Written by Paul Holland, CEO of Beyond Encryption
In the last 6 months, we have witnessed the beginning of considerable changes across social media. Elon Musk launched Twitter Blue in December 2022 and mid-February of this year saw the introduction of Meta Verified – a subscription-based model that allows Facebook and Instagram users to complete an authentication process and receive a verified badge.
With big tech and governments across the globe looking for more effective ways to regulate online spaces, from the UK’s Online Safety Bill to the EU’s Digital IDs, it’s important that we question the reasons behind these changes and whether this move is the right one for supporting consumer safety.
In theory, these recent evolutions within the social platforms have been made to counteract the flood of bots and other fake accounts that have taken root, with Mark Zuckerberg stating that Meta Verified is all about “increasing authenticity and security”. Currently, Instagram has a shocking 95 million fake accounts on their platform. Unfortunately, Facebook is no better off, seeing 1.3 million fake profiles removed in Q4 2022 alone. These accounts have been significantly contributing to abuse and trolling, with younger users in particular remaining vulnerable to the online harassment.
However, another obvious and slightly less noble reason behind the shift is Meta’s declining advertising revenue and overall income, which fell 52% in the third quarter of 2022, thanks largely to the recent economic downturn. The subscription, which costs users between $11.99 and $14.99 a month, could go a long way towards supplementing these losses for the company.
As these major tech players look to diversify their revenue streams through subscription services, critics have voiced doubt that they will uphold their end of the bargain and prioritise the safety of users. With money as a motive, can social media platforms really provide a path to safer environments? The very principle of paid-for verification suggests not.
Paid-for verification creates a two-tiered system, only allowing access to certain add-ons, such as authentication, for those that pay a monthly sum. Premium features are a common enough principle in today’s world, yet when these additional resources are a necessity for solid cybersecurity and consumer protection, there is cause for concern. Research has shown that the majority of Meta users are affected by security issues, with an estimated 85% suffering from Instagram account compromise and 25% from affected Facebook accounts.
Being able to pay for your account to be authenticated can also give a false impression of how reliable an account may be, especially in Twitter Blue’s case. We only have to recall the first few weeks of launch, where thousands of users paid for impersonated accounts to be authenticated and engaged in increased levels of trolling. While Twitter has promised to crack down on the issue, we can only wonder how prudent social media platforms will be to hold ‘verified’ online trolls accountable when they provide an additional revenue stream.
Finally, we have to consider that introducing additional transactions within social media sites will make users more vulnerable to breaches of data, as verified profiles will be a clear signal to threat actors that the account holds financial information. Users should be questioning whether they trust these companies enough to securely hold their financial data.
This isn’t just true for Meta and Twitter – we are currently experiencing a shift in consumer attitudes and behaviours across the board when it comes to their online security and identity. Consumers are increasingly demanding seamless and frictionless user experiences from businesses, whilst also expecting their private information and data to be handled securely. However, they often display a disconnect between knowing they need to protect their data, and the actual behaviours they demonstrate to protect themselves online.
By introducing extra layers of digital security and identity verification, whether paid or not, we have the potential to further influence consumer behaviour. This will be especially vital in sectors such as financial services.
While the finance industry is no stranger to identity verification, we have seen consumers beginning to prioritise ‘the Amazon effect’, gravitating towards institutes that offer more seamless customer experiences, such as challenger banks like Monzo and Revolut. By using biometric and digital document verification, they have made banking increasingly accessible, as well as facilitating the faster opening of bank accounts and transaction completions.
However, as more consumers look towards digital tools to conduct daily financial tasks, the onus is on financial organisations to protect their customers while banking online. We have already witnessed a significant increase in digital fraud, especially for Revolut, with investigators revealing that criminals are taking advantage of the simplicity of moving money in and out.
It is imperative that businesses supply customers with digital verification that is stringent enough to protect sensitive data while remaining as frictionless as the rest of their services. This solution must also consider the capability to be applied across multiple platforms to create a standardised approach to digital ID.
One proposed method to fulfil these necessities is decentralised ID, such as network authentication, which removes the need for organisations to hold personal information and places control of data within consumers’ hands. And while Meta has started using similar methods as part of its verification model, such as monitoring previous online activity, this principle must be embraced further to fully minimise risk and create safe online spaces.
