Blurts

I have been reading The Tech Coup. The book covers the multiple ways in which the combination of big tech and government makes us vulnerable to all kinds of digital threats. One of the more concerning issues was the spread of Pegasus Spyware and the use of this software by government bodies and other actors to access personal information on devices most would assume to be safe (your phone).

Coincidently, I came across some tech news stories about a security company doing research on mobile security threats and saw that an inexpensive product (iVerify Basic – $1) was capable of scanning iOS devices for threats including Pegasus. After searching for additional information and finding the software was recommended by sources I trust and by Apple, I decided to install it and give it a try.

The Basic version is intended to be run once a month. The software creates a data file that is submitted to the company for analysis. The process allows the dual purposes of doing some sophisticated monitoring and providing information on threats. The software does not fix threats, but you are at least notified that you have been compromised.

The software is a little tricky to use and requires that you have some familiarity with using iOS settings. The sequence starts with Privacy and Security and then the Analytics and Improvements option to get to the Analytics Data. The file iVerify generates is then shared with the company (see following photos).

Google has a commitment to safe browsing that includes some resources that were new to me. First, Google maintains a database of suspect sites that users can check if they are concerned about a specific site. You can enter a URL and it will indicate whether that address appears within its database of suspect sites.

Google also has integrated protection options within its Chrome browser. As a user, you can control the level of safety you want. To explore the options, go to Settings within the Chrome browser and select Privacy and Security. This will bring up the various areas in which the user can select options. If you are interested in preventing accidental exposure to dangerous sites, select Security from among the options. This will offer the options for Safe Browsing.

Twitter changed under Musk and the name was only part of the new weirdness. The content I received when using the “For you” option was definitely not for me. The algorithm has been changed in a way that does not address my interests or online behavior. 

There is another issue. I remain interested in the social media landscape and follow developments. A new revelation has caught my attention. Musk has admitted that the X algorithm demotes posts that contain links. Musk proposes that if you want to promote a link, you should do so in a comment to your own post. I find the justification vague, but it somehow relates to Musk’s position that he wants X to be a content site. This position makes little sense to me. I can see that micro-blogs are conversation sites, but claiming content is shared within a few hundred characters seems hard to justify. What is the point of making this claim?

I joined Twitter in 2006 and after tolerating the initial focus on what people had for breakfast, etc., I found value in the links shared by those I followed. Twitter was a valuable discovery tool and it made sense that those I followed would have common interests and their suggestions would provide access to content I would find interesting. I followed multiple content sources via RSS but found new sources and specific posts of interest by way of recommendations from colleagues on Twitter. The flow of suggestions associated with a conference I could not attend makes a good example. Attendees would offer comments on sessions and presentations and links were often provided to allow access to materials associated with some of the presentations. 

While Musk’s comments did not include reference to the paid levels of X, I cannot help wondering if the focus on content is related to the drastic increase in post length that comes with paid levels. The pay-to-post plan obviously allows some to offer content and the blocking of links limits what those who tolerate the ad-supported level can provide. It is a business and I get the interest in ways to monetize a platform, but I would prefer transparency of motives. If Musk is attempting to position X as an alternative to Mastodon or Medium just make this clear.

I have been reading a couple of books addressing the hypothesized detrimental effects of screen time. (The anxious generation, Unlocked). Haidt’s “Anxious Generation” has received the most buzz topping the NYTimes best sellers list for some time. “Unlocked” is relatively unknown, but it raises some very important questions about the assumptions of the books taking a simplistic view of technology and possibly raising moral panic. The potential of selling lots of books that tap into educator and parent insecurities is also explored.

One of Etchells (Unlocked) observations is the correlational and self-report data that seems to provide the basis for most assumptions about the negative perspective of the screen time critics. He makes one related observation that did make sense to me. Why with the opportunity to use technology to collect data on technology use do most researchers rely on self reports?

So, I checked my phone’s data for the last few hours.

Actual data. First, this is an early morning routine and not necessarily reflective of how I might use my phone the rest of my day. I also seldom read much on my phone and most of that data for this period would be on my iPad. There are probably positive and negative opportunities reflected in this screen time and that is Etchell’s point. The Medium and Kindle time would be informative reading and an underestimate because iPad data are not included. I would think information consumption would be a positive thing. I know the TruthSocial time is negative because I use that account to read content I know is mostly annoying. However, even this time could be argued to be good or bad. I check TruthSocial because I am intrigued by the weird beliefs and justifications some folks present. To be informed, shouldn’t I have some experience with such behavior? Would it be better that such weird stuff be all around and I or others not be aware?