Anyone can get scammed online, including the generation of Americans that grew up with the internet.
If you’re part of Generation Z — that is, born sometime between the late 1990s and early 2010s — you or one of your friends may have been the target or victim of an online scam. In fact, according to a recent Deloitte survey, members of Gen Z fall for these scams and get hacked far more frequently than their grandparents do.
Compared to older generations, younger generations have reported higher rates of victimization in phishing, identity theft, romance scams, and cyberbullying. The Deloitte survey shows that Gen Z Americans were three times more likely to get caught up in an online scam than boomers were (16 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Compared to boomers, Gen Z was also twice as likely to have a social media account hacked (17 percent and 8 percent). Fourteen percent of Gen Z-ers surveyed said they’d had their location information misused, more than any other generation. The cost of falling for those scams may also be surging for younger people: Social Catfish’s 2023 report on online scams found that online scam victims under 20 years old lost an estimated $8.2 million in 2017. In 2022, they lost $210 million.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Boomers could also be unaware they were victims of most of these. They think internet scams start and end with nigerian princes
I mean, they did elect a meme president. What bigger scam can you think of?
What about millennials then? We spend a lot of time online and yet are doing better
We’re the ones doing the scamming
Roblox shareholders: *collective nod*
Child labor has never been easier!
We were there when they sprouted.
We had pop-up browser window JavaScript viruses that looked real and Nigerian princes, we are just suspicious of everything free.
Looking at you, sexy pole dancing girl that knows my mother’s sister‘s nephew‘s roommate‘s father‘s credit card number.
We don’t have 15-year-old immature brains. Gen z are lovely bunch, but many of their brains are still baking.
A significant portion of them is in their 20s now.
Brains finish developing around 25. But that’s not really the point. Many of them are young and that will move the results of the group enough.
Years go fast my man, gen z can be up to 26 years old
Millennials sure lost a shit ton of money to crypto scams over the past 6 years.
The difference I think is that we grew up with the technology. We saw the democratisation of the internet which makes us generally “smarter” on that front. We also had to fiddle and understand the technology more than Gen Z has to. It’s also probably far easier to scam/get scammed nowadays with crypto bros and influencers being absolutely everywhere.
There is actually a rather legitimate understandable reason why boomers may not self report ; shame and fear their children will no longer trust them to take care of themselves.
Also would like to add this included cyberbullying and that had to inflate the numbers. How many boomers are victims of bullying vs students?
That’s what the article is saying as well (but nobody reads those)
Inter-generational criticism is the resort of a bitter and stupid person, no matter the generation in question.
Oh wow thanks so much for the free psychoanalysis. Now do you - what does it say about you that you make ad hominem attacks against people you’ve never met on internet forums and then get downvoted for it?
That I speak my mind and have unpopular opinions. I’m not ashamed of it.
You should be.
Removed by mod
I’m curious: are you the kind of person who thinks all generalizations are bad?
Generalizations are, by definition, inaccurate. I don’t know if that’s what you mean by “bad,” but if it is, that’s not my opinion, it’s just what the word means.
The context for this convo seems missing, not sure what happened…. Anyway, this is generally what I’d say about generalizations:
Well, some people seem to be of the mind that generalizations are always bad, as in morally wrong.
And generalizations, based on evidence, are a recognition of a pattern. Depending on the generalization, it can be potentially very useful.
Like brightly colored animals aren’t safe to eat. That’s a good (more accurate than not) and useful generalization.
It depends on the amount and quality of evidence used in the creation of the generalization, and probably the intelligence of the generalizer.
Though I don’t recall the point I was trying to Make.