X's Private Likes Exposed: A Security Breach Raises Concerns Over User Privacy

San Francisco, California United States of America
Affected users received emails from X notifying them of the issue.
The incident raises questions about X's ability to protect user privacy and maintain the confidentiality of their liked content.
X acknowledged a security incident in June 2024 that allowed others to view private likes despite the platform's change to make them hidden.
X made headlines earlier this year when it announced that it would be making likes private.
X's Private Likes Exposed: A Security Breach Raises Concerns Over User Privacy

In recent developments, X, formerly known as Twitter, acknowledged a security incident that occurred in June 2024. This incident allowed others to view private likes despite the platform's change to make them hidden. The company has since taken steps to ensure privacy of likes moving forward.

X made headlines earlier this year when it announced that it would be making likes private, allowing only account owners to see their liked posts. The move was intended to address concerns regarding bullying and the potential negative consequences of public likes.

However, a security vulnerability in X's system allowed some users' private likes to still be visible to others. According to reports, affected users received emails from X notifying them of the issue.

The incident raises questions about the platform's ability to protect user privacy and maintain the confidentiality of their liked content. It also highlights the importance of implementing robust security measures and regularly testing systems for vulnerabilities.

Despite this setback, X remains committed to prioritizing user privacy and ensuring that its platform is a safe space for users to engage with content without fear of retaliation or judgment based on their likes.

X, which was acquired by Elon Musk earlier this year, has undergone several significant changes since then. The company is now focusing on being a 'video-first' platform and has introduced new features aimed at enhancing the user experience.

The incident serves as a reminder that no system is perfect and that even the most seemingly secure platforms can be vulnerable to security breaches. It also underscores the importance of staying informed about platform updates and taking steps to protect personal information online.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

85%

Doubts
  • Is it confirmed that all private likes were exposed?
  • Was this a targeted attack or a systemic vulnerability?

Sources

89%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

X reveals security incident that made your ‘private’ likes public

9to5Mac Filipe Espósito Thursday, 25 July 2024 19:53
  • Unique Points
    • A security incident in June 2024 allowed others to still see private likes on X.
    • X acknowledges that some users’ private likes may have been affected by this security incident.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (50%)
    The article makes editorializing statements and uses sensational language to grab the reader's attention. The author states that 'Public likes are incentivizing the wrong behavior' and 'Soon you’ll be able to like without worrying who might see it.' These statements are not facts, but rather opinions of the author.
    • Public likes are incentivating the wrong behavior.
    • Soon you’ll be able to like without worrying who might see it.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

90%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Boar

The Boar Monday, 01 July 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • Elon Musk bought Twitter and replaced its blue bird logo with 'X'
    • Russia operated fake bot accounts to impersonate Americans and spread misinformation on X
    • ̎30 Reform UK candidates subscribed to conspiracy theories on X
    • ̎30 Labour Party candidate Faiza Shaheen’s past likes suggested she downplayed antisemitism
  • Accuracy
    • X described the removal of visible user likes as 'better protecting users privacy'
    • Likes on X, Instagram, and Facebook have no equivalent in the non-virtual world
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by referencing The Washington Post and the US Department of Justice. They also make a dichotomous depiction by presenting two extreme views on privacy and anonymity without acknowledging the potential middle ground.
    • >The Washington Post described it as “the end of an era”.
    • >It does, however, raise lots of questions about what it really means to ‘like’ something virtually, and whether privacy on the internet should extend to anonymity on social media.
    • >Given that impersonation has previously been an issue for X, especially in the aftermath of Elon Musk’s disastrous decision to remove blue tick verification for trusted accounts in favour of a confusing multicoloured tick system, it seems unwise for it to continue its march towards anonymity.
    • >Political parties and journalists, too, made extensive use of the previously public nature of likes
    • >Just days later, this evidence source had disappeared.
  • Bias (90%)
    The author expresses a clear opinion that the anonymity of likes on social media platforms is problematic and raises questions about privacy on the internet. They argue that making likes anonymous doesn't change tracking and feeds into the fixation on the number of likes, rather than who those likes come from. The author also mentions how political parties and journalists used to make extensive use of publicly visible likes as a source of evidence for disciplinary proceedings or investigations. By removing this feature, they argue that it disrupts and challenges the wider social role that the 'likes' tab had come to play.
    • Just days later, this evidence source had disappeared.
      • Making likes anonymous isn’t going to change this tracking – as X has already said, what a user likes will still be used to tailor the content they’re shown, with more likes meaning more personalisation.
        • Political parties and journalists, too, made extensive use of the previously public nature of likes to see what candidates for the House of Commons were engaging with: an investigation by The Guardian into profiles of Reform UK candidates found that at least 30 subscribed to conspiracy theories that treated global warming as a ‘hoax’ or ‘scam’.
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        98%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        X acknowledges security incident that made private likes public

        PhoneArena.com Iskra Petrova Saturday, 27 July 2024 12:16
        • Unique Points
          • X acknowledged a security incident in June 2024 that allowed others to view private likes despite the platform change that made them hidden
          • X has taken steps to ensure privacy of likes moving forward
        • Accuracy
          • Likes count on any given post remains public
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        96%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Your Private X Likes May Not Be Private After All

        WebPronews Matt Milano Friday, 26 July 2024 14:00
        • Unique Points
          • X admitted a security incident may have left some users' likes public despite making them private in mid-June
          • Some X users received emails notifying them that their likes might have been publicly available
        • Accuracy
          • A security incident in June 2024 allowed others to still see private likes on X.
          • X acknowledged a security incident in June 2024 that allowed others to view private likes despite the platform change that made them hidden
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        98%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        X Private Likes Fiasco Made Public was Because of ‘Security Incident,’ Company Claims

        Tech Times Isaiah Richard Friday, 26 July 2024 14:10
        • Unique Points
          • X faced a 'security incident' that resulted in private likes being visible to public users
          • Elon Musk took over ownership of X and there have been drastic changes since then
          • X is now focusing on being a 'video-first' platform
        • Accuracy
          • A security incident in June 2024 allowed others to still see private likes on X.
          • X acknowledged that some users’ private likes may have been affected by this security incident.
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication