16 A third of US social media users creating fake accounts
Fake social media accounts are usually associated with bot networks, but some research released Tuesday revealed many social media users are creating their own fake accounts for a variety of reasons.
According to a survey of 1,500 American social media users by USCasinos.com, one in three social media users in the US has numerous accounts on the social media networks they frequent. Nearly half (48%) of individuals with multiple accounts have two or more additional accounts.
The most common justifications given for opening extra accounts are to “express my opinions without being criticised” (mentioned by 41% of people) and “spy on someone else’s profile” (38%).
Other reasons for creating false accounts include “improving my chances of winning online contests” (13%), “increasing the likes, followers, and other metrics on my real account” (5%), “to fool others” (2.6%), and “to scam others” (0.4%).
Respondents were asked where they were making their fake accounts, and the top three responses were Twitter (41%), Facebook (31%), and Instagram (28%). Will Duffield, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.- based think tank, explained that this was the case because Twitter is significantly more open by default.
He told TechNewsWorld that Twitter power users frequently have many accounts, including ones for large audiences, smaller groups, and default open and private accounts.
According to the study’s co-author Ines Ferreira, noted that Twitter served as inspiration for the study’s online casino directory website. She told TechNewsWorld, that “We launched this analysis mostly because of the hoopla over the Elon Musk and Twitter merger.”
A legal battle over that accord between Musk and the Twitter board over the volume of fake accounts on the platform is still pending. However, the study’s examples of fake accounts are distinct from the ones that flustering Musk. Duffield said that “the survey conflates two quite different issues.”
“On the one hand, there are automated accounts—things that are controlled by machines and frequently used for spam. Elon Musk claims that there are too many accounts like that on Twitter, according to TechNewsWorld.” There are also pseudonymous accounts, which is what this study is looking at. Users that don’t want to use their real names operate them.
The survey also found that the majority of users (80.9%) kept their same sex when creating false profiles. According to the report, the primary exception to this rule is when users want to spy on other accounts. They therefore prefer to create a fake account with the opposite sex. Generally speaking, 13.1% of survey respondents indicated they created fake accounts using the other sex.
There are lots of reasons, according to Duffield, why we don’t want everything we do online to be attached to our real names. And it’s not always due to Cancel Culture or something like.
He said, that the ability to compartmentalise identities or take on several personalities without committing to them on the internet allows us to present different aspects of ourselves at once. The use of pseudonyms online is fairly common. Using genuine names is, in fact, a more modern expectation, he claimed.
Accounts Made Without Remorse
The study also discovered that the majority of false account creators (53.3%) prefer to conceal their behaviour from their close friends. When they do mention their false accounts, friends (29.9%) and family (9.9%) are the most likely recipients, followed by partners (7.7%).
The researchers also found that 53.3 percent of phoney account owners were millennials, compared to Gen X’s average of three and Gen Z’s average of two.
According to the report, those who create phoney accounts seem to be free to do so. 94% of the interviewees said no when asked if their bogus accounts had ever been reported to the platforms where they were created.
According to Ferreira, “these platforms frequently introduce new algorithms to report these accounts, but the majority of them never get reported.” It’s quite difficult to distinguish between all of the false accounts since there are so many of them and they are so simple to create.
“These platforms are going to think a little bit more how they’re going to do it after the Elon Musk deal with Twitter,” she continued.
Duffield, though, minimised the necessity of monitoring user-created false accounts. There is no justification for the platforms to view the creation of these accounts as a concern, he continued, given it is not against the terms of service.
He continued, “Even though they don’t have genuine names, these accounts are run by real individuals, and they act like real people. They only send messages to one individual at a time. They’re typing stuff out slowly. Their day/night cycle is regular. They don’t send out 1,000 messages to 100 different people at once, at all hours of the day.
Unharmful fakes?
Fake accounts generated by individuals are less damaging to the networks hosting them than fake accounts produced by bots, according to Duffield.
According to a theory, users who use pseudonymous accounts or accounts unrelated to their real identities misbehave more frequently, but from the standpoint of moderation, banning a pseudonymous account is the same as banning a real person, he said.
Facebook has a real name policy, despite receiving a lot of criticism for it over the years, he continued. It is currently being purposefully under-enforced, in my opinion.
He insisted, that “It isn’t a problem for the platforms, as long as the pseudonymous user is following the regulations,”.
Bot accounts don’t support a social media platform’s revenue model, but phoney user accounts do.
According to Duffield, “If the pseudonymous account is being utilised by a real human being, they are still receiving adverts.” It’s not like a robot clicking on stuff by itself. Regardless of the name on the account, if people are watching and receiving relevant advertising, it is not a big deal from the platform’s perspective.
Platforms, advertisers, and prospective buyers are interested in the activity since it is shown in the statistics for monthly active users, he stated. “People frequently abandon accounts, thus the total number of accounts is a worthless figure.” Still, Ferreira claimed that any kind of fraudulent account weakens the trust of a social media network. She predicted that eventually there would be more fraudulent users than actual ones, thus something needed to be done right away.
[Source: technewsworld.com dated 10th August, 2022.]
17 US pharmacy chains ordered to pay $650 m in Ohio opioids suit
A federal judge has ruled that America’s three largest pharmacy chains must pay $650.5m (£539.8m) for helping fuel a painkiller crisis in two Ohio counties. In November, a federal court found Walgreens Boots Alliance, CVS and Walmart helped create an oversupply of addictive opioid pills.
The money will be used to help combat the impact of the crisis in Lake and Trumbull counties. The companies plan to appeal. Millions of people in the US have become addicted to opiate-based painkillers such as fentanyl and OxyContin over the last 20 years.
Nearly half a million deaths were attributed to painkiller overdoses between 1999 and 2019. In court, attorneys for Lake and Trumbull counties – both near Cleveland – put the total financial cost of the crisis at $3.3 billion. Both counties, like other jurisdictions across the US, have argued that the crisis has put an enormous strain on local resources, social programmes and legal systems.
A failure to ensure that prescriptions were valid, their attorneys have argued, created a public nuisance as vast quantities of pills flooded their communities.
Between 2012 and 2016, more than 80 million painkillers were reportedly distributed in Trumbull County – about 400 pills per resident. In Lake County, the figure stood at 61 million pills over the same time frame. A US district judge ruled that Lake County will receive $306m over 15 years, while Trumbull County will receive $344m.
In the short-term, the three companies have been ordered to pay about $87m to cover the first two years of the plan. The ruling was quickly praised by officials from both counties.
Lake County Commissioner John Hamercheck, for example, said that the ruling “marks the start of a new day in our fight to end the opioid crisis”. The three companies have repeatedly denied the allegations and claimed they attempted to prevent painkillers from being diverted towards illicit use. Additionally, they argued that it was doctors – rather than pharmacies – that ultimately determined how many pills were prescribed and to whom.
When contacted by the BBC, all three companies said they will appeal the ruling. “We never manufactured or marketed opioids nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fuelled this crisis,” Walgreens said in a statement.
More than 3,000 lawsuits have been filed against opioid manufacturers and pharmacies in the hopes of recouping the costs spent combating the crisis.
[Source: BBC.com dated 18th August, 2022.]
PwC has been fined almost £1.8m for failing to properly scrutinise the accounts of telecoms company BT after a £500m accounting fraud had been uncovered at its Italian operation.
The accounting giant failed to act with the “requisite professional scepticism” and did not obtain “sufficient appropriate audit evidence” in its work on BT’s 2017 financial statements, which had to be adjusted by £513m because of the Italian scandal, according to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).
The UK’s accounting regulator also severely reprimanded PwC, which was paid £4.3m for its work on BT’s accounts, and Richard Hughes, the audit engagement partner at the firm. The FRC fined PwC £1.75m and Hughes £42,000.
“The respondents failed to act with the requisite professional scepticism [and] did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence,” the FRC said in its 27-page final ruling published on Monday. “The respondents did not approach the audit of BT’s treatment of the debt adjustments with the necessary professional scepticism and they failed to adequately document their audit work across the entirety of the BT Italy adjustments.”
The 2017 scandal wiped almost £8bn off BT’s market value, prompted a restructure including the axing of 4,000 jobs, and ultimately was a factor that resulted in the departure of former chief executive Gavin Patterson as investors lost confidence in management.
The FRC also said PwC and Hughes had not produced an audit that was understandable to third parties.
“The respondents also failed to prepare audit documentation that was sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit, to understand the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures performed,” said the regulator.
However, the FRC’s executive counsel said its decision did not mean that BT’s 2017 financial statements were misstated, that the £513m adjustment for Italy was wrong or that the breaches it found were “intentional, dishonest or reckless”.
The FRC fined PwC and Hughes £2.56m in relation to the audit of the 2017 accounts, but reduced this by 30% because the issues were raised by the parties at an early stage.
“In determining the financial impact of a major fraud detected within a business, difficult but important issues relating to appropriate accounting treatment and disclosures will need to be addressed,” said the FRC deputy executive counsel, Claudia Mortimore.
“It is vital that these are subject to robust audit so that the users of financial statements can have confidence that the financial impact is properly and accurately stated in subsequent financial statements. The sanctions imposed in this case, where certain elements of the adjustments following a fraud were not subject to the required level of professional scepticism, underscore this message and will serve as a timely reminder to the profession.”
PwC has been sanctioned five times since 2018.
The FRC has previously fined PwC a total of more than £17m in relation to audit failings for clients Taveta, Redcentric, Kier Group and Galliford Try. In 2020, PwC was the largest accountancy firm in the UK with revenue of £3.5bn, of which £754m was for auditing services.
“We are sorry that aspects of this audit were not of the required standard,” said a spokesperson for PwC. “We have made significant investment in strengthening audit quality in recent years, which has been recognised in improved quality inspection results. We remain committed to maintaining and building on this progress through the delivery of consistently high-quality audits.”
[Source: theguardian.com dated 8th August, 2022.]
19 Climate change: Drought highlights dangers for electricity supplies
Overall, the amount of electricity produced by hydropower, which uses water to generate power, has decreased by 20%. Additionally, access to nuclear power plants that use river water for cooling has been restricted. There are fears that the shortfalls are a taste of what may occur in winter.
High temperatures in the UK are reducing the amount of energy produced by fossil, nuclear, and solar sources. That is because the technology in power plants and solar panels work much less well in high temperatures.
As Europe looks for alternate sources of energy in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the prolonged dry period is adding to the strain on energy supplies.
- Millions hit by hosepipe bans as drought declared
- US Senate passes sweeping $700bn economic package
- Causes of deadly dry-lightning wildfires revealed
“Hydropower is a vital source of energy for Europe, but as rivers and reservoirs dry up, it is becoming much harder for facilities to generate electricity. Around 1/5 of Italy’s energy comes from hydropower, however this percentage has decreased by almost 40% during the past 12 months.”
Similar trends can be seen in Spain, where electricity production is down 44%, per data from energy analysts Rystad Energy.
According to Fabian Rnningen, a power expert with Rystad, hydropower can be extremely unpredictable, but 40% is by far the most extreme. He emphasises that not only are the numbers declining across all of Europe, but also in the major hydropower-producing nations. It’s really a big impact.
Hydroelectricity is a problem in Norway as well. It issued a warning that unless its reservoirs were full, it might not be able to continue exporting energy to nations like the UK. Some in the hydro industry say that lack of investment in modernisation and in transmission lines are also causing problems.
Eddie Rich from the International Hydropower Association says that we are going to face a problem this winter. And that should be a wake-up call to have more investment in the infrastructure for the next few years.
The exceptionally hot weather is also hitting nuclear power production, especially in France. Around half of the 56 reactors in the fleet are offline, with several affected by a systemic issue with corrosion.
When temperatures are high, water from rivers that are now running low is frequently used to cool those reactors that are operating.
[Source: BBC.com dated 12th August, 2022.]













































































































