A Thanksgiving Recipe for navigating misinformation with family and friends

A good resource is “How to Detect Media Bias and Propaganda in National and World News” by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder.
Challenge naysayers around you to show gratitude – at home, work, the grocery story, online – everywhere. The benefits of gratitude is good for your mind, body, and health. Some ideas on ways to show gratitude: compliment your loved ones, be the positive energy in the office, serve others when and where opportunities exists, especially those in the hospitality industry, and thank those who challenge you.

If all else fails, change the conversation – share a cute animal video, rave about grandma’s mashed potatoes or start the classic debate about whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie.
Ending conversations that are too heated or have hit a lull can be challenging. In these cases, do not mistake the power of non-verbal communication that can politely close a conversation. Simple gestures like gazing into the distance, making eye contact with someone else, or pointing your feet in another direction can be civil way to exit.

Remember: with the correct angle and velocity, a turkey leg will bounce and take out multiple arguments quickly, and concisely.

Happy Thanksgiving! We hope you enjoyed our special edition of Overwatch.

Share this Thanksgiving recipe with others, as well as any additional tips!

Opioid Pandemic 3.0 – The Real Cost

The opioid epidemic, though somewhat supplanted as a national talking point in America since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, has by no means disappeared from the United States. The epidemic reached national attention in the mid-2010s, with books such as Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis and Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America being released in 2016 and 2018, respectively. However, despite these books’ recentness, the opioid epidemic has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. This week’s Overwatch brief will pull publicly available data, reporting, and academic articles to explore the costs of the opioid epidemic and attempt to assess whether a new phase is on the rise.

From 1999-2018 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that approximately 760,000 people died from a drug overdose in the United States, with over two-thirds of those deaths involving an opioid. Those numbers have only grown in the three years since that estimate was reported. The maps below show drug overdose deaths by state every two years from 2014-2020. As can be seen, the Midwest, Appalachia, and northeast of the United States are among the areas most highly affected consistently throughout the period.

2014 2016

2018  2020

While the loss of life is in and of itself an issue, the sheer economic cost of the epidemic is also cause for concern. Data from the CDC estimates that in 2017 alone, the cost of opioid use disorder and fatal overdoses was approximately $1.02 Trillion. This cost was calculated by estimating the cost of healthcare, substance use treatment, criminal justice costs, lost productivity, and value of statistical life lost. Many of these costs are directly or indirectly spread to taxpayers and businesses, as the local, state, and federal government attempt to deal with this issue.

A look at the costs by state reflects a similar pattern to the maps charting opioid deaths, with those states in the Midwest, Appalachia, and northeast paying the highest costs. Taking just Ohio for example, we see that in 2017 opioid use disorder cost roughly $23.01 Billion, while fatal overdoses cost roughly $49.5 Billion, bringing the total to $72.58 Billion, or $6,266 per resident of the state.

Outside of just a loss of life and the general economic cost, a specific look at the epidemic’s effects on the lives of children adds some context to the severity of the issue. Analysis of Child Welfare Resource Utilization and Costs Attributable to Opioid Misuse between 2011-2016 shows the toll the epidemic had on children during that time. The graph below shows that the cost associated with children affected by the opioid epidemic neared $10 million, with the highest cost coming from foster care associated with opioid misuse.

As stated previously, the epidemic of opioid use in the United States entered the mainstream American consciousness in the early and mid-2010s. However, studies and articles about the epidemic show that its origins are much earlier and date back to the mid-1990s. In a 2022 interview with Howard Koh, a Harvard University Professor of Public Health and member of the Stanford-Lancet Commission on the North American Opioid Crisis, he points to the release of OxyContin and the promotion of the painkiller by Purdue Pharma as the inciting event that made the opioid possible. This claim is seemingly backed up by 2020 guilty pleas from the company regarding fraud and kickback conspiracies, resulting in numerous fines and the Sackler family paying a $225 million fine. Additionally, a $6 billion civil settlement was agreed to in March 2022.

However, while prescription drugs may have kicked off the opioid epidemic in America, it was by no means its final evolution. According to experts, including the CDC, the epidemic has three distinct phases. The first phase is, of course, opioid deaths and abuse tied to prescription drugs. The second phase saw a rise in deaths and abuse vis-à-vis heroin. Between 2010 and 2015, it is estimated that death attributed to heroin use tripled, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The final phase is primarily thought to have started in 2013 with the introduction of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, to the public. Fentanyl’s strength, addictiveness, relative cheapness, and ability to be mixed with other drugs have made it particularly deadly, even compared to the first two periods of the epidemic. A graph charting overdose death between 1999 and 2020 highlights the distinct phases described above and the deadliness of all three forms of the drug.

Echoes from the prescription drug-driven phase of the crises can still be seen in the most recent phase. For example, according to the DEA, fentanyl is often distributed in a way that makes it look like prescription painkillers.

Outside of the different vehicles through which opioids are distributed, geographical differences must be considered. While the maps above show the differences at the state level, a deeper layer can be analyzed. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, the first prescription drug phase of the opioid epidemic hit rural areas harder than urban areas. This can be seen in the graph below, which shows a sharper increase and the eventual surpassing of opioid death per 100,000 people in rural areas between 1999-2011. However, as crackdowns on prescription opiates took effect, this growth slowed, and the growth of opioid-related deaths in urban areas surpassed that of rural areas.

This pattern holds until at least 2019, with heroin-related death being higher in urban areas between 1999-2019 by 1.5 times and synthetic opioid death being higher in urban areas from 2015-2019. Overdose death from prescription drugs, on the other hand, remained higher in rural areas between 2004-2017, with urban prescription drug deaths reaching parity in 2018 and 2019.

This reversal in the pattern is interesting as the opioid epidemic is still primarily thought of as an epidemic affecting rural America or small former mining towns in the mountains of West Virginia. While it is undeniable that those areas have been affected by opioids, it is equally undeniable that the epidemic has spread to urban and suburban regions of the United States.

The most likely explanation for this shift is that prescription opioids are more accessible for those living in rural areas than the illicit products that took over the market after the crackdown. Illicit forms of the drug often brought in through the southwest border and ports of entry, often make their way to urban environments and slowly trickle into more rural environments. This means that effective combatting of the opioid epidemic in its newest phase should continue to focus on societal recovery and social services for those in rural areas to address the economic causes and local/familial distribution of opioids. Urban areas, on the other hand, should focus their efforts on enforcement and stopping the supply of drugs coming in.

As the opioid epidemic now approaches its 27th year, it is essential to consider whether we are approaching a new phase of the epidemic. Beginning in 2020, the Covid-19 epidemic caused a rise in opioid-related fatalities in the US. The map below demonstrates how overdose deaths significantly increased in every state during the first year of the pandemic. This trend continued with a 15% increase in deaths between 2020 and 2021, according to reporting by CNN. While explanations for this increase range from isolation, economic turmoil, overdose emergency drug (Naloxone/Narcan) shortages, and extra capital in the form of stimulus checks, the numbers paint a grim picture and eviscerate any idea that this epidemic is over.

While this pandemic rages, psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine, have made their way into previously unaffected U.S. markets leading to increasing deaths year over year since 2007, according to the DEA. According to a study by the Rockefeller institute of government, there has been a sixfold increase in positive methamphetamine drug tests in the United States since 2013. Additionally, while previously not as affected by methamphetamine as the American Southwest, in the Northeast of the United States the same areas heavily affected by the opioid crisis, have seen increased deaths and incidents involving psychostimulants. A map of domestic meth labs discovered by the DEA in 2019 highlights this changing geography.

The increased presence of this drug in geographical areas that align with the opioid epidemic suggests a possible connection. Whether that connection is due to the drug supply chain or some other factor cannot be determined during this assessment. However, the popularity of methamphetamine and other drugs of that class in rural areas, the correlation between overdoses and mixed use of meth and fentanyl, and the trend of adding fentanyl to other illicit drugs means it is a trend that is likely to cause increased damage.


The first phase of the opioid epidemic, which mainly targeted rural and Appalachian America, has been the subject of much conversation and popular media depictions. However, as the epidemic has evolved over the decades, the effects of illicit opioid products have shifted geographically to include urban and suburban areas of the country.

Considering the data pulled from government sources and academic studies surrounding the opioid epidemic, Overwatch analysts assess that this trend is likely to continue until such a time that sustained and effective reform and policy are put into place to combat it. Even as Covid-19 ground the United States supply chain to a halt, the pandemic appeared only to exacerbate the number of people dying from opioid-related overdoses showcasing the long-term staying power and stickiness of this problem. While post-pandemic numbers may fall slightly, there are no signs that they will return to levels lower than those of 2019.

Additionally, analysts assess that we will continue to see other classes of illicit drugs growing in those areas most affected by the opioid epidemic. This will likely lead to increased or purposeful mixing of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, with other drugs, leading to increased overdoses and death.

As this trend continues, we will likely see a shift in the national conversation around drug use that moves it away from a problem of rural America and deals with it as an issue affecting urban, suburban, and rural environments simultaneously. Further enforcement, specifically along the southwestern border of the United States and around ports of entry or significant shipping hubs and airports around the country, is likely to be increased, and counter-trafficking partnerships with Mexico will be strengthened.


A New Twitter and What It Means for OSINT






The recent Twitter takeover is a perfect example of why open-source intelligence (OSINT) is a critical discipline for analysts. It shows that technology and tools are always in beta. It also illustrates that you can always expect change and reassures the growing demand for a discipline like OSINT. 

Regardless, publicly available information on Twitter will look a lot different in the Elon Musk era. Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat summarizes it well in his tweet: 

Musk may have been slow to purchase Twitter, but he is proving changes are quick now that the purchase has been finalized. In this brief, Overwatch analysts hone in on a change that has shaken up the Twitterverse and could have significant impacts for how OSINT analysts discover, collect and vet publicly available information found on the platform. That change? Charging for the iconic blue checkmark.  

Earlier this week, we polled our LinkedIn community for a temperature check on sentiment regarding the new Twitter regime. Here are the results:  


Chasing Clout Behind the Blue Checkmark 

The blue checkmark was never conceived of as a signifier of importance on the platform, but according to the Twitter support team in 2017, it has become one. One article, for example, notes that in the early days of verification in 2013, Twitter rolled out a filter for verified accounts that helped them connect and view information shared by other verified users. A second article also notes that even Musk’s interactions on Twitter trend towards those with blue checkmarks. In 2022, 57% of Musk’s interactions on the platform were with verified users. On Twitter, or any social media platform, it is one thing to garner engagement and another to receive validation by, from or with an influencer. In this case, blessed by the blue checkmark.

As of 4:40 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 9, 2022, Twitter defines the blue checkmark as:

With the addition of the Twitter Blue subscription service where users pay $8 for Twitter validation, the simple icon of a blue checkmark becomes a greater point of confusion on what it is defined on Twitter’s website, the community and among those who hold a blue checkmark and those who do not. 

Because If Everyone Is Verified, No One is Verified

The Twitter Blue verification has not even rolled out yet, but the likelihood that implementation is already set. Already Musk has taken to Twitter, proposing what Twitter Blue verification would look like, only to redact it 24 hours later. 

verification redaction

New verification initiatives suggested by Musk have many potential consequences for OSINT, both in terms of whose voices are easily accessible on the platform and the sincerity of the message those voices are putting out. Much of this will be determined by how verification is conducted.

Which Voices Will ‘Twitter Trends’ Favor

While Musk may try to change this perception and “empower the voice of the people,” that does not mean previous perceptions of what the blue checkmark means will change overnight. This leftover impression of the blue checkmark as an indicator of truth and, therefore, worthy of inclusion in the public discourse, can lead to issues as verification expands to the population at large.  

Verifying questionable accounts in this climate is a source of potential concern. This was already an issue before Musk’s takeover of Twitter. In 2017, for example, Twitter halted verification after the platform was found to be verifying accounts belonging to white supremacists. Additionally, in 2021, Twitter was found to be giving Blue Checkmarks to fake accounts. However, with Twitter Blue being rolled out, we can already see specific individuals like QAnon John, a conspiracy theorist, attempting to pay for verification. It is likely more will follow, and while the argument for freedom of expression is strong, it is undeniable that it will take time for the blue checkmark to change in the popular zeitgeist from a trusted source of information to a simple receipt of purchase.   

TPV Tweet The second issue that arises depending on the verification method is that bot farms, some made of actual humans, will not only be able to be active on the platform but will receive the added benefit of verification and, therefore, legitimacy. While fully digital bots may be a thing of the past, human-run accounts participating in information operations will easily be able to pay eight dollars a month for this added benefit. Additionally, these accounts will be favored by the algorithm once verified, at least according to Musk, who spoke about the favored treatment verified accounts will receive in terms of positioning relative to non-Twitter Blue accounts. 

This new verification system also threatens the voices of certain individuals, everyday Twitter users and those who, due to safety or desire to express their opinions freely, may wish to operate anonymously. These compose two sources of information that are highly valuable for OSINT analysts.

A look at polls conducted by Pew Research Center in 2019 highlight a few noteworthy statistics regarding Twitter users. The top 10% of Twitter users are responsible for 90% of tweets. Additionally, the bottom 90% of Twitter users Tweet on average twice a month. Additionally, research by Scientific American, published in 2015, found that lower-income individuals in the United States used Twitter to communicate socially, while wealthier individuals used it as a place to disseminate information.  

As price becomes a barrier to entry, we may lose the ability to gauge the sentiment of the bottom 90% of people using Twitter or those who use Twitter to communicate socially. This, in effect, will create an echo chamber of wealthier, primarily liberal, politically driven Twitter users. While this could be useful if your goal is to gauge this audience, it becomes less useful to an OSINT analyst if they wish to gauge this second more representative audience.  

A Subscription Model Muffles Voices Even Further 

According to our poll, 56% predict more dis-/misinformation in this new age of Twitter. This is a problem that prevails on Twitter already, and artificial intelligence and machine learning can only moderate to a degree. Humans and labor force are required, although one immediate action Musk took shortly after the news sunk in was laying off half of the Twitter workforce. Yoel Roth, head of safety and integrity at Twitter, reassured that the mass layoff did not impact front-line review. 

 Quick to retract and rehire some employees that were fired, hopefully this will slow down some other proposed changes Musk has tweeted about. First, verification. The blue checkmark: an amorphous icon that individuals associate with clout and/or validation. The most popular request may now come with a price tag.  

The majority of Twitter users, 90%, are passive observers, listening to the 10% of active users with occasional activity. With the new subscription model, this minority voice will be pushed down further and analysts could see the migration to other social media platforms. Twitter will still serve as an indicator of current trends and views through watching its ripples and evolve into more virulent or inciteful rhetoric across the social/digital space. 

Gone Are The Days of Anonymity  

The potential loss of anonymous posting through this system is also under threat. Despite Musk’s assurances that “A balance must be struck” between anonymity and authentication, analysts have seen no indication that there is room for anonymity on his new version of Twitter. This potential loss of anonymity poses two main problems for the open-source community.  

The first is that those who post anonymously often more freely express their genuine opinion or thoughts. While this may lead to trolling or inflammatory speech, the lack of a language filter also allows OSINTERs to more accurately gauge the sentiment of an individual or group of accounts. If verification ties content to a real person, we risk people filtering themselves and losing out on genuine reactions and feelings about specific topics. 

The second and more consequential effect of a loss of anonymity will come from a loss of content coming from less permissive environments. Tweets about protests, dissatisfaction with the government, or even critical information from war zones are often sent out anonymously to protect the posters from retribution. Countries like Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, China, etc., often arrest individuals for criticizing the government on Twitter. This goes for journalists, activists, protesters, and supporters of opposition parties. If the identity of those pushing out information from these places is no longer shielded by anonymity, we will no longer see tweets sharing information about these countries.  

Even if Musk can marry the paradoxical concepts of anonymity and verification, Musk’s takeover of Twitter has relied on investors from several countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. It is unknown at this point what level of influence these investors will have in Twitter’s operations and what sway they will have over Musk in general. This puts anonymous tweets from these countries at risk. 


The push to “democratize” verification on Twitter comes with several challenges and potential pitfalls, not only analysts, but for the platform. The success with which these pitfalls can be avoided will be a product of how they are implemented. However, with the seeming speed with which Musk wants these new features to become available, unintended consequences will be unavoidable.  

Much discussion had been given to the potential impacts to the easement of moderation policies on curbing mis- and disinformation. Current social media platforms such as Twitter’s reliance on metrics of engagement and activity as an underlying part of their business model will be difficult for them to address. The fact remains that inflammatory and derisive language drives stronger responses and activity by a smaller but vocal segment of the Twitterverse. Easement of moderation rules would allow the platforms to sustain the most important driver of current metrics. Enactment of moderation policies requires labor and overhead costs that work inversely of the underlying business drivers. As previously referenced, the responses are coming from 10% of users with the remaining 90% remaining quiet on current social media platforms such as Twitter. In addition, the boisterous 10% will pay for the subscription as their activity is tied to their own pursuits. 

As noted by New York University Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership Jonathan Haidt, that far left and right fringes of our society numbers 7-8%, but social media platforms metrics and their exuberance produces a disproportionate impact on social discourse, debate and activity or lack thereof in social media space and in greater society in general. He defined this impact in a recent 60 Minutes segment as “Structural Stupidity,” where organizations or spaces populated by smart and thoughtful people are placed in situations where dissent is severely punished. They then go dormant which limits critical debate and critique of the dominant or prevailing opinion or view. This could be very true of Twitter at present. 

 Our Assessment 

As we examine the impacts of Twitter’s moderation easement policies on curbing mis- and disinformation, the aforementioned metrics driving engagement and activity will likely have minimal impact on curbing the growth of mis- and disinformation. While the measure may, to some degree, better identify the sources of disinformation and designate them properly, it will not significantly reduce the spread of misinformation for a few reasons. 

Fact checking remains a critical piece of combating misinformation but must compete in the current models where it loses out in dissemination to the public. Even with technological advances like machine learning and artificial intelligence, the endeavor to identify misinformation is labor intensive. Le Monde’s Adrien Sénécat covered for Décodeurs, a study of the 2018 French elections and what the spread of misinformation on Twitter looks like, noted that fact checks of misinformation get approximately four times fewer shares than the original falsehoods. Twitter’s moderation easement and layoffs will not address this underlying aspect.  

Disinformation and misinformation compose to varying degrees of importance in the OSINT analysts to identify and assess threats and vulnerabilities. Understanding of the impacts of Twitter’s changes over the last few weeks do not make Twitter any less important of an OSINT tool; it requires exercising additional critical thinking. Unless bolder systemic changes are made, it will remain a place where we see actors who benefit from promoting inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, and disinformation to further an agenda. It is unlikely they will be the major instrument of action for threats as it would undercut their pursuits.  

Twitter will be a platform where those ripples begin. For analysts it will be important to track the resonance of those ideas and personalities across more ideological affiliated platforms throughout the stratified web. The growth of memberships in these platforms will be important as people in the 90% migrate away from paying subscription fees as well as aligning themselves with groups they identify with, which is a very human thing to do. Since joining Twitter in 2014, their success aligns with Musk’s. And much like other Twitter influencers, Musk learned the formula of success to be “heard” or retweeted in the Twittersphere: tweet often and tweet loudly. The more outlandish, the more engagement. 

The Reality of Mainstream Apps like BeReal

The Reality of Mainstream Apps like BeReal

Nearly three years since launching, BeReal is topping app charts and was arguably the app of the summer. Currently estimated to have more than 22 million monthly users with over 450,000 Apple user reviews, averaging a 4.8 star rating, all eyes are on BeReal, leaving users blind to the dangers and vulnerabilities of the app, and its main feature to capture a photo utilizing both front and back cameras. While most apps would kill for successful milestone metrics like BeReal’s, these statistics also pique the interests of investors and bad actors who want access to real-time data as authentic as BeReal’s. 

The difference that has many flocking to BeReal are people who are over glamorous, curated feeds of “filtered” content found on popular social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where staged reality is the norm. BeReal is bringing the reality back or so the tagline says, “Your friend, for real,” speaks for itself.  

To keep reality in check, BeReal controls when users post to ensure authenticity is the default. A single push notification is randomly sent alerting users, “Time to BeReal.” Users then have a two-minute window to capture a photo, limiting the time for any staging. When capturing your BeReal moment, the app accesses both cameras, front and back, to simultaneously capture your current status with a location stamp, unless settings are turned off. Within that single second capture, the innovative social capture also collects a lot of real-time data.

As BeReal has made its way up app charts, Overwatch analysts have been monitoring the accumulating indicators contributing to the rise in popularity and investigating the potential threats that grow alongside the mainstream attention that comes with the mission to oscillate the trend from content curation to real-time captures. 

The Founding Fathers and Funders of BeReal

BeReal’s founders, Alexis Barreyat and Kevin Perreau, keep a fairly low profile with media and even on social media. Neither have conducted media interviews, which is right in line with their motto and mission of their app.

The strong purpose and story from founders was compelling enough to move the needle in drumming up over $30 million in Series A funding from Andreessen Horowitz, Accel Partners and New Wave back in June 2021. This was the first of three funding rounds for BeReal, estimated to be valued at over $600 million, according to the Financial Times. Private equity firms familiar with the digital app space, like New Wave and DST Global, were quick to jump on BeReal seeking success from their previous investments, like WhatsApp, Spotify, and Twitter.

According to a Venture Prose blog, “Zenly and BeReal, what do they have in common?,” the success of BeReal stems from Barreyat’s aspiration to bring focus back to reality. Barreyat was previously working at GoPro, where he captured mountain biking events and observed the disconnect between capturing a moment and influencers curating moments. This aspiration became more of a need than a business objective. 

The Grassroots Swell on U.S. College Campuses

BeReal’s popularity first rose in France, Barreyat and Perreau’s home country, and quickly gained traction in the U.S. from its grassroots ambassador program. The program was activated across college campuses, recruiting teams to help spread word-of-mouth. Ambassadors would receive a marketing budget to drum up downloads and reviews, paying anywhere from $30 per referral to $50 for an app download with reviews, according to Brown University students.

Many attribute BeReal’s summer success to the ambassador program as seen in the timeline below. Milestones escalated quickly with additional investors, organic brand activations, and media attention. 

All Eyes on BeReal 

After the summer, many indicators reflected that BeReal was now a player among mainstream media. The obvious indicator is capturing the number one spot on app charts the week of July 11, with 1.7 million installs that week, the largest weekly gain ever according to Sensor Tower, a digital analytics platform. Another public indicator was a dedicated skit on Saturday Night Live (SNL), a show known for leveraging cultural trends into comedic parodies. 

Looking back, there were early signs of BeReal’s swell with strong indicators in social conversations and downloads. When the app was mentioned, it was interchangeable as both a noun and a verb. Dispo, another photo-sharing app, entered the space at a similar time as BeReal and towards the end of 2021, downloads showed a clear winner in user adoption.

Another gauge is when brands begin inquiring about an ad platform. With over 55% of BeReal’s audience being young U.S. Gen Z’ers, it was only natural for brands to follow where their audience was. To date, BeReal does not have an advertising platform, nor have plans been announced. This has not stopped brands like Chipotle from getting creative.

Most likely advertising has been, and may be an afterthought for BeReal, especially since the tagline is rooted in authenticity, a characteristic brands struggle with. This is the harsh reality when mainstream mayhem hits, meeting the demands of both investors and the community.

Now that the app has captured the attention of investors, Gen Z, mainstream media, and brands…it is only a matter of time before BeReal is included in the hook of a top 10 single. 

Best Form of Flattery: Duplication

To date, the app reported a 315% increase in usage with more than a 1,000 percent increase in downloads. These are metrics that are causing other applications to have major FOMO (fear of missing out) or more fear of losing community. 

And as Oscar Wilde said, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness,” and it is very true for apps where features are not considered intellectual property and can easily be duplicated. The same curated apps Barreyat turned away from are jumping on board BeReal’s concept, cloning the feature to leverage both camera captures and encourage authenticity through a push notification. This is where first-to-market does not always win out and other social media platforms have an advantage of an existing community, algorithm and ad platform that may give BeReal less staying power. 

Potential Vulnerabilities of Reality

Beyond staying power, the biggest threat is the appeal for bad actors, not only for BeReal but for this feature across multiple platforms. “Your friend, for real.” The tagline is catchy and has proven to be a success story but being in the spotlight is a slippery slope and as we all know, your friend may not be a real friend. Remember Snap Map, and the number of scams and security dangers unleashing this real-time location data to your “friends?” 

Bad actors and AI will continue to create a presence where communities are built, and much like brands, they follow where content curation and engagement exists. The unique element of BeReal is the authenticity of capturing content at the same time, utilizing both front and back cameras – unfiltered, unaltered – capturing images, screens and documents you do not even want your best friend to see. If you pair that with open location settings, it does not not take a skilled open-source analyst to create a pattern of life for daily routines, starting points, or missing intel. 

On a broader scale, there is the threat of hackers. Most successful apps from Meta to Snapchat are all too familiar with data breaches that can unlock more than your BeReal but also your account information. As BeReal enters its third year, it needs to proceed with caution and remember Snapchat’s third year, when it experienced two data hacks, iimpacting over 4.6 million accounts. 

Our Assessment

The reality is that you can be authentic while still creating a filter. Technology has advanced more rapidly than the education of those users jumping onboard to create and curate. An app to encourage authenticity is a step in the right direction but placing a tool that seeks to showcase an unfiltered reality in novice hands can lead to a digital footprint that cannot be erased. In the quest to capture an authentic moment, inexperienced users will unknowingly build a wealth of information like this that7y can be more harmful than entertaining. As a user rushes to capture their BeReal moment, they run the risk of inadvertently sharing sensitive data or images of unknowing participants without their consent.   

Whether BeReal is here to stay, the feature and demand for more authenticity has arrived and will continue. Because of this, BeReal and the copycats that follow will become additional resources for analysts and bad actors to tap into and developers to expand upon, potentially enhancing the capture with audio and accessing users’ microphones, which is another perk for users, analysts and bad actors. 

Lastly, wherever BeReal lands with its ad platform, investors will continue to see this type of content as the next digital revolution. If this is the case, vetting investors at each seed round and building security measures for platforms will only need to elevate even further to protect user’s data. Whether the content generated by BeReal, or the apps who copy the feature, it is truly content that showcases more information about people’s everyday lives.