to look into the keywords or the event that is being reported on. You can also use sites like PolitiFact, FactCheck, and Snopes.

Examine the Website Closely – Look at the full spectrum of details on the site. Is there other fake-looking or shocking headlines? What does the overall website look like? How is the user experience? Sometimes doing just a little further digging will make it clear if a news story is fake.

Act! – Once you identify if a story is real or fake, you can make a big difference. Do not share stories on social media that are fake and make them more visible. If you notice a friend or family member share a fake story on a social media outlet, do them a favor and comment or message them showing how you found out it was fake so they don’t repeat the same mistake.

If you come across a fake news article, comment on it stating how you arrived at the conclusion it was fake. If everyone does their part to distinguish fake news stories and make them known, then they won’t be shared as easily.

Category: Social Networking | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
| April 2, 2017
Comments Off on 300 Billion Passwords

300 Billion Passwords

PasswordsThe death of the password has been predicted for years. Bill Gates predicted the death of the password at an RSA Security conference in 2004. In 2011, IBM (IBM) predicted that biometrics would replace passwords by 2016. In case you haven’t noticed in 2017 and passwords are still with us and they suck. “It’s now years after those statements were made, and passwords are still in heavy use,” Joseph Carson, head of global strategic alliances at Thycotic Software told CSO.

PasswordA new report (Reg. Req.) from cyber-security research firm Cybersecurity Ventures says that the number of passwords in use will grow from about 75 billion today to around 100 billion in 2020. AND the number of passwords used by machines, such as IoT devices, will grow even faster, from around 15 billion in 2015 to around 200 billion in 2020, the report said. That is 300 billion passwords by 2020.

And these numbers don’t include one-time passwords, SSL encryption keys, and other short-term credentials said Thycotic’s Carson. Thycotic Software sponsored the report.

Mr. Carson told CSO the estimates come from worldwide statistics about the total number of computers, operating systems, servers, routers, and other technologies and applications that come with passwords or need users to create passwords to use them. he added, “Then there are the social media accounts, which have been growing significantly.”

The average user has over 25 passwords, he said. There’s no decline in the number of passwords, in fact, the opposite is the case. “We find that the growth is accelerating at a massive pace,” CSO observed that the use — and reuse — of all these passwords is creating an ever-growing attack surface of both human and machine-to-machine passwords. A record number of credential breaches were disclosed in 2016, Mr. Carson added — 3 billion, with 43% of people having had at least one password or credential stolen.

A report released by the Pew Research Center said that for U.S. adults, the number was even higher. According to a 2016 survey, 64% said that they had personally noticed or been notified of a data breach that affected their accounts or personal data.

MoneyAccording to Mr. Carson, the financial damages of the breaches will continue to increase as well. Thycotic and Cybersecurity Ventures predicts potential damages from cyber-crime to reach $6 trillion by 2021.

rb-

Looks like passwords are here to stay. Followers of the Bach Seat know that passwords suck. I have covered a number of options to replace passwords. None of the biometric options have taken off as IBM had predicted.

Where biometric authentication is deployed, it’s been as an adjunct to passwords, not a replacement. Passwords are used to set up the initial trusted relationship, and as a fallback when the biometrics fail. Mr. Carson concludes, “The biometrics are used for ease of access to systems … Biometrics will never replace passwords.”

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
| February 23, 2017
Comments Off on What to Think About Before You Click

What to Think About Before You Click

What to Think About Before You ClickReaders of the Bach Seat know that the Internet can be a risky place. The typical advice to stay safe on the Intertubes is to think before you click. But why should you care and what should you think about before you click on a link in your email or on Facebook?  Email is the leading source of attacks at home and at work.

Kaspersky reports that over 2/3 of emails sent in 2014 were SPAM. Merely clicking on a SPAM link can lead to password and data theft, and even “drive-by” malware downloads. In order to stay safe at work and at home ESet wants you to ask yourself these questions before you click on any link:

1. Do you trust the person sending or posting the link?Do you trust the person sending or posting the link? People have gotten better at distinguishing good emails and links from bad. Nonetheless, you still need to be alert, so the first question to ask yourself is:

  • Do I trust the person sending or sharing this link? If you don’t recognize the name, the email account, or the content, delete it.

2. Do you trust the platform? Here’s what we mean by “platform”: A link shared on your company’s private Intranet is likely to be safe. But anybody can send you an email — so be skeptical.

many social media accounts are fake and pose a riskPay special attention to Twitter (TWTR) and Facebook (FB), as both social media sites have been hit by copious amounts of spam. Online security experts have found that many social media accounts are fake and pose a risk to anyone they come in contact with.

  • Researchers say that an average of 40% of Facebook and 20% of Twitter accounts claiming to represent a Fortune 100 brand are fake. 99% of malicious URLs posted on social media channels led to malware or phishing attacks.

3. Does this link coincide with a major world event? Cybercriminals seize any opportunity to get someone to click a link. They commonly use news events like natural disasters, Olympics, and World Cups to lure victims to identity theft or malware sites.

Do you trust the destination4. Do you trust the destination? Look at the link that has been shared. Does it go to a website you recognize? If you don’t trust or don’t know, the destination, don’t click the link.

5. Is it a shortened link? The rise of social media, especially Twitter, has prompted people to shorten links for convenience. Bad guys can easily shorten scam links, making them harder to spot.

  • With shortened links, the advice is clear; ask yourself the above four questions and if you’re unsure still, use LongURL and CheckShortURL, to restore the shortened link to its original length.

rb-

Even if you follow this advice, you still need to be alert. If for whatever reason, you’re unsure, you could pick up a phone and call them (Did you remember that you can talk to people on phones?) to verify that they did indeed send that information and maybe talk about something else too.

 

Related articles

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
| November 5, 2016
Comments Off on Chatbots Taking Over Politics

Chatbots Taking Over Politics

Chatbots Taking Over PoliticsMercifully, the 2016 U.S. election cycle is coming to an end. Most people are talking about how terrible all the candidates are. We don’t care anymore both candidates suck. The political conversation online is even worse. Political conversation online is more hateful because most of the politics on social media outlets like Facebook or Twitter are chatbots.

Researchers say that most election tweets come from political chatbots. Chatbots are computer programs that simulate human conversation or chat through artificial intelligence. Political chatbots engage with other users about politics, especially on Twitter (TWTR) and Facebook (FB).

Chatbots are rooting for Trump.

most election tweets come from political chat botsRecode reports that chatbots for both sides are pushing their candidates hard. According to a paper released by Oxford University’s Project on Computational Propaganda, Republican bots are out tweaking Democratic chatbots on the Web.

The researchers found that most bots root for Trump to win the election. During the third presidential “debate,” Twitter bots sharing pro-Trump-related content outnumbered pro-Clinton bots by 7 to 1. Between the first and second debates, bots generated more than 33% of pro-Trump tweets, compared with 20% for pro-Clinton tweets.

Twitter bot

The Oxford team found that a Twitter bot is automated account software that acts independently. Bots can retweet, like, and reply to tweets. They can also follow accounts and tweet themselves.

bots can give candidates and issues unwarranted cloutThe researchers found that Twitter accounts with extremely high levels of automation, meaning they tweeted over 200 times during the data collection period (Oct. 19-22) with a debate-related hashtag or candidate mention, accounted for nearly 25% of Twitter traffic surrounding the last debate.

The problem with the outpouring of automated engagement on Twitter is that campaigns often measure success (and decide where and how to invest in further outreach) by counting these retweets, likes, replies, and mentions.

Chatbots can give issues unwarranted clout.

The article states that it is hard to tell how many retweets and likes are from real supporters. A proliferation of chatbots can give candidates and issues unwarranted clout. Throughout the race, Trump has discounted the value of polls. They’re rigged, he says. Instead, his campaign implores Americans to reference how viral he is on social media and the size of his rallies.

rump’s uptick in automated Twitter fandomThe third debate came on the heels of the leaked tape of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women, which went viral. The article speculated that Trump’s uptick in automated Twitter fandom during the debate may have been intended to counteract the lingering outrage against the candidate on social media.

Increasingly, journalists use Twitter to report stories and prove public interest. They believe it’s an excellent way to bring audience voices into a political discussion, though more voices don’t always make for a better conversation. The author warns that much of the engagement numbers aren’t from real people, which is also a sobering reminder that virality is no demonstration of genuineness.

Automated fake profiles that look real

journalists use Twitter to report stories and prove public interestDonald Trump likes to boast that he’s more popular than Hillary Clinton on social media. After all, he has 12.9 million Twitter followers, while Clinton lags behind with a mere 10.1 million. But it’s hard to say how much those numbers mean if many of them represent robots. Sam Woolley, a researcher at the University of Washington who studies the political use of social media bots, told Revelist “… that well over half of his [Trump] followers are automated, fake profiles made to look like real people.”

Mr. Howard told CNN, “The takeaway is that we should be skeptical about social media … Politicians use bots to influence debate, it’s often a form of a negative campaign because in many cases these bots can be very vicious.”

Rb-

Filippo Menczer, a computer scientist at Indiana University’s School of Informatics and Computing, said botnets have been deployed in many countries to squelch dissent. “We’ve seen examples in other countries – in Russia, Iran, and Mexico – of bots used to destroy social movements. They would impede conversations.  All of a sudden, you would see hundreds of thousands of junk tweets flooding your feed.”

Notice the Trump – Russia tie.

This is one of the risks of automating work with bots, which I wrote about here. The pro-Trump bots keep counting on themselves to skew their total numbers up and bury the discussion points from actual voters under the avalanche of bot chat.

Watch out—it won’t be long before chatbots are granted rights under dubious SCOTUS rulings like Citizen United.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
| October 15, 2016
Comments Off on 2016’s Most Dangerous Online Celebrities

2016’s Most Dangerous Online Celebrities

2016's Most Dangerous Online CelebritiesThe 10th annual McAfee Top 100 Most Dangerous Celebrities to Search for Online Study, published by Intel Security, was recently released.  The yearly report uncovers which celebrities are the most dangerous to search for on Intertube.  These dangerous celeb results can expose fans to viruses, malware, and identity theft while searching for the latest information on today’s pop culture stars.  Intel (INTC) used its McAfee site rating software to find the number of risky sites generated by searches on Google, Bing, and even beleaguered Yahoo.

Intel security“Consumers today remain fascinated with celebrity culture and go online to find the latest pop culture news,” said Gary Davis, chief consumer security evangelist at Intel Security.  “With this craving for real-time information, many search and click without considering potential security risks.  Cyber-criminals know this and take advantage of this behavior by attempting to lead them to unsafe sites loaded with malware.”

Most Dangerous Online Celebrities

This year’s most dangerous celebrity online is Amy Schumer.  The comic joins recent most dangerous celebrity online alumni Jimmy Kimmel, Jay Leno, and Emma Watson.  According to Intel Security, a search for the “Trainwreck” actress has a 16.1% likelihood of returning results that direct fans to sites with viruses and malware.

2016 most dangerous celebrity online is Amy SchumerJustin Biber is the second most dangerous online celebrity.  As for the “Sorry” singer, there’s a 15% chance that Beliebers could connect with a malicious website.

The rest of this year’s Top 10 list included:
3.  Carson Daly 13.4%
4.  Will Smith 13.4%
5.  Rihanna 13.3%
6.  Miley Cyrus 12.7%
7.  Chis Hardwick 12.6%
8.  Daniel Tosh  11.6%
9.  Selena Gomez 11.1%
10.  Kesha 1exploit celebrity fandom for abuse1.1%

Intel says there are two big truths: cyber-criminals try to exploit celebrity fandom for abuse.  The first is that consumers want convenience.  As people rely less on cable and, instead, search for the content they want online, they’ll find many third-party sources for their favorite music or videos.

But unofficial sources are often dangerous.  Links can send users to unsafe sites, where sneaky tactics for stealing data and usernames are awaiting.  The popular torrent file format for downloading files allows cyber-criminals to sneak viruses onto devices.

social media obsessed cultureSocial media-obsessed culture

The second truth attackers are exploiting is the desire for gossip – now.  In today’s social media-obsessed culture, fans want real-time information about their favorite celebrities.  It isn’t uncommon for a celebrity to share a photo, post, or comment around the world in a matter of seconds.  Those posts often spark a wave of searches.  With all that traffic, cyber-criminals can trick fans into visiting a faux-gossip website infested with malware to steal passwords, credit card information, and more.  This method is particularly effective on social media channels, like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, where the standards for trust are low.

How to protect yourself

In addition to recommending anti-virus software, Intel, whose products include McAfee software, urges consumers to be skeptical when surfing the web.  But don’t worry.  No one is asking you to give up your celebrity infatuation; here are a few things you can do to make sure you’re entertained safely:

  • rusted video streaming services Watch media from sources.  Are you looking for the latest episode of Amy Schumer’s TV show, Inside Amy Schumer?  Stick to the official source at comedycentral.com or well-known and trusted video streaming services like Hulu to ensure you aren’t clicking on anything malicious.
  • Be wary of searching for file downloads.  Of all the celebrity-related searches we conducted, “torrent” was the riskiest by far.  According to Intel, a search for ‘Amy Schumer Torrent’ results in a 33 % chance of connecting to a malicious website.  Cybercriminals can use torrents to embed malware within authentic files, making it tricky to detect safe downloads from unsafe sources.  It’s best to avoid using torrents, especially when so many legitimate streaming options are available.
  • Keep your personal information personal.Keep your personal information private.  Cybercriminals are always looking for ways to steal your personal information.  If you receive a request to enter information like your credit card, email, home address, or social media log-in, Intel says you should not give it out thoughtlessly.  Please research and ensure it’s not a phishing or scam attempt that could lead to identity theft.
  • Use security protection while browsing.  Many software products can scan web pages you’re browsing, alerting you to malicious websites and potential threats.  This can keep you safe as you study the latest gossip.

rb-

The stars are new, but the game is the same.  In addition to applying some critical thinking to your web browsing, the same advice from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, etc. stands……

Maybe I will get more hits after putting these pop names in here.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005.  You can follow him on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter.  Email the Bach Seat here.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »