{"id":1568,"date":"2025-01-29T22:28:07","date_gmt":"2025-01-30T05:28:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/?p=1568"},"modified":"2025-01-29T22:28:12","modified_gmt":"2025-01-30T05:28:12","slug":"fact-checking-and-cybersecurity-on-facebook-consequences-of-neglect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/2025\/01\/29\/fact-checking-and-cybersecurity-on-facebook-consequences-of-neglect\/","title":{"rendered":"Fact-Checking and Cybersecurity on Facebook: Consequences of Neglect"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Image 1: Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook account is displayed on a mobile phone with the Meta logo visible on a tablet screen in this photo illustration on January 7, 2025.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, Meta has completely dropped its fact-checking program. The latest update regarding moderation policies and practices from the CEO Mark Zuckerberg dated January 07,2025, highlighted a new direction credited by the company to free speech[1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics say the move by Zuckerberg to “get back to our roots around free expression” could open the door to more disinformation, scams, and fraud. Anytime you relax controls, fraud goes up. With little government regulatory oversight, the decision does little to solve a long-standing problem: the lack of accountability by social media platforms. More important, Congress grants social media exemptions to content placed on their websites through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, dating back to the 1996 version of the Internet. These are sadly very much uglier places today than when pig butchering, money mulling, crypto scams, disinformation, and hate speech were simply some of many additions two plus decades later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the meantime, during the last years, Facebook also had its share of scandals. On the list of problems which Facebook has faced, the latest goes to “Data Breach” [2]. More than 530 million users of Facebook had their personal data leak in online forums in 2021, although the data captured was collected back in 2019. More than several security vulnerabilities and data breaches in Facebook were reported quite frequently since 2010. Now, considering the cybersecurity capacity through 4 functions under the NIST Framework, namely Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, we are able to find out the missing control in the world’s biggest social media outlet, Facebook like the following.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that Facebook failed to comply with the GDPR and had to face the result of 530 million users’ data[3] being posted publicly really points to a critical weakness in their legal awareness. This can further expose Facebook to substantial fines and severe reputational damage. In order to reduce these risks, Facebook needs to engage local legal counsel, continually monitor regulatory changes, and document internal policies and procedures. There should be continued monitoring and correction of non-compliance through collaboration between the legal and compliance departments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facebook does not have proper mechanisms to control users’ and its internal data against unauthorized viewing or modification by other parties. The company has poor training for its developers on security measures related to data storage; for instance, the storage of 540 million records of its users on a public cloud server[4]. In the wake of this, Facebook is supposed to make its access control more stringent; for instance, monitoring and frequent audits of various accounts that may be granted permission. Furthermore, all employees need comprehensive cybersecurity training on data security and the consequences of breaches. This training should be reinforced through regular sessions to instill a strong security culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because Facebook does not continuously monitor its network, vulnerabilities may remain undetected, like the glitch that recently exposed private posts of 14 million users[5]. This makes the risk of vulnerabilities escalating and affecting the whole system, thereby disrupting operations. To avoid this, Facebook needs to conduct continuous vulnerability testing, including internal stress tests and a robust continuity plan. A dedicated monitoring system is necessary in the identification of vulnerabilities and recording them for prompt fixing by experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Facebook’s continued failure to act on known vulnerabilities, from 2007 until today, reflects a profound breakdown in incident containment [6]. The more this pattern persists, the more cyber vulnerabilities will pile up along with their risks, and mitigation efforts become far more difficult later on. Consequently, user trust will decline as they see Facebook as untrustworthy. For this, it is necessary for Facebook to exercise strong monitoring and analysis in finding out the vulnerabilities, classifying them, and following up on focused teams or automate in its remediation, keeping adequate records to prevent recurrence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Image 2 : Deleting Facebook suddenly goes viral<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Offloading third-party fact-checkers and weakening its hateful content guidelines are two moves by Meta that raise significant brand safety red flags and are likely only to exacerbate existing criticisms. The impact on advertisers remains to be seen, but the potential for more harmful content could drive users away, accelerating social media fragmentation further. However, Meta says it’s committed to advertisers, providing brand safety tools to help them navigate the changing landscape. The engagement-driven re-prioritization might temporarily spark user activity and boost appeal to advertisers. In the short run, these changes are unlikely to impact marketers in a large way but do suggest the prudence of vigilance regarding users’ responses. Of high importance is the close monitoring of audience response, together with ad performance and engagement trends, using all brand safety tools available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Without fact-checking, Facebook is a raising ground for misinformation where users are influenced through false stories and conspiracy theories. This then creates cybersecurity risks, such as clicking on links that contain malware or giving away personal information accidentally. Scammers can imitate trusted individuals or organizations more easily, misleading people into phishing attacks or financial fraud. Fake profiles and misleading posts become much more convincing without verification mechanisms that may help to avoid deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, it leads to eroding trust in and the gullibility of users, who will be highly manipulated and become unquestioning in front of any suspicious content. The result would be the proliferation of destructive content: cyberbullying, hate speech, harassment-all go unchecked, making the atmosphere noxious. That keeps users away from the site and makes it an insecure place; hence, this reduces overall credibility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, misinformation about best cybersecurity practices misleads users into higher risks. Where there is no accountability for misinformation, the bad actors will go all out to take advantage of the platform for ill intentions. Giving up fact-checking in general compromises user safety, weakens data privacy protection, and lowers cybersecurity defenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. https:\/\/about.fb.com\/news\/2025\/01\/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. https:\/\/www.fdazar.com\/class-action\/facebook-data-breach\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/stolen-data-of-533-million-facebook-users-leaked-online-2021-4<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. https:\/\/firewalltimes.com\/facebook-data-breach-timeline\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. https:\/\/www.bleepingcomputer.com\/news\/security\/facebook-bug-caused-new-posts-by-14-million-users-to-be-shared-publicly\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. https:\/\/www.torys.com\/our-latest-thinking\/publications\/2024\/09\/federal-court-of-appeal-finds-that-facebook-breached-obligations-under-federal-privacy-law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  7. Meta Ends Fact-Checking on Facebook and Instagram: What it Means for Advertisers – Basis Technologies<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  8. https:\/\/www.shs-conferences.org\/articles\/shsconf\/pdf\/2023\/04\/shsconf_sdmc2022_03013.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  9. https:\/\/basis.com\/blog\/meta-ends-fact-checking-on-facebook-and-instagram-what-it-means-for-advertisers<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  10. https:\/\/hsph.harvard.edu\/news\/metas-fact-checking-changes-raise-concerns-about-spread-of-science-misinformation\/<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Image 1: https:\/\/cdn.sanity.io\/images\/3tzzh18d\/production\/efd8140612a7433a08bb2eceedbe700a66db401f-1200×675.png<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Image 2: https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/zakdoffman\/2025\/01\/09\/deleting-facebook-surges-in-popularity-sudden-decision-pushes-users-to-quit\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Meanwhile, Meta has completely dropped its fact-checking program. The latest update regarding moderation policies and practices from the CEO Mark Zuckerberg dated January 07,2025, highlighted a new direction credited by the company to free speech[1]. Critics say the move by Zuckerberg to “get back to our roots around free expression” could open the door to … <\/p>\n

    Continue reading “Fact-Checking and Cybersecurity on Facebook: Consequences of Neglect”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":662,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[40],"class_list":["post-1568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-isec-611","entry"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"FAHIM UDDIN","author_link":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/author\/fahim-uddin\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/662"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1568"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1572,"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568\/revisions\/1572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpsites.ucalgary.ca\/jacobson-cpsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}