Fake musicians: a million-dollar Instagram verification scheme(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Fake musicians: a million-dollar Instagram verification scheme
https://www.propublica.org/article/instagram-spotify-verified-fake-musicians
103 comments
My partner runs a small brand, which attracted a copycat page clearly designed to scam users out of money for giveaways. She attempted to “get verified” and was denied because there was not enough news stories about the brand. We own the trademark to the brand name, and the verbatim copying of the copycat clearly infringes copyright. The only option we have is to file a trademark dispute through Instagram, but that involves handing over business information to the offending scammers, which seems like it could have unintended consequences. My whole strategy has been to tread lightly, as I’ve read so many horror stories of people losing their accounts, or the wrong account being banned. I genuinely don’t understand why the Instagram platform is so permissive to clear scammers.
If they're actually infringing your copyright with the copied content then a DMCA takedown should be a more reasonable prospect. Most platforms have highly lubricated paths for that, and you won't need to provide the scammer with more than a contact information for your attorney.
Most likely they won't respond and will just be taken down. They might file a false counternotice but if so you'll get their contact information and shouldn't be worse off than if you'd done nothing.
If you're on the fence because you are concerned that the scammers might retaliate, keep in mind that if you knowingly allow scammers to defraud people under your name when you could do something to stop isn't the most moral choice-- even if its the easiest one.
Then again, I'm currently targeted by a multibillion dollar lawsuit because I called out a scammer in my former industry, so maybe don't take my moralizing at you too seriously. :)
Most likely they won't respond and will just be taken down. They might file a false counternotice but if so you'll get their contact information and shouldn't be worse off than if you'd done nothing.
If you're on the fence because you are concerned that the scammers might retaliate, keep in mind that if you knowingly allow scammers to defraud people under your name when you could do something to stop isn't the most moral choice-- even if its the easiest one.
Then again, I'm currently targeted by a multibillion dollar lawsuit because I called out a scammer in my former industry, so maybe don't take my moralizing at you too seriously. :)
I've had my personal photos stolen by Instagram spammers, and using their DMCA takedown process, I was able to get them removed within 24 hours.
A lot of these platforms will limit or ban accounts that accrue DMCA takedowns. Sumbit a new takedown for each instance of copyright infringement you find.
A lot of these platforms will limit or ban accounts that accrue DMCA takedowns. Sumbit a new takedown for each instance of copyright infringement you find.
"I genuinely don’t understand why the Instagram platform is so permissive to clear scammers" - more traffic, apes together strong?
Meta gives no fucks is why. I’ve reported many scammers and fake profiles on Facebook and always get replies back about that the profile does not violate community standards. That is because the only standard Meta has is if the fake profile keeps posting even if it is a scam even if it is fake news that is fine by them. I had a friends account taken over by some scammer and he changed the profile picture and location and everything so tried to report it, you only get limited options of what to report there is no “someone took over my friends account” option, but nothing was done. So now my friends fake account is out there doing whatever it wants. Just realize Meta gives no fucks about you or your wife and would rather a fake profile on their platform.
Generate several cleverly designed scam accounts yourself using burner credentials which eventually redirect to the official entity. Out-scam yourself and the scammers by becoming the flood.
They have no incentives to care. You're no one to them, and they have no legal obligation to do anything about it.
See a Trademark lawyer. Do so now.
Does this really work? As various phone scams reveal, most scammers are overseas in jurisdictions outside where lawyers can do anything.
A cease and desist letter from your lawyer to instagram's lawyers should do the trick.
Instagram are the party one needs to get the attention of in this instance as they control the platform.
Instagram is the target, not the scammer. And yes, it works.
That's the real heart of the issue. It was never a verification badge. It was always a popularity badge. Social media is garbage. We need to find a better way. Obviously having that many eye-balls means business opportunities for the gig-worker economy but this kind of restriction/status symbol is ripe for corruption and fraud by design.
Posting anything authentically promotional on these platforms is mostly a total waste of time... They steer views to foreign countries where no one is likely to buy your music or follow you. Everyone is deceiving everyone on these large platforms now, that why music and many other scams dominate the entire Internet.
These platforms have millions of active accounts, but what they do is only let paid promoted posts trend, and randomly mix in memes from shadow accounts, while artificially capping visibility for everyone else (who doesn't pay for ads) at under 100-400 (low-value views).
Whenever the news gets onto reporting platforms, they switch their algorithm to make it look like things are operating fairly/normally, and then switch back to manipulation after the heat dies down. I'm pretty sure they have more psychologists and marketing specialists on staff than actual musicians and developers in management.
Suspending 300 accounts is like flicking a flea off an infested dog's back.
These platforms have millions of active accounts, but what they do is only let paid promoted posts trend, and randomly mix in memes from shadow accounts, while artificially capping visibility for everyone else (who doesn't pay for ads) at under 100-400 (low-value views).
Whenever the news gets onto reporting platforms, they switch their algorithm to make it look like things are operating fairly/normally, and then switch back to manipulation after the heat dies down. I'm pretty sure they have more psychologists and marketing specialists on staff than actual musicians and developers in management.
Suspending 300 accounts is like flicking a flea off an infested dog's back.
>They steer views to foreign countries where no one is likely to buy your music or follow you
Worst case scenario. Best case scenario, your advertising reaches local folks and your business does well... Which makes your main source of revenue instagram, further entrenching you into the page-on-platform-as-a-business model, which makes the internet a slightly less accessible, anonymous, fun place.
See: forums/IRC replaced by discord servers, facebook businesses, record deals hinging on tiktok views, etc
Worst case scenario. Best case scenario, your advertising reaches local folks and your business does well... Which makes your main source of revenue instagram, further entrenching you into the page-on-platform-as-a-business model, which makes the internet a slightly less accessible, anonymous, fun place.
See: forums/IRC replaced by discord servers, facebook businesses, record deals hinging on tiktok views, etc
One political party in the UK managed to change their username, banner and description on Twitter to "fact check UK" and keep their badge.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/19/tories-twee...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/19/tories-twee...
> But we all know that badge is just a "Famous" badge.
Literally one of the bullet points to get verified[1]:
> Your account must represent a well-known, highly searched-for person, brand or entity.
[1]: https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/understanding...
Literally one of the bullet points to get verified[1]:
> Your account must represent a well-known, highly searched-for person, brand or entity.
[1]: https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/understanding...
Exactly. Which is why they should stop calling it "verification"
I don't know, I think it makes sense to have highly-visible verification UI on profiles that are using names, bios, and/or profile pictures that are clearly claiming to be a well-known public figure. Like, if you see a profile with the name "Jacob Smith" and an unrecognizable photo, what does it even mean to say that profile is verified? You don't have an existing human referent for that profile information anyway, so what is being verified? On the other hand, if you see a profile with the name "Tim Cook" and a picture of the Apple CEO, you do have an existing referent, so it does make sense to be able to quickly spot the checkmark to see that the social network has verified that profile.
Of course, the social network could just attempt to verify every single profile, perhaps by requiring the submission of an approved government-issued photo ID and some human or automated comparison of the ID in the photo and the uploaded profile photo. But that has other obvious issues, namely around privacy and the ability to implement the process reliably.
Of course, the social network could just attempt to verify every single profile, perhaps by requiring the submission of an approved government-issued photo ID and some human or automated comparison of the ID in the photo and the uploaded profile photo. But that has other obvious issues, namely around privacy and the ability to implement the process reliably.
>> But how sad does your life have to be if you're dumping all this money and time to having a blue checkmark next to your name.
I follow a popular trader on IG and she sells courses for ~1500 USD. A slew of look-alike IG accounts try to sell pirated videos of her course for 100 USD. The fake accounts follow followers of the real account and DM them.
It isn't about having a blue checkmark next to her name nor vanity. I think its literally about protecting her profession as an instructor who has sunk quite a bit of time and effort into a course.
I follow a popular trader on IG and she sells courses for ~1500 USD. A slew of look-alike IG accounts try to sell pirated videos of her course for 100 USD. The fake accounts follow followers of the real account and DM them.
It isn't about having a blue checkmark next to her name nor vanity. I think its literally about protecting her profession as an instructor who has sunk quite a bit of time and effort into a course.
If it were a verification badge you’d think someone would develop a technology to sign tweets / posts the same way you can sign and push a git commit, i.e. , the authentication backend would incorporate some sort of signing which requires a special token.
All this would have to be hidden from the end-user, of course, so I’m not sure what it offers on top of just knowing the user credentials.
Maybe it would have to be implemented where when you login to an app, the app also looks in iCloud or Google storage for the keys associated with your verified identity (which you have to submit documents for, and when submitting documents, your phone creates the keys). Any additional devices the user wishes to use, he or she would have to share the keys from the initial device.
Not a crypto guy, is this the gist of what actual verification would look like and what additional benefits it serves over 2FA or knowing the users password?
All this would have to be hidden from the end-user, of course, so I’m not sure what it offers on top of just knowing the user credentials.
Maybe it would have to be implemented where when you login to an app, the app also looks in iCloud or Google storage for the keys associated with your verified identity (which you have to submit documents for, and when submitting documents, your phone creates the keys). Any additional devices the user wishes to use, he or she would have to share the keys from the initial device.
Not a crypto guy, is this the gist of what actual verification would look like and what additional benefits it serves over 2FA or knowing the users password?
It's called having an account. If you see a post from @asdf then the post came from @asdf. No one else can make posts as @asdf.
What about if someone pretending to be @asdf makes an account with his name? Or, if he is hacked? Both of these seem like reasonable problems to solve with a verification or signing service. One is solved by verifying the identity of the user once, while the other would be more like each git commit.
Ony one person is able to own @asdf. If you are hacked you can be impersonated in any scheme.
They should either change the verification badge to say “certified famous” or something, or just give out the verification badge to anyone who wants it, provided they successfully prove their identity. I don’t see how verifying my identity negatively affects Justin Bieber’s verified status, for example.
Perhaps there is a second person on earth named Justin Bieber? Then they might try to trick people. The blue check says “this is the one you probably meant”
You still have the problem of two famous persons named the same. It would be better to have separate checks. Have a check that means "this person showed us their passport" and another that says "this account is owned by the famous person mentioned in this news article".
I assure you if I had a plan to monetize a social media account, and needed 1M followers to do so, I will happily pay 100k to make a few mil!
The definition of famous is just too relative. The tag should be considered harmful. Social media platforms should not dictate who is famous or not.
[deleted]
That is the common perception but it is not accurate.
Its a "have you been impersonated before and is likely to occur again" badge. This is merely correlated to fame, all while a famous bucket does exist.
The corollary of this is get impersonated to get a badge (while this article is about be a Fake musician to get a badge).
Its a "have you been impersonated before and is likely to occur again" badge. This is merely correlated to fame, all while a famous bucket does exist.
The corollary of this is get impersonated to get a badge (while this article is about be a Fake musician to get a badge).
The pipeline for musicians on social media is to pay an online source to publish disingenuous articles and Wikipedia entries about them as an artist, and then to use those (purchased) sources for verification. Any artist can get official looking press interviews done on them and then get verified if they are willing to pay for it. Many artists also buy accounts on social media that already come with thousands, and often millions of followers already on them, and then simply change the name on the account to their own artist name. You can also directly pay for verification with any corrupt side-dealing marketer that has access to Twitter, IG, or many other business platforms on those very same social apps.
Thousands of artists do this, they also leverage bots to drive their streaming numbers high to further boost their public impression. The platforms do very little to counter or authenticate this activity because people churning makes them money, and keeps their platforms looking alive, when in truth, it's all pretty much a pit of desperation for popularity with very little realness to it.
Citing all this, there is little value in spending all that money to fake success, most of the artists that engage in it lose money every year, and can rarely perform live as headliners because their audiences would be embarrassingly low (unless they perform at a big festival lined up with many other artists of course). Fakery is even less fulfilling for music artists when you look at the fact that most popular artists are losing a lot of money and time trying to look like they are successful... It also makes having any success as an authentic musician a total washout, as the industry is flooded with all the individuals that are impersonating success, which keeps authentic musicians almost totally out of view.
Until people wake up to how social media coddles the industry of fake credibility, things will get a lot worse. Just imagine fake credibility infiltrating the medical industry (for example), there would be a lot more botched surgeries and diagnoses. Private companies shouldn't serve as the grantor of credibility, they always do it from the perspective of what generates profit, not what generates authenticity.
Thousands of artists do this, they also leverage bots to drive their streaming numbers high to further boost their public impression. The platforms do very little to counter or authenticate this activity because people churning makes them money, and keeps their platforms looking alive, when in truth, it's all pretty much a pit of desperation for popularity with very little realness to it.
Citing all this, there is little value in spending all that money to fake success, most of the artists that engage in it lose money every year, and can rarely perform live as headliners because their audiences would be embarrassingly low (unless they perform at a big festival lined up with many other artists of course). Fakery is even less fulfilling for music artists when you look at the fact that most popular artists are losing a lot of money and time trying to look like they are successful... It also makes having any success as an authentic musician a total washout, as the industry is flooded with all the individuals that are impersonating success, which keeps authentic musicians almost totally out of view.
Until people wake up to how social media coddles the industry of fake credibility, things will get a lot worse. Just imagine fake credibility infiltrating the medical industry (for example), there would be a lot more botched surgeries and diagnoses. Private companies shouldn't serve as the grantor of credibility, they always do it from the perspective of what generates profit, not what generates authenticity.
There is a sinister underpinning to the pay-for-stream stuff. The "influencer / musician" gets penalized hard for boosting Spotify streams (*), then they go on social media and complain that they only make $10 for 1M streams, and attempt to promote other "more ethical" platforms.
In my own accounts, my Spotify streams pay just as much as any other platform. The tricks used for standard influencer accounts don't work for musicians, probably because you can't trick people into believing you make good music when it is clearly garbage.
(*) I should be more clear on what I mean. A stream in the US would pay about 1/2c for each stream, while a stream from Eastern Europe would pay far less. Of course, these streaming farms are located in these areas.
In my own accounts, my Spotify streams pay just as much as any other platform. The tricks used for standard influencer accounts don't work for musicians, probably because you can't trick people into believing you make good music when it is clearly garbage.
(*) I should be more clear on what I mean. A stream in the US would pay about 1/2c for each stream, while a stream from Eastern Europe would pay far less. Of course, these streaming farms are located in these areas.
This looks like a bit similar to various 'vanity publishing' operations in the writing world. These varied quite a bit, there was an era (pre-Internet) when it wasn't uncommon for the up-and-coming corporate executive to hire a writer and publisher to write a glamorous biography and print a few thousand copies, to be handed out to whoever would take them. I suppose today that approach could plausibly provide a 'source reference' to base a Wikipedia page on (See! See! Someone wrote a Book about Me!). I suppose this is relatively harmless, if a bit ridiculous.
However, another side of the vanity publishing world is pretty scammy, basically promising writers and musicians and artists (generally ones with little commercial promise) 'a chance at success' by taking their money and doing things like this.
https://selfpublishingadvice.org/what-is-vanity-publishing/
> "A reputable company empowers clients with the information they need to choose the right service for their needs. That's in stark contrast to the deceitful and manipulative tactics used by vanity presses, where the goal is to sell the authors as many services as possible."
However, another side of the vanity publishing world is pretty scammy, basically promising writers and musicians and artists (generally ones with little commercial promise) 'a chance at success' by taking their money and doing things like this.
https://selfpublishingadvice.org/what-is-vanity-publishing/
> "A reputable company empowers clients with the information they need to choose the right service for their needs. That's in stark contrast to the deceitful and manipulative tactics used by vanity presses, where the goal is to sell the authors as many services as possible."
>However, another side of the vanity publishing world is pretty scammy, basically promising writers and musicians and artists (generally ones with little commercial promise) 'a chance at success' by taking their money and doing things like this.
My wife’s mother is a lovely lady whose hobby is writing. I won’t say she’s particularly good at it, but hey, let a 60 year old lady do whatever makes her happy, right? Then one day she announced that she won a “contest” with one of her novels, and it’s going to be printed by a publisher! She was super pumped about the whole thing, but gradually it came to our knowledge that she’s gonna pay a substantial sum for this from her pension, because the “prize” was actually just a 50% “discount” on getting her book printed with this publisher…
Clearly, there was no real contest at all. This was just a vanity publisher preying on less sophisticated aspiring writers to part them from their money. It’s a complicated situation, because on one hand we didn’t want to ruin her happiness; on the other hand, she was clearly getting scammed badly… In the end we managed to convince her to go with the smallest possible quantity, which was of course then distributed mostly among family and friends.
Very disgusting and sad practice.
My wife’s mother is a lovely lady whose hobby is writing. I won’t say she’s particularly good at it, but hey, let a 60 year old lady do whatever makes her happy, right? Then one day she announced that she won a “contest” with one of her novels, and it’s going to be printed by a publisher! She was super pumped about the whole thing, but gradually it came to our knowledge that she’s gonna pay a substantial sum for this from her pension, because the “prize” was actually just a 50% “discount” on getting her book printed with this publisher…
Clearly, there was no real contest at all. This was just a vanity publisher preying on less sophisticated aspiring writers to part them from their money. It’s a complicated situation, because on one hand we didn’t want to ruin her happiness; on the other hand, she was clearly getting scammed badly… In the end we managed to convince her to go with the smallest possible quantity, which was of course then distributed mostly among family and friends.
Very disgusting and sad practice.
A similar thing exists in the music industry outside of Instagram, continually selling wannabe musicians "agent access" and "recording sessions" for $5-10k a pop and never actually doing anything.
I think there have also been cases where celebrities or politicians have hired fake "fans" (basically actors) to show up to their appearances and make them appear more famous then they actually are.
Paparazzi are typically tipped off if not outright paid to show up at the right time.
This bears much similarity with this scam discussed on HN some days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32377063
> go to some platform with public credibility that allows you to insert unverified but credible data (Spotify, IMDb, etc.)
> create entries for yourself
> pay PR sites with some good SEO to publish about it
> use this data to persuade bigger companies staff/algorithms to think you deserve that badge/star/custom box on their products
Guess we'll see a lot of those scams being uncovered as the time goes, a lot of people still think that Spotify/IMDb/etc. has some strong background-check policy for user-submitted content.
> go to some platform with public credibility that allows you to insert unverified but credible data (Spotify, IMDb, etc.)
> create entries for yourself
> pay PR sites with some good SEO to publish about it
> use this data to persuade bigger companies staff/algorithms to think you deserve that badge/star/custom box on their products
Guess we'll see a lot of those scams being uncovered as the time goes, a lot of people still think that Spotify/IMDb/etc. has some strong background-check policy for user-submitted content.
Worth noting that “fake it till you make it” is a very old/well established strategy in the music world, it’s just being applied to social media. For example, read about some of the things David Bowie’s manager Tony DeFries did. Before Bowie was remotely famous, DeFries hired body guards for Bowie just to give him an aura of fame, had him drive around in stretch limos, hosted lavish after-parties after shows even when he was a nobody, leveraged curiosity about all of this into interviews with reporters at fancy hotels, etc.
The strategy was to make him appear to be famous until he actually became famous, and it worked. Exactly what people confide to do today on social.
The strategy was to make him appear to be famous until he actually became famous, and it worked. Exactly what people confide to do today on social.
It's as old as the music industry itself. The Police's hit single "Roxanne" was labelled by A&M (their record company) as "banned by the BBC" in the UK even though it was never banned...just not playlisted. Drummer Stewart Copeland later admitted, "We got a lot of mileage out of it being supposedly banned by the BBC."
I came here to note the same connection. I forwarded both articles to a spam person at Google.
Yep -- in fact, this might be another facet of the same scam. From the ProPublica article:
> The source said they also worked to ensure a client’s Google search results would present them as a musician. Google itself proved helpful in this regard. Once articles and music profiles were indexed by Google’s search engine, the site generated a “knowledge panel” in search results for the person’s name.
> The source said they also worked to ensure a client’s Google search results would present them as a musician. Google itself proved helpful in this regard. Once articles and music profiles were indexed by Google’s search engine, the site generated a “knowledge panel” in search results for the person’s name.
A couple of thoughts
1. We have seen a major period (past decade) of "wild west" online where platforms could reap but not regulate.
From AirBNB renting out homes not legally entitled to, uber validating people who assaulted passengers, to whatever this verification thing is, this period is well and truly over.
2. The problem is we don't actually know what regulation we actually want. More and more we seem to find that regulation in modern world is ... less than we expect. The SEC mostly regulated by retroactive "no", professions similarly.
The problem is that's fine on a case by case basis, it's not how you can code up something to discover at the scale we see.
Facebook could not cope with nursing mothers groups at their beginnings and most professions are at the same level.
It's not bad but it certainly seems all the regulation we have is retroactive and not codified.
Or is it just we had cosy situations between regulators and regulated. And new entrants, sneaky or otherwise broke that
1. We have seen a major period (past decade) of "wild west" online where platforms could reap but not regulate.
From AirBNB renting out homes not legally entitled to, uber validating people who assaulted passengers, to whatever this verification thing is, this period is well and truly over.
2. The problem is we don't actually know what regulation we actually want. More and more we seem to find that regulation in modern world is ... less than we expect. The SEC mostly regulated by retroactive "no", professions similarly.
The problem is that's fine on a case by case basis, it's not how you can code up something to discover at the scale we see.
Facebook could not cope with nursing mothers groups at their beginnings and most professions are at the same level.
It's not bad but it certainly seems all the regulation we have is retroactive and not codified.
Or is it just we had cosy situations between regulators and regulated. And new entrants, sneaky or otherwise broke that
What I don't understand is why Meta/Facebook thinks you are only a real person if you are a musician. You cannot just upload a picture of your passport and a couple of bank statements. You know, the way any other company verifies the identity of a person?
Verification badges only makes sense for public figures. There are about 125 people in the US named Serena Williams, but giving anyone of those a verification badge for their account real_serena_williams would be counterproductive, since everyone would assume it's the account of the famous Tennis player.
Yes. But even assuming a desire to limit verification to notable people, it seems very odd that minor musicians are allowed but not minor actors.
I would have to guess the infrastructure/digital bureaucracy of Spotify provides a scalable verification method in a way that doesn't exist for minor actors. Having a Spotify artist account at least implies you have an identity with connected financial credentials (i.e. to receive streaming revenues).
Anyone with $19.99 can sign up for DistroKid and get their stuff distributed on all the major music apps and websites.[0]
Plus, it's not like DJ Dr6ix wasn't actually the doctor in question. He just wasn't a musician. He wasn't pretending to be someone else, just something else.
[0] https://distrokid.com
Plus, it's not like DJ Dr6ix wasn't actually the doctor in question. He just wasn't a musician. He wasn't pretending to be someone else, just something else.
[0] https://distrokid.com
Definitely not interested in giving ol Zuck my passport and bank statements
Thats exactly the biggest concern. Private companies are asking for government ID and most of the time they're not handling it securely, and it is also stored with other very personal information the application collects from you. Totally sketchy in nature.
What could he do with your passport?
The fake articles are incredibly bad. I hope the future Internet isn't made up of wading through mostly bot-generated nonsense like this to find real content.
DJ Dr. 6ix:
> “Umbrella,” DJ Dr. 6ix’s most recent single, has taken his listeners’ breath away. It’s only been a few months since the song was released. The song, on the other hand, has developed a large fan base in such a little time. Every day, the number of individuals who follow you increases by a little proportion.
> 6ix was born and raised in the metropolis of Los Angeles. He understands what the people of Los Angeles want from house music. They’re looking for something thrilling to start the celebration and lift their spirits. People are looking for a song to liven up the celebration. And 6ix, who is fully informed of the situation, is capable of doing so.
> Thanks to Rumor Records, 6ix has been able to share music with the world that he is proud of. He has been quite vocal during the development process. Rumor Records was kind enough to listen to his worries and requests. We are speechless when we hear the ultimate decision.
No Limit Boss:
> “Despair,” a new single by No Limit Boss, has been released. The song became highly popular within a few days of its release. It is currently quite popular on the internet, with thousands of streams available. This song was created with a lot of effort by No Limit Boss.
> No Limit Boss’s knowledge of house music allows him to create tracks that are tailored to the tastes of house music fans. As a result, it has become plainly clear that he is the artist to watch.
> “Despair,” No Limit Boss’s opus, is simply beautiful. It has made it quite clear that he is not just another artist to be compared to. No Limit Boss’s record label, Whiteout Promotions, has outdone themselves with the song’s impeccable production and mastering.
DJ Dr. 6ix:
> “Umbrella,” DJ Dr. 6ix’s most recent single, has taken his listeners’ breath away. It’s only been a few months since the song was released. The song, on the other hand, has developed a large fan base in such a little time. Every day, the number of individuals who follow you increases by a little proportion.
> 6ix was born and raised in the metropolis of Los Angeles. He understands what the people of Los Angeles want from house music. They’re looking for something thrilling to start the celebration and lift their spirits. People are looking for a song to liven up the celebration. And 6ix, who is fully informed of the situation, is capable of doing so.
> Thanks to Rumor Records, 6ix has been able to share music with the world that he is proud of. He has been quite vocal during the development process. Rumor Records was kind enough to listen to his worries and requests. We are speechless when we hear the ultimate decision.
No Limit Boss:
> “Despair,” a new single by No Limit Boss, has been released. The song became highly popular within a few days of its release. It is currently quite popular on the internet, with thousands of streams available. This song was created with a lot of effort by No Limit Boss.
> No Limit Boss’s knowledge of house music allows him to create tracks that are tailored to the tastes of house music fans. As a result, it has become plainly clear that he is the artist to watch.
> “Despair,” No Limit Boss’s opus, is simply beautiful. It has made it quite clear that he is not just another artist to be compared to. No Limit Boss’s record label, Whiteout Promotions, has outdone themselves with the song’s impeccable production and mastering.
I thought propublica was for hard hitting investigations on big issues of public importance? Who cares about fake badges on social media?
> In response to information provided by ProPublica and the findings of its own investigation, Meta has so far removed fraudulently applied verification badges from more than 300 Instagram profiles, and continues to review accounts. That includes the accounts of Mike Vazquez and Lexie Salameh, two stars of the MTV reality show “Siesta Key.” Rather than get verified for their TV work, they were falsely branded online as musicians in order to receive verification. They lost their badges approximately two weeks ago and did not respond to requests for comment.
ProPublica "journalists" Craig Silverman and Bianca Fortis are total douchebags for doing this and bragging about it.
For all intents and purposes, the MTV stars are public figures and have visibility. This is such a lame move by ProPublica to attack the brand of these folks, which is what they derive their income from.
I feel like so much of this industry has turned to attention and drama seeking. This isn't journalism. This is throwing stones and complaining and trying to get clicks for it.
Shame on Craig, Bianca, and ProPublica.
ProPublica "journalists" Craig Silverman and Bianca Fortis are total douchebags for doing this and bragging about it.
For all intents and purposes, the MTV stars are public figures and have visibility. This is such a lame move by ProPublica to attack the brand of these folks, which is what they derive their income from.
I feel like so much of this industry has turned to attention and drama seeking. This isn't journalism. This is throwing stones and complaining and trying to get clicks for it.
Shame on Craig, Bianca, and ProPublica.
They did participate in a fraudulent scheme to obtain the badges. If they had been verified for their real accomplishments they would still have it.
Consider the following lame analogy:
A man who has been working as a programmer for 30 years has no diploma because he is self taught. He is having trouble finding a new position because for some reason companies are asking for a degree in a related field. He decides to buy one from a sketchy random university. People find out about the scheme and the diploma is invalidated. Should he be able to keep it because he probably knows everything he would be taught at university?
Consider the following lame analogy:
A man who has been working as a programmer for 30 years has no diploma because he is self taught. He is having trouble finding a new position because for some reason companies are asking for a degree in a related field. He decides to buy one from a sketchy random university. People find out about the scheme and the diploma is invalidated. Should he be able to keep it because he probably knows everything he would be taught at university?
Hundreds of millions and billions of dollars of sales are driven by the clout of badges on social media. That's where we are now. Small one off ethical problems become social problems when they aren't one-off and then become legal problems.
Of course it is up to consumer, investor, vendors to be more discerning. Of course, they aren't. So it's not a legal problem, right now, it is a social problem and that is being addressed by reporters and the platforms. That's where we are. It is completely congruent for ProPublica to be involved at this stage.
Of course it is up to consumer, investor, vendors to be more discerning. Of course, they aren't. So it's not a legal problem, right now, it is a social problem and that is being addressed by reporters and the platforms. That's where we are. It is completely congruent for ProPublica to be involved at this stage.
This article reads like reporting on a bunch of pick-pockets stealing a few wallets with $20 in, as if it was the Great Train Robbery.
Billionaires reading be like "at least they are not writing about us again"
Too bad these fake musician pages are taken down. I am curious as to what fake music sounds like.
Also, this is not about verifying identity but verifying fame or being 'approved'. I have another idea: if meta requests account verification for anti-spam purposes, does this mean they will verify me too?
ProPublica only revealed how stupid or pointless account verification is overall. Either let anyone verify or what is the point of it.
Too bad these fake musician pages are taken down. I am curious as to what fake music sounds like.
Also, this is not about verifying identity but verifying fame or being 'approved'. I have another idea: if meta requests account verification for anti-spam purposes, does this mean they will verify me too?
ProPublica only revealed how stupid or pointless account verification is overall. Either let anyone verify or what is the point of it.
That is so funny and in a nice timing: Tom Cormen just started to beg Twitter to have a verified account:
https://twitter.com/thcormen/status/1564767028375945217
this happens so often and there's something about this (begging Twitter to notice you exist) that rubs me the wrong way. I previously said that Twitter verification is just an arbitrary label that Twitter, Inc, bestows upon someone.
[deleted]
He says Twitter required five news articles mentioning him as a political candidate and he was only able to send them one. Seems pretty clear why he wasn't considered notable enough.
these are basically arbitrary labels bestowed upon an account. let's not kid ourselves that "verification" goes anywhere beyond that.
You can buy those starting from about $1000. I never tried but the service includes spinning up fake media coverage, usually a wiki article they guard until verified and then having the right connections.
As said I never tried, but the reality is there are plenty of offerings for this on the open market.
Not to mention you can buy verified accounts sometimes for less than $1000 as well.
As said I never tried, but the reality is there are plenty of offerings for this on the open market.
Not to mention you can buy verified accounts sometimes for less than $1000 as well.
Wow, this article caused me to google myself and find that google has labeled me a music artist as well. I should start my own service since it seems maybe all you need to do is create a podcast, then google says you are a musician and presumably the verification process at Facebook follows google's lead.
Your song LISP in space is a classic!
Is it you or a name-doppleganger?
The best is when you share a name with a famous criminal, and they don't have a picture of the criminal but do find your linked-in photo ...
The best is when you share a name with a famous criminal, and they don't have a picture of the criminal but do find your linked-in photo ...
A (mid-20s) friend shares a name with a (70-year-old) ex-IRA member, and has been pulled out of the line for extended interrogation every time he's flown since he was a child because his name triggers anti-terrorism flags.
Last I heard he even had to get a special insert for his passport where the US State department affirms that he is not, in fact, an elderly Irish paramilitant.
Last I heard he even had to get a special insert for his passport where the US State department affirms that he is not, in fact, an elderly Irish paramilitant.
I wonder if airports would accept an Instagram verification badge as proof that he's not a terrorist.
Hold on, no one dare steal my new business idea.
Hold on, no one dare steal my new business idea.
Buttle, I mean… Tuttle?
Ouch that hurts.
No it's me, its just they must label all podcasters as musicians.
No it's me, its just they must label all podcasters as musicians.
I struggle to understand why verification on social media platforms involves anything more than taking a picture of yourself touching your nose with your left hand or whatever. The point should be to prove that the account is actually you, right? How did it end up being some kind of badge of honor?
It's in a social media company's best interest for its user base to easily find and distinguish between Matt Smith the famous actor and the thousands of other Matt Smiths, especially the ones who might try to fake being the famous Matt Smith for shits and giggles and/or profit. "Verification" is definitely the wrong term for it, but if companies could come up with a different verb that didn't make even more obvious the divide between "important" people and the rest, they would have by now.
However, doesn't this "IsFamous" label break down when multiple famous people share a name. No obvious example spring to mind, but it surely must happen...
Seems like it would be more useful to have some kind of more general labelling system, where you could be 'verified' as (say) a famous actor, and/or musician, or whatever. Then people could distinguish not only the famous Matt Smith from the unfamous, but also the painter Matt Smith, and so on.
Seems like it would be more useful to have some kind of more general labelling system, where you could be 'verified' as (say) a famous actor, and/or musician, or whatever. Then people could distinguish not only the famous Matt Smith from the unfamous, but also the painter Matt Smith, and so on.
The UK actor's union Equity effectively acts as a name registrar to avoid this: https://www.actorsequity.org/join/WhyJoin/name-protection/
That's why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walliams spells his name with an A rather than the more normal I.
That's why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walliams spells his name with an A rather than the more normal I.
I mean, Michael B. Jordan is a good example of why you don't have a good example. Even if you share the name, you have to differentiate it somehow to be marketable.
As a sibling of yours points out, it's not just for marketing: the US actors' union does not allow active (or potentially inactive) members to share a name.
Michael B. Jordan has the B because Michael Jordan has a SAG card from his movie work.
Michael B. Jordan has the B because Michael Jordan has a SAG card from his movie work.
I'm guessing some of these websites will favor content from "verified" users?
I mean, people will jump through flaming hoops for some stupid clout / prestige, but I would think there's some financial motive to all this. Could be that once you're verified on various platforms, companies will start to call you down with ad placement offers.
I mean, people will jump through flaming hoops for some stupid clout / prestige, but I would think there's some financial motive to all this. Could be that once you're verified on various platforms, companies will start to call you down with ad placement offers.
The verified tag is just ridiculous. It should be for everyone or for nobody.
Man I was sigh-ing throughout this whole article..
They created a huge grave by adding the verified tag. People will and should exploit this. Blame the social media platform for this lousy, discriminating verified tag
Man I was sigh-ing throughout this whole article..
They created a huge grave by adding the verified tag. People will and should exploit this. Blame the social media platform for this lousy, discriminating verified tag
I find it useful on Telegram. There's a lot of scamming/phishing there too. It has helped a lot during pandemic peak to filter out misinformation.
But if it's for everyone, it won't make much sense. You can legally change your name to match anyone's, get that tag and scam others.
But if it's for everyone, it won't make much sense. You can legally change your name to match anyone's, get that tag and scam others.
> The coveted blue tick can be difficult to obtain and is supposed to assure that anyone who bears one is who they claim to be...hopefully paving the way to lucrative endorsements and a coveted social status.
Gross
Gross
I see some people are having trouble working out what this badge means. It's pretty simple, really - they are for content-creators that make Meta lots of money.
The business strategy for social media moderation seems to universally be "offer the least support possible without breaking people's addictions or losing advertisers."
In no particular order: misinformation, foreign influence on elections, low quality content, unfair bans, report abuse, content theft, scams, unresponsive support, cyber bullying, harassment, spam, addiction, monetization instability, mental health effects, impersonation, radicalization, grooming, etc. aren't addressed because they usually don't affect ad sales enough to motivate action.
When the perception of a site becomes too negative, the absolute minimum is done as a response.
Porn and copyright infringement do affect ad sales, which is why they are resolved instantly, even at the cost of these other problems e.g. unfair bans.
In no particular order: misinformation, foreign influence on elections, low quality content, unfair bans, report abuse, content theft, scams, unresponsive support, cyber bullying, harassment, spam, addiction, monetization instability, mental health effects, impersonation, radicalization, grooming, etc. aren't addressed because they usually don't affect ad sales enough to motivate action.
When the perception of a site becomes too negative, the absolute minimum is done as a response.
Porn and copyright infringement do affect ad sales, which is why they are resolved instantly, even at the cost of these other problems e.g. unfair bans.
Guy plays guitar outside my Trader Joe's, hat out for money, sad sign on carboard.
I toss a water bottle his way, he catches, music still playing. Funny, that.
I toss a water bottle his way, he catches, music still playing. Funny, that.
A crypto bro scammer using a (from a friend) stolen verified account tried to buy mine for 700 via Discord
Cringey stuff
Cringey stuff
Same companies apply similar practices for fact checking. Just saying.
what's the ROI for someone actually paying 25k for verification?
Anyone seen using Instagram automatically becomes dead to me until proven otherwise.
IMO, verification should be available to anyone willing to provide a solid ID, physically go to an office for that, and pay a small fee for the work required to check the validity of the ID. Validation for celebrity accounts should probably be harder, not easier, due to higher risk of identity fraud.
I find the current weird status-signalling thing that it currently is quite ridiculous.
I find the current weird status-signalling thing that it currently is quite ridiculous.
It's not a "Verification Badge", it's a "Famous Person" badge. If you verify someone's identity, John Doe indeed controls the instagram account with his face and name, then I don't see how there could be anything fraudulent about it if it's just a "verification badge".
The verification badge is supposed to show whether the person that operates an IG account is really that person, so why does a persons public image have any bearing on that? The DMV isn't going to issue you an License, then call you a month later saying "hey we suspended your license, no one's heard of you".
But we all know that badge is just a "Famous" badge. If we think of it that way then yeah, Meta was in the right because those accounts were fraudulent, because the person did not actually famous.
I realize these badges can lead to potentially lucrative brand deals. But how sad does your life have to be if you're dumping all this money and time to having a blue checkmark next to your name.