NPE Comments That Fall Flat

(NPE Image from Imagen 3. It’s like rain…)

Have you ever seen a piece of content that makes you ill?

I just read a week-old comment on a month-old LinkedIn post. The original poster was pursuing a new opportunity, and the commenter responded as follows:

“Incredible achievements! Your journey with GTM teams is truly inspiring. It’s exciting to see you ready to tackle the next challenge. What qualities do you value most when looking for your next venture?”

At least it didn’t have a rocket emoji, but the comment itself had a non-person entity (NPE) feel to it.

Not surprisingly, the comment was not from a person, but from a LinkedIn page. 

And not a company page, but an industry-specific showcase page for the tech industry.

Needless to say, I see nothing wrong with that. After all, Bredemarket has its own technology LinkedIn showcase page, Bredemarket Technology Firm Services.

But when Bredemarket’s LinkedIn pages comment on other posts, I write the comments all by myself, and don’t let generative AI draft them for me. So my comments have none of these generic platitudes or fake engagement attempts that don’t work.

I have absolutely no idea why the “incredible achievements” comment was, um, “written” or what its goals were.

Awareness? Consideration? Conversion? Or mere Revulsion?

Nearly $3 Billion Lost to Imposter Scams in the U.S. in 2024

(Imposter scam wildebeest image from Imagen 3)

According to the Federal Trade Commission, fraud is being reported at the same rate, but more people are saying they are losing money from it.

In 2023, 27% of people who reported a fraud said they lost money, while in 2024, that figure jumped to 38%.

In a way this is odd, since you would think that we would better detect fraud attempts now. But I guess we don’t. (I’ll say why in a minute.)

Imposter scams

The second fraud category, after investment scams, was imposter scams.

The second highest reported loss amount came from imposter scams, with $2.95 billion reported lost. In 2024, consumers reported losing more money to scams where they paid with bank transfers or cryptocurrency than all other payment methods combined.

Deepfakes

I’ve spent…a long time in the business of determining who people are, and who people aren’t. While the FTC summary didn’t detail the methods of imposter scams, at least some of these may have used deepfakes to perpetuate the scam.

The FTC addressed deepfakes two years ago, speaking of

…technology that simulates human activity, such as software that creates deepfake videos and voice clones….They can use deepfakes and voice clones to facilitate imposter scams, extortion, and financial fraud. And that’s very much a non-exhaustive list.

Creating deepfakes

And the need for advanced skills to create deepfakes has disappeared. ZD NET reported on a Consumer Reports study that analyzed six voice cloning software packages:

The results found that four of the six products — from ElevenLabs, Speechify, PlayHT, and Lovo — did not have the technical mechanisms necessary to prevent cloning someone’s voice without their knowledge or to limit the AI cloning to only the user’s voice. 

Instead, the protection was limited to a box users had to check off, confirming they had the legal right to clone the voice.

Which is just as effective as verifying someone’s identity by asking for their name and date of birth.

(Not) detecting deepfakes

And of course the identity/biometric vendor commuity is addressing deepfakes also. Research from iProov indicates one reason why 38% of the FTC reporters lost money to fraud:

[M]ost people can’t identify deepfakes – those incredibly realistic AI-generated videos and images often designed to impersonate people. The study tested 2,000 UK and US consumers, exposing them to a series of real and deepfake content. The results are alarming: only 0.1% of participants could accurately distinguish real from fake content across all stimuli which included images and video… in a study where participants were primed to look for deepfakes. In real-world scenarios, where people are less aware, the vulnerability to deepfakes is likely even higher.

So what’s the solution? Throw more technology at the problem? Multi factor authentication (requiring the fraudster to deepfake multiple items)? Something else?

Artificial, But Intelligent? 

Truth (with a generous margin of error) as shared by Kate Kaye on Bluesky.

“AI industry PR/ conferences: 

Our new product is ground breaking and works great!

Computer science/AI academic research conferences: 

Our proposed method shows great improvement; accuracy and performance levels are 0.7% higher than previous methods showing 56.8% accuracy.”

Should Thought Leadership Content Adopt a Single Point of View?

(The Cyrkle “Red Rubber Ball” 45 rpm single cover; fair use)

How should thought leadership content present its arguments? 

It depends.

Thought leadership content

Let’s say that you’re a content marketing consultant creating thought leadership content for one of your clients. Furthermore, the client works with two types of rubber balls: the old-fashioned gray ones, and the new red ones.

Now let’s say the content describes moving from the old to the new rubber balls, and you list (perhaps in the manner of a sage) all the reasons why you may want to make the move.

Should your thought leadership piece also say why you may NOT want to make the move?

It depends.

Why to only discuss one point of view in a single piece of content

Perhaps the best way to attract your hungry people (target audience) is to convey a single message.

In my example, your single message may be that gray balls are so prehistoric, red balls are hot, and you should go red.

Clear. Unencumbered. Persuasive.

Why to discuss multiple points of view in a single piece of content

Alternatively, your hungry people may want to consider all the facts.

Returning to my example, your thought leadership piece may list all the reasons to switch from gray to red rubber balls, then list all the reasons why NOT to make the switch. 

Now this is a REALLY sage-like move.

You could still recommend to go red, but at least your hungry people were exposed to the alternative (and ultimately rejected) view.

Did you see what I did here in this post? I could have written a straightforward post that said to only talk about one point of view. But then I chose to include this section that advocates a second point of view.

But now I’m going to put on my maverick mask and offer a THIRD option.

Why to discuss multiple points of view in multiple pieces of content

Why not do both? Why not write one piece with one point of view, and a second with the opposite point of view?

In my example, you would write focused pieces about “going red” and “staying gray.” Each self-contained piece is clear, unencumbered, and persuasive. Yet the totality of your thought leadership embodies the complex nuances of cases where there is no one right answer.

And there’s an added benefit for content marketing consultants who write thought leadership pieces for their clients.

If you write two pieces of content rather than one, you (may) collect two fees.

Follow the money.

Speaking of which, Bredemarket can write one or two thought leadership pieces for YOUR firm.

CPA

Login.gov May Not Be Pining for the Fjords

My question regarding Login.gov’s future may have been answered.

You will recall that the General Service Administration’s 18F organization was unceremoniously shut down over the weekend. Since 18F was the original developer of Login.gov, it was unclear whether the government’s identity service had also fallen victim to the chopping block.

Well, Anthony Kimery of Biometric Update provided a…well, update. According to Thomas Shedd, who heads the GSA’s Technology Transformation Services (the organization in which the former 18F resided), we have nothing to worry about:

“‘“I can assure you that Login.gov’s work carries forward as a critical part of government-wide efforts to promote efficiency and fight fraud,’ Shedd wrote in a Monday email. ‘To that end we are working to accelerate Login’s roadmap. More to come on that soon.’”

So that’s the story as of this week…

When Remote Bar Exam Technology Failed, You Won’t Believe What Happened Next

(Imagen 3)

This is a remote education post, but not an educational identity post.

I have previously discussed online test taking, and I guess the State Bar of California reads the Bredemarket blog because it decided that an online bar exam would be a great idea, since it would reduce the costs of renting large halls for test taking purposes.

But it didn’t work.

“The online testing platforms repeatedly crashed before some applicants even started. Others struggled to finish and save essays, experienced screen lags and error messages and could not copy and paste text from test questions into the exam’s response field — a function officials had stated would be possible.”

No surprise, but the remote bar exam debacle was so bad that students are filing…lawsuits.

“Some students also filed a complaint Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Meazure Learning, the company that administered the exam, of “failing spectacularly” and causing an “unmitigated disaster.””

How Does Private Sector Firm X Handle Identity Verification?

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know if Login.gov is affected by the abrupt shutdown of GSA’s 18F. Was 18F still maintaining Login.gov code, or had the Login.gov folks established their own code maintenance, independent of the now-deprecated 18F?

Perhaps we will find out Monday.

But what if 18F were still responsible for Login.gov, which therefore is nearly impossible to update or maintain? 

No, Mark Cuban, DOGE will not contract with the ex-18F workers. DOGE doesn’t need them. Look at what they’ve already done with verifying identities.

IDV via SMS

For example, at the private sector company X, you cannot get a paid X Premium subscription unless you have a confirmed phone number. Because everybody knows that confirming identities via an SMS text message is a foolproof method.

Well, maybe not.

“According to information provided by Google, the decision to move away from SMS verification stems from numerous security vulnerabilities associated with text message codes. These include susceptibility to phishing attacks, where users might inadvertently share codes with malicious actors, and dependence on phone carriers’ security practices, which can vary widely in effectiveness.”

IDV via doc plus selfie

Now I’m not being fair to X, because X offers an identity verification procedure using a government issued ID…as a voluntary (not mandatory) service. It uses known third party providers (Au10tix, Persona, and Stripe as of February 2025) for IDV.

“X will provide a voluntary ID verification option for certain X features to increase the overall integrity and trust on our platform. We collect this data when X Premium subscribers optionally choose to apply for an ID verified badge by verifying their identity using a government-issued ID. Once confirmed, a verified label is added to the user’s profile for transparency and potentially unlocking additional benefits associated with specific X features in the future.”

But the public sector needs IDV

Identity verification isn’t mandatory on X because some people plain do not want it. Not because they’re crooks, but because they don’t want to hand their PII over to anyone if they don’t have to.

Of course, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, and many other government agencies HAVE to implement identity verification from Login.gov, ID.me, or some other provider.

When a .gov Becomes an .org

When techies (the ones who developed Login.gov among other things) get fired from their government jobs, a website is sure to follow.

Here is how 18f.org begins:

“For over 11 years, 18F has been proudly serving you to make government technology work better. We are non-partisan civil servants. 18F has worked on hundreds of projects, all designed to make government technology not just efficient but effective, and to save money for American taxpayers.

“However, all employees at 18F – a group that the Trump Administration GSA Technology Transformation Services Director called “the gold standard” of civic tech – were terminated today at midnight ET.”