Turkish adults see various conflicts among different groups in their society. Majorities say there are conflicts between people who support different political parties (77%) and between people with different ethnic backgrounds (59%). Opinions are more mixed in the majority-Muslim nation when it comes to conflicts between people who practice different religions, with 47% saying there are strong religious conflicts and 51% saying there are generally not. Notably, Turkish Muslims who pray less than weekly are somewhat more likely than those who pray five salah daily to say there are conflicts between people of different religions. Fewer see conflicts between people who live in cities and people who live in rural areas. Only about a quarter of Turkish adults (26%) say there are strong conflicts of this nature. Turkish adults with lower incomes are more likely than those with higher incomes to say there are strong urban-rural conflicts in Turkey (+22 points, though higher-income adults were less likely to respond to the question). Those with lower incomes are also more likely to see strong religious conflicts (+18) and ethnic conflicts (+13). Turkish adults who hold a favorable opinion of Erdoğan are less likely than Turks with an unfavorable view of the president to report strong religious (-12), political (-11) and ethnic (-9) conflicts in their society. Views of institutions Majorities of Turkish adults say the police (78%) and the military (62%) have a good influence in the country, making these the only two institutions or organizations we asked about that at least half of the public sees positively. Most Turks say the court system, religious leaders and the media (including television, newspapers and magazines) have a bad influence in the country. About a quarter or more, in fact, say the influence of each of these is very bad. Large companies from other countries, as well as banks and other financial institutions, get the most negative ratings. For example, around three-quarters of Turks (73%) say banks have a bad influence on the country. Related: 83% of Turks say their country’s current economic situation is bad Views over time We last asked about many of these institutions in 2017. Compared with seven years ago, fewer Turks now believe the media (-24 points), religious leaders (-20), the court system (-16) and the military (-15) have a good influence in Turkey. Political and demographic differences Turkish adults who have a positive view of Erdoğan are more likely than those with an unfavorable view of him to say various institutions have a good influence in the country. For example, those who think positively of Erdoğan are 50 points more likely than those with an unfavorable view of the president to say that religious leaders have a good influence in Turkey (67% vs. 17%). Erdoğan supporters are also more likely than nonsupporters to have a positive view of the influence of the court system, the police, the media and the military. On the other hand, Turks who have a favorable opinion of former opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu – Erdoğan’s opponent in the May 2023 presidential election – see a number of institutions differently. For instance, Kilicdaroglu supporters are 31 points less likely than those who see him unfavorably to say that religious leaders have a good influence in the country. They are also less likely to have a positive view of the influence of the court system (-15 points) and the police (-9). There are no significant differences between Erdoğan or Kılıçdaroğlu supporters when it comes to the influence of banks and foreign companies, but there are differences by age. Turkish adults under 35 are more likely than those ages 50 and older to say that large companies from other countries (35% vs. 23%) and banks and other financial institutions (26% vs. 17%) have a positive influence in Turkey. source

Last week, Visa announced the acquisition of Featurespace, a UK-based enterprise fraud management and anti-money-laundering (AML) vendor. Forrester estimates the acquisition price to be between $350–450 million. Founded in 2008, Featurespace employs over 400 people. The move comes as a bit of surprise, since Visa’s Cybersource solution already addresses e-commerce and retail fraud management/digital fraud management use cases. Cybersource has been using rules and machine learning-based models for risk scoring and has extensive alert and case routing and investigation features. This means the Featurespace acquisition brings in significantly overlapping technology for Visa. Forrester expects that the success of the acquisition will depend on the following factors, namely Visa’s ability and execution to: Converge the Cybersource and Featurespace solutions’ intellectual property. While it may look viable to maintain two separate technology stacks in the two portfolios, this means duplicating engineering, marketing, and sales efforts, which is not efficient and can result in the erosion of Visa’s competitive position against other fraud management and AML vendors. Provide convincing fraud management and AML cyber/online and transaction monitoring capabilities. Cybersource has focused on detecting merchant-side payment transaction fraud (e.g., fraudsters using stolen credit card numbers on a merchant’s website or fraudsters taking over legitimate users’ online accounts on e-commerce websites), while Featurespace has specialized in detecting issuer bank-side payment fraud and offering some cyber/online (account takeover, fraudulent registration) fraud detection capabilities. Featurespace has also entered the AML space, with a focus on transaction monitoring. Visa, with its Featurespace acquisition, needs to assemble its assets to offer end-to-end (i.e., cyber/online and transaction monitoring) fraud management that covers scams, new account fraud, and peer-to-peer payments. Offer bank/issuer-facing and e-commerce-facing fraud management tools. Fraud management is still an industry-specific product market. Vendors increasingly provide more than just risk-scoring rule management and machine learning; alert and case management; and reporting capabilities for fraud management but also bring in a wealth of fraud domain-level knowledge (i.e., models trained to detect typical fraud patterns such as account takeover, excessive payments, mule activities, or scams), especially given today’s transition from on-premises to SaaS-delivered fraud management solutions. Consequently, Visa needs to use its access to payment network, issuer (Featurespace), and merchant-side (Cybersource) data to provide powerful solutions to issuers/banks and e-commerce verticals. Fraud management continues to be a rapidly evolving market. I recommend reading my evaluation, The Forrester Wave™: Enterprise Fraud Management Solutions, Q2 2024, or scheduling a guidance session or inquiry with me to discuss the current state of fraud management. source

A third of Turkish adults are satisfied with the way democracy is working in their country, while the other two-thirds express dissatisfaction. More than a third (37%) say they are not satisfied at all. Since we last asked this question in Turkey in 2019, satisfaction with democracy has dropped 14 points, from 47% to 33% today. Turks who hold a favorable opinion of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are more likely than those who see him unfavorably to express satisfaction with democracy (65% vs. 9%). And Muslims who pray five salah daily are more likely than those who pray less frequently to have a positive outlook on their democracy. On the other hand, only 13% of those with a positive opinion of former opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu – Erdoğan’s opponent in the May 2023 presidential election – are satisfied with the way democracy is working. Views of different political systems Turks greatly prefer democratic types of government to nondemocratic systems like rule by the military or by a strong leader. Eight-in-ten Turkish adults say that a representative democracy (a system where representatives elected by citizens decide what becomes law) would be a good way to govern the country. An almost identical share (79%) says the same about a direct democracy (a system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues to decide what becomes law). Only 14% in Turkey say that military rule would be a good way of governing, making it the least popular political system we asked about. However, support for this system has risen from 9% in 2017. Turks’ evaluations of various government systems are generally comparable to the results of a 24-country survey we conducted in 2023. Turks are within a few points of the 24-country medians when it comes to their support for representative democracy, rule by experts and rule by the military. On direct democracy and rule by a strong leader, Turks express a slightly more positive view than the median respondent.    Views of autocratic leadership Views on autocracy vary across different groups in Turkey. Roughly half (49%) of those who hold a favorable opinion of Erdoğan think that rule by a strong leader would be a good way to govern the country, compared with 23% of those with an unfavorable view of the Turkish president. Adults with lower levels of education are more likely than their counterparts with more education (37% vs. 21%) to say autocracy would be a good way to govern the country. (The “less education” category refers to people who have a secondary education or less, while the “more education” category refers to those with a postsecondary education or more.) In addition, Turkish adults ages 50 and older are 15 points more likely than adults under 35 to say that autocracy would be good for Turkey (43% vs. 28%). source

Turkish adults are divided when it comes to trust in their national government: 46% trust the government to do what is right for the country, while 51% do not. Trust is especially high among those who have a favorable opinion of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The president’s supporters are nearly five times as likely as nonsupporters to have trust in the national government (84% vs. 17%). Age also plays a role in views of the government. Turkish adults under 35 are less likely than older adults to express trust in the government. Trust in the government is significantly higher among Muslims who pray salah – the ritual prayers required of Muslims five times a day – when compared with those who pray less often. About seven-in-ten Muslims who pray five salah daily (69%) say that they trust the national government to do what is right. This compares with 40% of Muslims who pray at least weekly (but not five times daily) and 26% of those who pray less than weekly. (The Center uses frequency of prayer as a measure of religiosity.) Education is another key factor. While 52% of Turkish adults with a secondary education trust the government, this falls to just 26% among those who have a postsecondary education or more. Preparedness for natural disasters In this survey – conducted roughly one year after a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Turkey and Syria, leaving more than 50,000 dead – we asked Turks how confident they are that the government will take the necessary measures to prepare for future natural disasters. About six-in-ten Turks (61%) are not confident the government will do this, including 40% who say they are not confident at all. Views on this question differ widely depending on how respondents see Erdoğan. Three-quarters of Turks with a favorable opinion of Erdoğan have confidence that the government will take steps to be prepared for a future natural disaster. Only 9% of those with an unfavorable opinion of Erdoğan agree. May 2023 election fairness In a May 2023 national election, Erdoğan faced off against Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, then the leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). Erdoğan won in a runoff with 52% of the vote. Beginning the following January, we asked Turkish adults if they believe the election was conducted fairly and accurately. Overall, 53% of Turks do not think the election was fair, but this opinion varies widely depending on how favorable they are toward each candidate. Among Turks with a favorable opinion of Erdoğan, 86% are confident the election was conducted fairly and accurately. Just 15% of those with a favorable view of Kılıçdaroğlu agree. Confidence in the election is also higher among Turks ages 50 and older than those under 35. About half of the older group (52%) are confident that the election was fair, compared with about a third of the younger group (34%). Among Turkish Muslims, 70% of those who pray five salah daily are confident in the fairness of the election, including 46% who are very confident. Much smaller shares of those who pray less frequently agree. Favorability of Erdoğan and Kılıçdaroğlu over time In our surveys, Erdoğan has consistently received higher favorability ratings than Kılıçdaroğlu. Still, Erdoğan’s favorability is down 32 points from 2017; that year’s survey was conducted eight months after a coup attempt against his government. Today, 43% of Turks see Erdoğan favorably. Kılıçdaroğlu’s favorability, by comparison, is similar to where it was when we last asked about him in 2015. Today, 27% view him favorably, compared with 23% in 2015. (It’s important to note that the most recent survey was fielded after Kılıçdaroğlu was replaced as leader of the Republican People’s Party.) People ages 35 and older, adults with less education and Muslims who pray more frequently hold more favorable opinions of Erdoğan than their demographic counterparts. Kılıçdaroğlu, who is an Alevi Muslim, is seen more favorably by Turkish Muslims who pray less than once a week than by those who pray five salah daily. About one-third of Turkish adults have a negative opinion of both Erdoğan and Kılıçdaroğlu. Similar to demographic patterns on trust in government, these people are more likely to be young (adults under 35), to have at least a college degree and to pray salah five times a day, if Muslim. source

In 2024, regulators around the globe introduced a myriad of proposed cybersecurity- and privacy-focused policies and legislation to better manage emerging risks relating to emerging technologies such as generative AI (genAI), as well as those related to managing third-party relationships. Security and risk leaders sprinted to secure genAI, even as its use cases were still evolving; almost every industry experienced critical IT disruptions due to lack of resilience planning; and despite downplaying third-party risks, organizations globally saw an increase in software supply chain breaches. With cybercrime expected to cost $12 trillion in 2025, regulators will take a more active role in protecting consumer data while organizations pivot to adopt more proactive security measures to limit material impacts. This year’s cybersecurity, risk, and privacy predictions from Forrester for 2025 reflect how organizations need to evolve to address these emerging risk domains. Here are three of those predictions: CISOs will deprioritize genAI use by 10% due to lack of quantifiable value. According to Forrester’s 2024 data, 35% of global CISOs and CIOs consider exploring and deploying use cases for genAI to improve employee productivity as a top priority. The security product market has been quick to hype genAI’s expected productivity benefits, but a lack of practical outcomes is fostering disillusionment. The thought of an autonomous security operations center using genAI generated a lot of hype, but it couldn’t be further from reality. In 2025, the trend will continue, and security practitioners will sink deeper into disenchantment as challenges such as inadequate budgets and unrealized AI benefits reduce the number of security-focused genAI deployments. Breach-related class-action costs will surpass regulatory fines by 50%. Breach-related spending is no longer limited to regulatory fines and remediation costs. Historically, cyber regulations have not gone far enough to protect customers and employees — causing these same people to pursue class-action lawsuits and seek damages. Class-action costs are enormous in data breach litigations. And with the percentage of companies facing class actions at a 13-year high, CISOs will be asked to contribute toward the company’s class-action defense fund in 2025, making costs from class actions greatly exceed fines imposed by regulators. A Western government will bar specific third-party or open-source software. Software supply chain attacks are a top culprit for data breaches in organizations globally. Growing pressure from Western governments to require private companies to produce software bills of materials (SBOMs) has been a boon for software component transparency, but these SBOMs highlight the role of third-party and open-source software in the products that governments purchase. In 2025, a government armed with this information will restrict an open-source component on the grounds of national security. To comply, software suppliers will need to remove the offending component and replace the functionality. Forrester clients can read the full Predictions 2025: Cybersecurity, Risk, And Privacy report to get more detail about these predictions as well as two additional predictions related to the EU AI Act and internet-of-things device security. You can also register for the upcoming client webinar. If you aren’t a client, sign up here to receive our complimentary Predictions guide, which covers our top predictions for 2025, when it becomes available later this month. Get additional complimentary resources, including webinars, on the Predictions 2025 hub. source

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Elon Musk’s publicly traded electric vehicle company Tesla, Inc. hosted its highly anticipated “We Robot” event on Oct. 10, 2024, at Warner Bros. Discovery Studios in Burbank, California and streamed it live on his social network X and YouTube. Despite showing off slick prototypes of a new “Cybercab” autonomous car without a steering wheel or gas and brake pedals, and a similarly sparse, art deco retrofuturistic “Robovan” capable of seating 20 passengers, the event was criticized by some prominent observers as being more style than substance. lt was lacking in precise details on timelines, costs and legal issues, and even came across as misleading in some cases. The most glaring example of potentially misleading information was Tesla’s move to have its still-in-development humanoid Optimus robots filling the venue space and interacting with attendees, even serving drinks at a bar. While some present assumed the robots were entirely autonomous, reports confirmed they were teleoperated — meaning controlled by a human in another room. “Not wholly AI? Not at all AI,” wrote venture capitalist Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Lux Capital on Musk’s social network X. “Totally worthy to celebrate low latency remote control but totally dishonest to demo these as autonomous robots—call it the parlor trick it is.” This skepticism raises questions about how far Tesla has truly advanced in developing artificial intelligence for robotics. While Musk touted the Optimus, Cybercab and Robotaxi as tremendously impactful inventions for society, EV reviewers The Kilowatts noted on X that much of the technology will remain “unbelievable” to investors and consumers until it is shipped. For now, Tesla’s vision of fully autonomous personal robots as well as new autonomous electric vehicle types remains more speculative than realistic. Here’s a summary of what was discussed: Cybercab: all autonomous and cheaper than a bus or Model 3? Credit: Tesla Perhaps the most expected of the announcements was Tesla’s Cybercab, a two-seater electric vehicle designed for autonomous operation. Musk described the Cybercab as a sleek, more compact version of the Cybertruck, and it will reportedly cost less than $30,000. That is below the current price of Tesla’s most affordable personal vehicle, the Model 3, which debuted at $35,000 in 2019 but has since seen its price rise to around $42,000. According to Musk, Tesla aims for the Cybercab’s operating cost to be between $0.20 and $0.30 per mile compared to the operational cost of a bus, which he placed at around $1 per mile. The vehicles would be powered by inductive (wireless) charging, eliminating the need for plug-in charging stations and further integrating autonomous cars into the urban landscape. The promise of an individualized “mass transit” future has long been part of Musk’s vision, and the Cybercab is a key component of that goal. During the event, Musk proudly displayed 20 Cybercabs driving autonomously around the venue. He emphasized that the Cybercab is part of a broader effort to make cities safer, cleaner and more efficient. Tesla’s AI Vision system, trained on millions of cars, allows these vehicles to operate without the fatigue and distractions that affect human drivers. Musk claimed that Tesla’s autonomous technology could eventually make driving 10 to 30 times safer than human operation. He also floated the idea that autonomous car owners could manage fleets of vehicles, offering ride-hailing services similar to Uber or Lyft. This business model, if successful, could reshape the gig economy and create new opportunities for individuals to generate income. However, while the Cybercab’s debut was met with enthusiasm, industry insiders raised concerns about the lack of concrete details surrounding its rollout. Musk indicated that production on the Cybercab would begin between “probably” in 2026 or “before 2027,” but admitted he “tend[ed] to be a little optimistic with timeframes.” Indeed, Tesla has historically struggled with meeting deadlines for its more ambitious projects such as its Full Self-Driving (FSD) and even shipping the Cybertruck, which Musk at one point suggested would be waterproof enough to act as a boat for short journeys (it is not and cannot). As Washington Post technology journalist Faiz Siddiqui noted on X, the entire We, Robot event livestream was preceded by a heavy disclaimer from Tesla stating, in part, that “Forward-looking statements are based on assumptions with respect to the future, are based on management’s current expectations, involve certain risks and uncertainties, and are not guarantees. Future results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement.” While the vision of affordable autonomous transportation is compelling, much remains uncertain about when—or if—Tesla can deliver on these promises. Robovan: Tesla’s answer to buses, trains, and mass transit Credit: Tesla Another key reveal at the event was Tesla’s Robovan, a large autonomous vehicle designed to transport up to 20 passengers or goods. Musk positioned the Robovan as a potential solution for high-density urban transport, hinting at a future where autonomous shuttles replace conventional buses. The Robovan represents a vision of more efficient, less congested cities where autonomous vehicles run frequently enough to eliminate the need for large, underutilized parking lots. Musk suggested that, over time, cities could convert parking spaces into parks, improving the quality of life in urban areas. Some technology observers such as Brian Roemmele on X were overjoyed at the news, especially the Robovan’s sleek, striking art deco design, even predicting that “100s of 1000s” or hundreds of thousands of people would be living in Robovans converted into mobile homes by 2031. Credit: Tesla Despite these ambitious goals and praise, critics were quick to point out that Tesla offered no specific timeline for the Robovan’s production. X user Facts Chaser noted that while Tesla unveiled a prototype, China already has operational autonomous vans in real urban environments. Tesla Full Self-Driving coming to Texas and California next year? A recurring theme at the We Robot event was Musk’s long-held belief that autonomous vehicles will revolutionize urban life by reducing traffic, improving safety and reclaiming public

 While Musk took the right approach in buying an established media brand, what’s missing is a description of his new strategy for Twitter. Getty Images How well does Elon Musk understand the media business? His $44 billion proposed acquisition implies that he has a better plan for monetizing Twitter than the current management but that’s unlikely given what he has said about his plans so far. The multi-talented Musk has proven his leadership skills in building successful companies as head of Tesla, SpaceX, and as former head of PayPal. Those businesses were not media businesses and media businesses are in a different industry – a market that’s declining in revenues and in quality. The media industry business model continues to be in flux – there is no reliable, sustainable model based on advertising. It’s been in a steady decline for two decades. The ad industry has managed to disintermediate media publishers via technologies that can target consumers directly, almost anywhere on the Internet, repeatedly. There’s no reason to pay high ad rates to target wealthy New York Times online readers when your ads can follow them wherever they go. But those advertisers don’t want their ads to appear next to controversial content, or fake news, or on scam websites.  Twitter has tried to eliminate controversial content, and remove people from its platform and newsfeeds. And this has calmed some of the advertisers’ concerns.  Musk, however, has been critical of Twitter’s policies in banning certain content and controversial people. Under Musk ownership of Twitter we can expect a revision of such standards and the allowing of controversial content and personalities.  Advertisers won’t be happy over such changes and there’s likely to be an exodus. And Musk’s version of free expression will likely not meet European Union regulations, which seek to stop publication of harmful content – and penalties can be severe.  Musk has the option of offering a paid subscription service that doesn’t require support from advertisers and won’t have to conform to their social and moral standards.  But that would create a far smaller-sized Twitter because it would likely become a place where extremist views are freely shared and thus less appealing to the majority of users. While Musk needs to figure out a viable revenue strategy, he has chosen the right approach in not launching his own Twitter-like service. It would have taken him two or more years to build such a brand and with a high risk of failure. It’s a much better strategy to acquire an established brand. Jeff Bezos, co-founder of Amazon, chose a similar strategy in buying an established media brand, when he purchased the Washington Post in 2013 for $250 million.  In the same year, fellow billionaire Pierre Omidyar, co-founder of eBay, launched his media venture First Look Media – a fresh new business. Omidyar’s strategy was to launch well-known journalists in their own online media ventures. The journalists would come with a ready-made audience and therefore there should be no need to pay a premium for an already established media business.  It did not work out that way for First Look Media, which suffered greatly from not knowing how to build a media venture from scratch. There is a description of its disastrous history here on Wikipedia.  While Musk took the right approach in buying an established media brand, what’s missing is a description of his new strategy for Twitter. So far, Twitter employees have not been told of any changes associated with the acquisition beyond that they should continue as normal since it will likely be about six months for the deal to be completed.  With Twitter as a private company, Musk’s management team will have an advantage in that it will be able to plan for longer-term revenue goals since it won’t be tied to the quarterly financial reports cycle of a public company.  Wall Street scrutiny of publicly traded companies affects their share price, which acts as a control on what management can do, forcing a short-term focus on the business. Privacy will give Twitter’s management greater freedom and also shield it from having to reveal key metrics. Free speech has never been free of serious social responsibilities – it’s something that Twitter has struggled to learn – and it’s a lesson that Musk will also need.  source