In Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility," Eleanor cautions Marianne about showing too much partiality in favour of Willoughby. Marianne asks why she should not make her feelings known?
The modern answer is, so you won't get scammed.
Willoughby is a scammer. Austen's novels are often described as "comedies of manners." Willoughby is skilled in the social engineering of the manners of his day. He carries a small volume of Shakespeare's sonnets, as evidence that he is a man of sensitivity and romantic disposition. Shortly before he is introduced in the book he has seduced, impregnated, and abandoned a young woman. (We learn of this later.) When this becomes known, and his inheritance threatened, he abandons Marianne and marries another woman with a larger fortune. He can do all of this because all of the women involved made their feelings known, and Willoughby therefore knew his social engineering was working.
(I have always wondered why Austen has multiple characters attest to the hypothesis that Willoughby's attachment to Marianne was "sincere." I suspect that it was to protect Marianne's character from charges that her own attachment was inappropriate in the case of a mere infatuation. But this has little to do with scams or social media, and is, therefore, a digression.)
On a fairly regular basis I do seminars and workshops for the general public on how to avoid being scammed. I try to make the point that Eleanor was making: if you don't want to be scammed, don't give away so much information about yourself. As we, in the information security field, try so hard to point out to people, if you don't want everyone knowing all of your personal details, stop posting all of your personal details on social media.
Of course, if you want any kind of social interaction at all, you must make some things known. There is no such thing as perfect privacy, unless you want to live life encased in concrete, in a lead-lined box, surrounded by armed guards. (And even then I have my doubts.) (Hi, spaf.) Social media is social, and so there is give and take.
But there should also be risk analysis. And part of risk analysis is analysis. There is cost-benefit analysis. What are you giving away, in return for what you are getting? But there is also the very simple analysis of what am I doing? And why am I doing it?
On social media we give away far more information than we realize. Simply looking at a posting gives up information, about ourselves and our preferences (our "partiality," in Austen's parlance) to the owners and algorithms of the platform. But we can make deliberate choices that influence those algorithms.
Part of what social media platforms do with the information that you give them is to put you into an "echo chamber." Social media platforms want to ensure that you spend as much time as possible on the platform. (This means that you are giving away information about yourself, if only in terms of what you read, watch, or interact with, and therefore provide more information that the social media platform can sell to interested parties.) (There are always interested parties.) Social media platforms know that, if you get annoyed enough, you will engage less with the platform. Therefore, the algorithms increase the availability, to you, of items similar to those you have liked, and reduce presentation of items that may be in opposition to those you like, or have watched or engaged with.
I have been on the Internet since before it was called the Internet. Back in the days before the term "social media" was even invented, there was social interaction with the simple communication tools then available, and I was aware of the concept that became known as the "echo chamber" even then. As a researcher, researching those who were attacking computer and information systems, I had to ensure that I didn't get automatically blocked from finding social interactions of those people who were discussing or planning attacks and exploits. And, when official "social media" platforms *did* appear, the techniques, activities, and lessons I had learned earlier stood me in good stead to avoid being trapped into echo chambers. To this day, the social media giants feed me items that I find highly annoying, and even enraging. (And every time I encounter one, I have to remind myself not to over-react: that this garbage is valuable information about other communities than the ones I prefer to inhabit, and is, in fact, evidence that the plan is working.)
Anyone who has read more than a few of my postings will possibly be surprised at this statement. You don't have to read too many of my postings to find an opinion, and often a strong one. However, this is lesson one in terms of avoiding betraying your own partiality, and therefore opening yourself to scams and social engineering. It isn't the thoughtful and considered text that you create as content that social media platforms (and other scammers) are primarily mining to learn about you. Statistically speaking, almost nobody reads what you write. (And, believe me, of those who *do* read what you write, extremely few of them read it carefully or thoughtfully.)
*Armies* of people are counting your "likes."
It takes time to read, and parse, and consider, what you write. It takes fractions of a second to have a program count your likes, and to identify accounts of people who have the same pattern of likes that you do. A few more fractions of seconds can have programs provide whole networks of people, most of whom you know nothing about, and the likelihood that they will buy similar items of merchandise, or are grieving, or will vote for a given political party or candidate, or are frightened by the mere mention of the word "immigrant."
And all *kinds* of people, in all kinds of ways, can make money off of that information.
So, keep your fingers off the "like" buttons. Indiscriminately "liking" every kitten, rainbow, and unicorn makes your partiality known. (Let me say that there is absolutely *nothing* wrong with kittens, rainbows, or unicorns. Kittens provide cute in a world that is seriously lacking in it, rainbows provide hope and beauty, and, even though I have spent my *professional* life desperately trying to teach people that there is no such thing as magic in terms of computers, well, we could probably all use a little belief in magic in general.) But, getting back to risk analysis, what is the benefit, in terms of what you are getting in liking that kitten, rainbow, or unicorn, in comparison to what it costs you in terms of being identified with that network.
Now, part of the point of being involved with social media is being social. Telling your friends what you think. Making *new* friends. I understand that. I am a grieving widower, and we understand loneliness. You always have to be open to the possibility of new acquaintances. Open to the possibility that they might become friendships, and possibly close friendships. I have recently met, online, a woman from Michigan. It is unlikely that we would ever have met, given that she lives over a thousand miles away from me. But she finds that I post cool, informative content that is super interesting. She looks like a nice person, from her picture, and has posted some lovely flowers, so she obviously appreciates beauty, as do I! She has said that, honestly, my postings present the kind of vibe that makes someone want to be friends with me. And, in private correspondence, she says that my family posts are so heartwarming and I seem like such a lively, happy person who’s just a joy to be around.
In fact, the flowers are about all that she has posted on her account. And, remember what I said about how, statistically speaking, almost nobody reads what I write, and of those who *do* read what I write, extremely few of them read it carefully or thoughtfully? Pretty much anyone would be willing to believe that they post cool, informative content that is super interesting. And that their postings present the kind of vibe that makes someone want to be friends with them. The thing is, I don't post much that could be labelled family posts. Little that I write is heartwarming, and I very much doubt that I seem like such a lively, happy person who’s just a joy to be around.
So, lesson two is to be self-aware. Not just of the fact that you may be bereaved, and therefore are likely to be vulnerable to grief scams. But also of the "self" that you are creating and curating on social media. Even if what someone says about you is positive, what is the evidence, in terms of the information available *to them*, that supports what they are saying? Or is it all just attractive fluff and bait? Be aware of what information you *have* given out about yourself--and what you haven't. (Or, at least, haven't *intentionally*. Yes, I have mentioned, in posts, about being a grieving widower. But I also "follow" a lot of "grief" accounts, and it is probably quicker and easier to access that information than to find "heartwarming" family posts amongst what I have written.)
No comments:
Post a Comment