This is clickbait. When you read the actual statement it's reporting on, and ctrl+f "social", you find that it is used exactly once. > Input data for MSA plat

This is clickbait. When you read the actual statement it's reporting on, and ctrl+f "social", you find that it is used exactly once. > Input data for MSA platforms should incorporate not only transactional data, customer static data and internal reference lists, but also other dynamic behavioural customer information where proportionate to the risk (e.g. device ID, IP addresses). Using an RBA, input data may also include data from reputable external, publicly available sources, including information on company structures, Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBO), and watch lists, as well as complementary sources such as market data and verified customer social media accounts. Finally, FIs should establish robust data governance and quality control frameworks. In other words, do a thorough investigation based on all of these inputs. If you're looking at potential money laundering through a business, go to Companies House and learn as much as you can about the business to determine how legit it is. When you're looking a potentially fraudulent customer, look at their digital footprint online, including social media to determine how legit they are. This is standard practice in banks today. What the statement suggests is that in addition to monitoring individual transactions, banks should periodically monitor customers as well. The statement doesn't call for "access", nor does it even use the word "access" in the main text. It's simply clickbait, which people reading the headline + comments alone have fallen for.