#Social Media Security

[signode-blog]

Life Can Change Any Moment

BeerBiceps aka Ranveer Allahbadia YouTube Channels Getting Hacked: A Deep Dive into the Incident and Its Implications In the fast-paced world of digital media, creators are often vulnerable to cyberattacks that can derail years of hard work and dedication. One such incident that shocked the Indian YouTube community was when popular content creator Ranveer Allahbadia, also known as BeerBiceps,…

[townpostin]

Fake WhatsApp ID Created in Name of Deputy Commissioner Madhavi Mishra

Deputy Commissioner Madhavi Mishra’s fake WhatsApp ID surfaces, officials and public urged to stay alert. A fake WhatsApp ID using the name and picture of Deputy Commissioner Madhavi Mishra has been discovered. DHANBAD – A case of a fake WhatsApp ID created in the name of Deputy Commissioner Madhavi Mishra has come to light. The fake ID, associated with the number +94 785948722, has raised…

[marketinsight1234]

Social Media Security Market: Forthcoming Trends and Share Analysis by 2032

Social Media Security Market Size Was Valued at USD 1412 Million in 2023 and is Projected to Reach USD 5378.12 Million by 2032, Growing at a CAGR of 16.02 % From 2024-2032.

A crucial component of internet safety is social media security, which includes tactics and controls meant to shield people and institutions from the constantly changing threats connected to using social networking sites. Social media usage is increasing, which raises the possibility of a number of risks, such as phishing scams, identity theft, privacy violations, and cyberbullying.

The market for social media security has grown significantly in recent years due to growing worries about cyber attacks, data breaches, and online privacy on social media platforms. Social media security solutions are in more demand as more individuals and organizations realize how important it is to protect their digital presence from unwanted activity.

Get Full PDF Sample Copy of Report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @

https://introspectivemarketresearch.com/request/3987

Updated Version 2024 is available our Sample Report May Includes the:

Scope For 2024

Brief Introduction to the research report.

Table of Contents (Scope covered as a part of the study)

Top players in the market

Research framework (structure of the report)

Research methodology adopted by Worldwide Market Reports

Leading players involved in the Social Media Security Market include:

Symantec (United States)

CA Technologies(United States)

ZeroFOX (United States)

RiskIQ (United States)

SolarWinds(United States)

Proofpoint (United States)

LookingGlass Cyber Solutions (United States)

KnowBe4 (United States)

Centrify (United States)

Social Hub (United States)

Brandle (United States)

Moreover, the report includes significant chapters such as Patent Analysis, Regulatory Framework, Technology Roadmap, BCG Matrix, Heat Map Analysis, Price Trend Analysis, and Investment Analysis which help to understand the market direction and movement in the current and upcoming years. 

If You Have Any Query Social Media Security Market Report, Visit:

https://introspectivemarketresearch.com/inquiry/3987

Segmentation of Social Media Security Market:

By Solution

Monitoring

Threat Intelligence

Risk Management

By Security

Web Security

Application Security

Endpoint Security

Network Security

Cloud Security

By End Use Industry

BFSI

Healthcare and life sciences

Manufacturing

Telecom & IT

Media and entertainment

Others 

An in-depth study of the Social Media Security industry for the years 2023–2030 is provided in the latest research. North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, the Middle East, and Africa are only some of the regions included in the report's segmented and regional analyses. The research also includes key insights including market trends and potential opportunities based on these major insights. All these quantitative data, such as market size and revenue forecasts, and qualitative data, such as customers' values, needs, and buying inclinations, are integral parts of any thorough market analysis.

Market Segment by Regions: -

North America (US, Canada, Mexico)

Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Rest of Eastern Europe)

Western Europe (Germany, UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Russia, Spain, Rest of Western Europe)

Asia Pacific (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, The Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Rest of APAC)

Middle East & Africa (Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Israel, South Africa)

South America (Brazil, Argentina, Rest of SA)

Key Benefits of Social Media Security Market Research: 

Research Report covers the Industry drivers, restraints, opportunities and challenges

Competitive landscape & strategies of leading key players

Potential & niche segments and regional analysis exhibiting promising growth covered in the study

Recent industry trends and market developments

Research provides historical, current, and projected market size & share, in terms of value

Market intelligence to enable effective decision making

Growth opportunities and trend analysis

Covid-19 Impact analysis and analysis to Social Media Security market

If you require any specific information that is not covered currently within the scope of the report, we will provide the same as a part of the customization.

Acquire This Reports: -

https://introspectivemarketresearch.com/checkout/?user=1&_sid=3987

About us:

Introspective Market Research (introspectivemarketresearch.com) is a visionary research consulting firm dedicated to assist our clients grow and have a successful impact on the market. Our team at IMR is ready to assist our clients flourish their business by offering strategies to gain success and monopoly in their respective fields. We are a global market research company, specialized in using big data and advanced analytics to show the bigger picture of the market trends. We help our clients to think differently and build better tomorrow for all of us. We are a technology-driven research company, we analyze extremely large sets of data to discover deeper insights and provide conclusive consulting. We not only provide intelligence solutions, but we help our clients in how they can achieve their goals.

Contact us:

Introspective Market Research

3001 S King Drive,

Chicago, Illinois

60616 USA

Ph no: +1 773 382 1049

Email: sales@introspectivemarketresearch.com

[drnic1]

LinkedIn Hacker Mayhem

Automated Security Challenges – Photo Credit Gizmodo Should You Panic or Stay Calm? It could just be me but I doubt it. I’ve certainly had my share of attempts to attack my accounts including the SIM Jacking I documented (3 Minutes to Financial Ruin). But since the vast majority of these attacks are automated with the perpetrators using tools that essentially automate the tasks of attacking…

[risingpakistan]

آپ اپنے سوشل میڈیا اکاونٹ کو کیسے محفوظ بنا سکتے ہیں ؟

ماہرین کے مطابق اپنے سوشل میڈیا اکاؤنٹ کو کسی حد تک ’ٹو فیکٹر اوتھینٹیکیشن کے فیچر کے ذریعے محفوظ رکھا جا سکتا ہے۔ ملٹی فیکٹر ویریفیکیشن یا ٹو سٹیپ اوتھینٹیکیشن ایک ایسا فیچر ہے جس کے تحت کسی کمپیوٹر صارف کو دو یا اس سے زیادہ ثبوت فراہم کرنے کے بعد ہی اس ویب سائٹ یا پلیٹ فارم تک رسائی حاصل ہوتی ہے۔ مثال کے طور پر اپنے سوشل میڈیا کے اکاؤنٹ میں داخل ہونے کے لیے صارفین کو اپنے خفیہ پاس ورڈ کے ساتھ موبائل فون پر دیا گیا کوڈ بھی درج کرنا پڑتا ہے۔  سوشل میڈیا پلیٹ فارمز صارف سے ایسی سو��لات پوچھ سکتے ہیں جس کا علم صرف انھیں خود ہو سکتا ہے۔ اس کے تحت صارفین کو او ٹی پی (یعنی ایک مرتبہ لاگ اِن کرنے کے لیے دیے جانے والا کوڈ) فون نمبر یا ای میل پر دیا جاتا ہے۔ ایک وقتی پاس ورڈ صارف کو بھیجا جاتا ہے جو بتائے بغیر اس اکاؤنٹ میں کوئی داخل نہیں ہو سکتا۔ 

یہ ایسا ہے جیسے آپ اے ٹی ایم سے پیسے نکلوانے جائیں۔ ایک صارف کے پاس نہ صرف بینک کا اے ٹی ایم کارڈ اپنی ملکیت میں ہونا ضروری ہوتا ہے بلکہ پِن کوڈ نمبر بھی درج کرنا پڑتا ہے جس کا علم صرف صارف کو ہونا چاہیے۔ 2020 میں بی بی سی سے بات کرتے ہوئے انٹرنیٹ پر صارفین کے حقوق کی کارکن نگہت داد کا کہنا تھا کہ سوشل میڈیا پر اپنے اکاؤنٹ محفوظ بنانے کے لیے صارفین کو اپنا مضبوط پاسورڈ باقاعدگی سے تبدیل کرنا چاہیے اور اسے کسی ای میل یا صفحے پر درج نہیں کرنا چاہیے۔ الگ الگ اکاؤنٹ کے پاس ورڈ مختلف ہونے چاہییں۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ ’کسی مشکوک لنک پر کلک نہیں کرنا چاہیے۔‘ نگہت بتاتی ہیں کہ بعض اوقات معروف شخصیت کو ہدف بنانے کے لیے انھیں خاص ای میل یا پیغامات بھیجے جاتے ہیں تاکہ ان کے اکاؤنٹ ہیک کیے جا سکیں۔ امید ہے کہ سائبر سکیورٹی سے متعلق ان مشوروں کا فائدہ اٹھا کر مستقبل میں لوگ اپنا سوشل میڈیا اکاؤنٹ ’ہیک‘ ہونے سے بچا سکیں گے۔

بشکریہ بی بی سی اردو

[tanglepelt]

Dc x dp idea 133

Danny is really confused. Like sure he made a fake account in order “use” his parents completely valid and not in biased research on ghosts.

Cause obviously. Their completely legit research disproves multiple peer reviewed and factual papers.

Tucker made the fake account. No real names or numbers. So. They couldn’t know it was him right?!??

He just wanted people to see how wack the papers were and bring to light the very not accurate papers. He figured using botched research to counter claim others would do something.

But??? Why was the flash in his living room arguing with his parents about scientific articles. And proper research??

[lynaferns]

Jul 3 2022

FINALLY get to this one, aaaaaaa

I am still really really REALLY proud of this one. THIS is my favorite if not one of the best artworks I have made to date.

+30 hours of work put into this bad boy

It is here were I decided to try and spend a whole month (not every day, I took rest days) into one drawing to see how far I could get, testing my own artstyle and practicing backgrounds for once (having as a reference a video of a guy who whouldn't stay still because I don't have the game to take screenshots myself so I kind of had to imaginate how some objects whould look at specifics angels and I missed a few details in the room).

Now, taking a look over it I can see some anatomy/perspective mistake here and there but I don't really care, I still really like this drawing.

[kp777]

By Thom Hartmann

Common Dreams

Nov. 16, 2023

What baffles me is why a TV news personality who earns $2.9 million a year would go to such lengths to avoid even mentioning a solution that’s been signed onto repeatedly by virtually every Democrat in Congress for over a decade.

Why did NBC’s Kristen Welker use an incomplete frame for her question about Social Security at last week’s GOP debate, and why didn’t Lester Holt or anybody else correct her?

Here’s her question:

KRISTEN WELKER: “Americans could see their Social Security benefits drastically cut in the next decade because the program is running out of money. Former President Trump has said quote, ‘Under no circumstances should Republicans cut entitlements.’ Governor Christie, first to you, you have proposed raising the retirement age for younger Americans. What would that age be specifically, and would you consider making any other reforms to Social Security?”

The simple reality is that if a person earns $160,200 a year or less, they pay a 6.2% tax on all of their income. In other words, a person making exactly $160,200 pays $9,932.40 (6.2%) in Social Security taxes.

If you earn $12,000 a year, $56,000 a year, $98,000 a year, or anything under $160,200 a year, you also pay 6.2 cents of tax toward Social Security on every single dollar you earn. If you made $10,000 last year, you pay $620 in Social Security taxes: 6.2 percent. Like the old saying about death and taxes, you can’t avoid it.

BUT those people who make over $160,200 a year pay absolutely nothing — no tax whatsoever — to fund Social Security on every dollar they earn over that amount. After Warren Buffett or Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos pay their $9,932.40 in Social Security taxes on that first $160,200 they took home on the first day of January, every other dollar they take home for the rest of the year is completely Social Security tax-free.

If somebody makes $1,602,000, for example, it would seem fair that, like every other American, they’d pay the same 6.2% ($99,324) in Social Security taxes. But, no: they only pay the $9,932.40 and after that they get to ride tax-free.

If somebody earned $16,020,000 it would seem fair that they’d pay the same 6.2% to support Social Security as 96 percent of Americans do, but no. Instead of paying $1,004,400 in taxes, they only pay $9,932.40.

Hedge fund guys who make a billion a year — yes, there are several of them — can certainly afford to pay 6.2% to keep Social Security solvent. At that rate, they’d be paying $62 million on a billion-dollar income in Social Security taxes as their fair share of maintaining America’s social contract.

But, because the tax rate is capped to “protect” the morbidly rich while sticking the rest of us with the full bill for Social Security, those titans of Wall Street pay the same $9,932.40 as the doctor who lives down the street from you and earns $160,200 a year.

This is, to use the economic technical term, nuts.

And, while every wealthy person in America knows all about this because it’s such a huge benefit to them, I’ll bet fewer than five percent of Americans know how this scam for the rich works. (I searched diligently, but couldn’t find a single survey that asked average folks if they knew about the cap.)

There is no other tax in America that works like this. Most have loopholes designed to promote specific socially desirable goals, like the deductibility of home mortgage interest or children, but no other tax is designed so that anybody earning over $160,200 is completely exempt and no longer has to pay a penny after their first nine thousand or so dollars.

And here’s where it gets really bizarre: if millionaires and billionaires paid the exact same 6.2% into Social Security that most of the rest of us do (and paid it on their investment income, which is also 100% exempt today), the program would not only be solvent for the next 75 years, but it would have so much extra cash that everybody on Social Security could get a significant raise in their monthly benefit payments.

But because America’s morbidly rich don’t want to pay their share for keeping Social Security solvent, Republicans are having a debate about how badly they can screw working class retirees.

They ask:

“Shall we cut the Social Security payments?”

“How about raising the retirement age from 67 (Reagan raised it from 65 to 67) to 70 or even 72?”

“Or maybe we should just hand the entire thing off to JPMorgan or Wells Fargo and let them run it, like we’re doing with Medicare? We could call it Social Security Advantage!”

“Or how about turning Social Security into a welfare program by ‘means testing’ it, so rich people can’t draw from it and every budget year it can become a political football for the GOP like food stamps or WIC?”

Responding to Welker’s severely incomplete question, Chris Christie hit all four:

GOVERNOR CHRISTIE: “Sure, and we have to deal with this problem. Now look, if we raise the retirement age a few years for folks that are in their thirties and forties, I have a son who’s in the audience tonight who’s 30 years old. If he can’t adjust to a few year increase in Social Security retirement age over the next 40 years, I got bigger problems with him than his Social Security payments. “And the fact is we need to be realistic about this. There are only three things that go into determining whether Social Security can be solvent or not. Retirement age, eligibility for the program in general, and taxes. That’s it. We are already overtaxed in this country and we should not raise those taxes. But on eligibility also, I don’t know if out there tonight and if you’re watching Warren, I don’t know if Warren Buffett is collecting Social Security, but if he is, shame on you. You shouldn’t be taking the money.”

Christie was the only one of the five Republicans on the stage who even dared mention taxes.

Nikki Haley said:

“So first of all, any candidate that tells you that they’re not going to take on entitlements, is not being serious. Social Security will go bankrupt in 10 years, Medicare will go bankrupt in eight.”

Neither of those assertions are even remotely true, but, of course, this was a GOP debate. She continued:

“But for like my kids in their twenties, you go and you say we’re going to change the rules, you change the retirement age for them. Instead of cost of living increases, we should go to increases based on inflation. We should limit benefits on the wealthy.”

Her other solution, apropos of nothing, was to end government responsibility for Medicare and privatize the entire program by shutting down real Medicare and throwing us all to the tender mercies of the health insurance billionaires:

“And then expand Medicare Advantage plans. Seniors love that and let’s make sure we do that so that they can have more competition. That’s how we’ll deal with entitlement reform and that’s how we’ll start to pay down this debt.”

Ramaswamy’s answer was so incoherent and off-topic I won’t repeat it here. Suffice it to say he rambled on about the cost of foreign wars (Ukraine, Israel) “that many blood-thirsty members of both parties have a hunger for.” Apparently, Vivek doesn’t realize that Social Security isn’t part of our government’s overall budget but has its own segregated funds and trust fund.

Since it’s creation in 1935, Social Security never has and never will contribute to the budget deficit or influence any other kind of government spending.

Tim Scott said we should take a cue from Reagan, Bush, and Trump and just cut billionaires’ income taxes again because that does such a great job of stimulating the economy (not) and then claw back the inflation-based raises people on Social Security have received the past three years.

“Number two, you have to cut taxes. … So what we know is that the Laffer Curve still works, for the lower the tax, the higher the revenue. And finally, if we’re going to deal with it, we have to take our annual appropriations back to pre-2020, pre-COVID levels of spending, which would save us about a half a trillion dollars in the next budget window. By doing that, we deal with Social Security and our mandatory spending.”

DeSantis was equally incoherent, also refusing to answer the question about raising the retirement age and completely avoiding any mention of the sweetheart deal his billionaire donors get on their Social Security taxes. Instead, he said we needed to get inflation under control and stop Congress from “taking money from Social Security,” something Congress has never done and legally never will be able to do.

All this incoherence aside, Republicans appear to have a plan to deal with Social Security.

House Speaker MAGA Mike Johnson has been pushing a “Catfood Commission” just like Reagan’s 1983 commission that raised the retirement age to 67, reaffirmed the cap on taxes, and made Social Security checks taxable as income. He no doubt expects his commissioners will provide “recommendations” Republicans can run with to cut benefits without raising taxes on their billionaire donors, all while blaming it on the commissioners just like Reagan did in 1983.

When Johnson said that his “top priority” was creating such a commission “immediately” and that his Republican colleagues had responded to the idea “with great enthusiasm,” Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee responded on Xitter:

“A week into his tenure, MAGA Mike Johnson is ALREADY calling for closed-door cuts to the Social Security and Medicare benefits American workers have earned through decades of hard work.”

But back to the original question. I understand why Republicans refuse to even consider lifting the cap on Social Security taxes so their morbidly rich donors won’t have to start paying their fair share of Social Security to keep the program solvent.

What baffles me is why a TV news personality who earns $2.9 million a year would go to such lengths to avoid even mentioning a solution that’s been signed onto repeatedly by virtually every Democrat in Congress for over a decade.

I’ve been watching Kristen Welker on television for years, and she’s generally been a pretty straight shooter as a reporter. Ditto for Lester Holt, who sat right beside her. This, frankly, astonished me.

Were they afraid Republicans would exact revenge on them if they raised the question of the tax cap?

Or was it precisely because they’re making millions, just like most of the executives they answer to?

More broadly, is this why we almost never hear any discussion whatsoever in the media — populated with other news stars who also make millions a year, managed by millionaire network executives — about lifting the cap?

One hopes the answer isn’t that crass...

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

[jayflrt]

𝐀 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐑'𝐒 𝐆𝐔𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐁𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐒 04. 50% cut ???

prev | masterlist | next

SUMMARY ▸ in which you work at the starbucks where heeseung is a regular at (and considered a public enemy). also he only goes when he’s stoned off his ass.

[poppet-seed]

I preset to thee'

Daycare attendant practice

Sunny in a dress

And a flustered moon

Eat up, my upload schedule is not consistent so take the food while it's hot.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Meta Platforms Inc plans to end access to news on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada once a parliament-approved legislation requiring internet giants to pay news publishers comes into effect, the company said on Thursday. The legislation, known as the Online News Act, was approved by the Senate upper chamber earlier on Thursday and will become law after receiving royal assent from the governor general, a formality. The legislation was proposed after complaints from Canada’s media industry, which wants tighter regulation of tech companies to prevent them from elbowing news businesses out of the online advertising market. “Today, we are confirming that news availability will be ended on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada prior to the Online News Act taking effect,” Meta said in a statement. Facebook had telegraphed such a move for weeks, saying news has no economic value to the company and that its users do not use the platform for news. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada, @vague-humanoid

[glitchedrabbit]

Revisited Nightmares Chapter 2 Part 4:

Previous - Next - First

[katfreaks-hidyhole]

I know Fazbear Inc would never let them run their own social media…but if they did?? 👀

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

☠️