Victims speak out over ‘tsunami’ of fraud on Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Victims speak out over ‘tsunami’ of fraud on Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/16/victims-speak-out-over-fraud-on-instagram-facebook-and-whatsapp
85 comments
Do you need to access mails, (facebook, whatsapp, mails, instagram, change grades, bank accounts, remotely access phone calls or text), send your request to this genus because he fix my credit score after clearing the criminal issues. I'm glad to have him as my permanent hacker because is the best among the rest and he work with time without inconvenient anyone. Get more details from him right here and thanks me later okay, contact him via whatsapp+1(262)458-4665) or email Reliablehacker06 @ gmail com
Seems simple enough: if someone asks for money on Facebook/Instagram, just say no. Don't buy anything advertised there either.
For the people who get fooled, it's not that simple. The landscape of apps and the way people use them change quick enough that there is always a significant non-zero number of people who aren't aware of which situations are safe and which aren't. Scammers will always show up in the places where people can be fooled, even if you suggest that someone completely disconnect from the internet.
Yea I hear of scams nowadays where people get a phone call and it's someone posing as a cop or ambulance worker and they know the name of one of your family members and try to scare you into thinking that something happened to them. I forget all the details but it's been happening, now just imagine you get a phone call from an AI carbon copy of your grandkids voice or something.
>>Don't buy anything advertised there either.
YUP
Farcebook trying to convince everyone that Craigslist is unsafe (as if FB was safe) was one of the biggest scams ever.
Yes, it undermined CL stealing a bunch of the adverts, but it sure as hell made nobody more safe.
YUP
Farcebook trying to convince everyone that Craigslist is unsafe (as if FB was safe) was one of the biggest scams ever.
Yes, it undermined CL stealing a bunch of the adverts, but it sure as hell made nobody more safe.
These days, if anyone is asking for money for any reason, it's usually a scam-- sadly, even if it's a family member. (Fleecing family is always a good way to begin a career in fraud, since they trust by default and are always reluctant to press charges. Ask Bernie Madoff!)
The kids in particular have figured out how to couch grifts in medical care and college tuition-- two outlets donors have no visibility into and cannot expect any sort of accountability for. Raising money and pretending to execute is how the scam generally goes since you can't verify anything.
Good faith is dead. Trust without transparency and you will be exploited.
The kids in particular have figured out how to couch grifts in medical care and college tuition-- two outlets donors have no visibility into and cannot expect any sort of accountability for. Raising money and pretending to execute is how the scam generally goes since you can't verify anything.
Good faith is dead. Trust without transparency and you will be exploited.
I think it's more like an omni-channel tsunami of fraud on all possible channels that has been gaining speed for a long time and appears to be increasing with an exponential growth rate.
The worst frauds still happen over phone and involve banking and old people.
The worst frauds still happen over phone and involve banking and old people.
It certainly feels that way. Scams and fraud grow more common and brazen by the day.
Well yeah. Because fraud is the victims fault and they have to fix it. At least in the view of our current laws.
If someone impersonates me, and uses my 'super secret' information to get a new credit card in my name, (like birthdate, DL number, or the number I have to put on any credit application, employment, etc) its now MY responsibility to correct my credit reports, contact people sending me to collections, file police reports, etc.
My state (OR) just this week lost drivers license info on every license in the state to to a hack on the MoveIT zero day. They recommend you check your credit reports for suspicious activity.
They just shoved responsibility for the mess of all our drivers licenses onto 3.5M of us to fix...
If someone impersonates me, and uses my 'super secret' information to get a new credit card in my name, (like birthdate, DL number, or the number I have to put on any credit application, employment, etc) its now MY responsibility to correct my credit reports, contact people sending me to collections, file police reports, etc.
My state (OR) just this week lost drivers license info on every license in the state to to a hack on the MoveIT zero day. They recommend you check your credit reports for suspicious activity.
They just shoved responsibility for the mess of all our drivers licenses onto 3.5M of us to fix...
My country (Sweden) recently had a supreme court decision basically saying it's the banks' responsibility to safeguard the deposited money and making sure they're giving it out to the proper person and that's that. [Obviously there's a balance, but it dramatically shifted towards the rights of the bank account owner.]
https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden/2022/1155...
(This was by far the most satisfying court decision I've read for years.)
https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden/2022/1155...
(This was by far the most satisfying court decision I've read for years.)
It's a combination of:
1) the economic situation in some countries such as the UK being so dire that the risk/reward calculation of crime now starts to be worth it. If people see no way out in a legitimate career, they will turn to crime because they have nothing to lose.
2) would-be criminals are finally noticing that law enforcement has completely dropped the ball on investigating/prosecuting these crimes, so it's literally "free money" with no actual risk of being caught
1) the economic situation in some countries such as the UK being so dire that the risk/reward calculation of crime now starts to be worth it. If people see no way out in a legitimate career, they will turn to crime because they have nothing to lose.
2) would-be criminals are finally noticing that law enforcement has completely dropped the ball on investigating/prosecuting these crimes, so it's literally "free money" with no actual risk of being caught
Only going to get worse with conversational AIs and voice synthesis
I've been thinking for a while now, as we've had social media for many years already. What good has it brought to society? Scams, addiction, FOMO, cancel culture, gossip, missinformation, bullying, and the most self-centered generation in history, to name a few. All of it instantly and on a global scale. It's truly one the worst things that ever happened to society IMO.
I think the larger it grows the worse it gets.
Small group to talk to family or friends? Great!
The local community? Begin noticing dbags and crazies, people nasty to each other
National or larger? Forget about it, and now it's ratfucked by bad actors, shills, foreign intel, and other ilk.
Moderation also gets worse because these large entities try to create blanket standards with such a wide variation of cultures involved.
Small group to talk to family or friends? Great!
The local community? Begin noticing dbags and crazies, people nasty to each other
National or larger? Forget about it, and now it's ratfucked by bad actors, shills, foreign intel, and other ilk.
Moderation also gets worse because these large entities try to create blanket standards with such a wide variation of cultures involved.
That’s my perception too. Most social media started kinda good because there were mostly enthusiasts at first, then they descend into insanity. I feel for my mom, caught up in Facebook because most people her age is also there. It’s a mix of political trolls and ignorant people arguing over things they don’t know with all kinds of fallacies together in a sort of crowd crazy that I see nowhere else. I try to make her leave sometimes, as it is bad for her mental health, but she doesn’t listen to me and I admit it would cut her out from the only group she’s part of, which is family spread across the country.
Social media has absolute changed the way people live their lives in my country - India.
Personally, it has made me lose interest in my favorite outdoor activity i.e. hiking because of too many people showing up. Ex: I won't set foot on a trail on weekends[0].
[0] https://i.imgur.com/7V4cd4Z.png
Personally, it has made me lose interest in my favorite outdoor activity i.e. hiking because of too many people showing up. Ex: I won't set foot on a trail on weekends[0].
[0] https://i.imgur.com/7V4cd4Z.png
At least people are getting outside and doing things together.
It’s the same in Ontario Canada, which can be frustrating.
But I am curious what activities are now missing all those people.
It’s the same in Ontario Canada, which can be frustrating.
But I am curious what activities are now missing all those people.
Er.. is everywhere like that ?
Mmm, overpopulation.
Will you be blaming social media for their overcrowded trains too?
https://imgur.com/gallery/2Xo9x
Will you be blaming social media for their overcrowded trains too?
https://imgur.com/gallery/2Xo9x
The comment you're responding to refers to India as their country.
I'm assuming they've witnessed the changes first hand in that case.
I'm assuming they've witnessed the changes first hand in that case.
Social media (or any other means of advertising, past or present) has affected these things everywhere.
Even I complain about my inability to be alone on a trail in CA, or struggling to find campsites, occasionally shaking my fist at social media for it.
But the linked images from India showing extreme overcrowding has far more to do with the population size than social media. When you have that many people, any little force generating focused interest is getting multiplied by a huge number.
Even I complain about my inability to be alone on a trail in CA, or struggling to find campsites, occasionally shaking my fist at social media for it.
But the linked images from India showing extreme overcrowding has far more to do with the population size than social media. When you have that many people, any little force generating focused interest is getting multiplied by a huge number.
There are plenty of trails in India, this one just got advertised. You shouldn't conclude the world is overpopulated by looking at footage from a football cup match.
> You shouldn't conclude the world is overpopulated by looking at footage from a football cup match.
You shouldn't deny India is overpopulated when riding a train there resembles a footclub cup match.
You shouldn't deny India is overpopulated when riding a train there resembles a footclub cup match.
Is Japan over-populated? Tokyo's trains are extremely crowded. Is US over-populated? LA traffic jams are crazy.
What is the definition of over-population? Over what area are you measuring it? Those train images are likely from just one city. There are other places where the trains just run like any other place.
What is the definition of over-population? Over what area are you measuring it? Those train images are likely from just one city. There are other places where the trains just run like any other place.
India is such an outlier as a country... it's a unique combination of both massive absolute population of 1.4B+ and density of over 1000/mi^2.
We can split hairs about other places, and obviously lots of places have their population/crowding issues. The planet has a lot of people.
But India is just not useful as a data point for blaming social media for these phenomena because it's such an outlier. Practically anything informing the people of India of something somewhere of interest is going to generate a thundering herd of exceptional proportion. You don't need social media's help.
We can split hairs about other places, and obviously lots of places have their population/crowding issues. The planet has a lot of people.
But India is just not useful as a data point for blaming social media for these phenomena because it's such an outlier. Practically anything informing the people of India of something somewhere of interest is going to generate a thundering herd of exceptional proportion. You don't need social media's help.
But where is that 1000/mi^2 measured? Because I went to plenty of places in India where I saw no one or very few people for a long time driving or hiking. It sounds, like always, this is looking at cities and around cities. Most countries are pretty empty if you don’t want to live in a city (and fortunately, I don’t).
Your username is hilarious in context of this post. Sure there are a lot of horrible things that it's introduced. Replace social media with any other technology..what good have computers brought? What good has the automobile brought?
It is all perspective and humans will use tools for good and bad. There is plenty of good in the world thanks to social media.
It is all perspective and humans will use tools for good and bad. There is plenty of good in the world thanks to social media.
What are the long term good things social media brought that we did not have before and would not have without it? Let’s say a world where internet had exploded as it did but instead with many, not connected, forums, newsgroups and irc servers. Would we not have the same benefits without the crap part? What good part did social media do here?
I don't think there is any other technology that compares with social networks on the rate of bad to good consequences and is still widely adopted. Maybe mass manufactured military-spread drugs like they used in WWII. But it's quite hard to quantify those.
But, of course it created a bunch of good thing. Nothing that spreads that widely has only bad consequences. And yes, I like the good consequences quite a lot too. It's too bad most of the companies keeping those networks are adamant in destroying all the good value and keeping only the bad.
But, of course it created a bunch of good thing. Nothing that spreads that widely has only bad consequences. And yes, I like the good consequences quite a lot too. It's too bad most of the companies keeping those networks are adamant in destroying all the good value and keeping only the bad.
I think any technology must be judged based on what it turns out to be long term. Computers and vehicles, for all their issues, have brought untold advancement and comfort to society. Social media.. well you tell me.
Many people who never could afford to call international family now speak and see each other daily. I also disagree that technology has made anyone more self-centered, but disagreeing with Socratic proclamations is as old as society itself.
Calling international for ‘free’ happened before social media; it was not as widespread but that would’ve eventually have happened without social media as the tech and products were already there quite some time before. I think we thank the mass uptake to smartphones more than social media.
That started with IM/Skype style VOIP calling and has nothing to do with social media.
From a utility standpoint, social media seems to have largely filled the same role email used to among distant family.
From a utility standpoint, social media seems to have largely filled the same role email used to among distant family.
> I also disagree that technology has made anyone more self-centered
Really? Well I might be biased but all I see these days is people trying very, very hard to curate the perfect internet image of themselves.
Really? Well I might be biased but all I see these days is people trying very, very hard to curate the perfect internet image of themselves.
>I also disagree that technology has made anyone more self-centered...
Emphasis mine, as a reminder to be careful with absolutes. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that nobody has become more self-centered due to social media.
Emphasis mine, as a reminder to be careful with absolutes. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that nobody has become more self-centered due to social media.
I saw a very interesting video of Michael Jackson filming himself in a mirror with one of the first handheld cameras. What was interesting about the video is that he's filming himself in the mirror and the first thing he says is "I'm not a narcissist." At the time, it was considered very narcissistic to film yourself, even for one of the world's biggest pop stars. When photos had limited distribution, their purpose was to remember what you had done in the past. Now, the purpose of photos is more to show off to others, so it's become the norm to include yourself in photos. I think it's fair to call this phenomenon self-centered in nature.
> Many people who never could afford to call international family now speak and see each other daily.
I get why electronic communication is a boon but I am sometimes confused by folks who prefer a public communication medium for their private comms.
I get why electronic communication is a boon but I am sometimes confused by folks who prefer a public communication medium for their private comms.
What on earth? I keep up with my (physically) distant friends through Facebook, people who I would have completely lost touch with if it weren't for social media.
This reads like you trying to stand between me and my friends. If you don't like social media that's fine for you, but the rest of us quite like it and that's no business of yours. Butt out.
This reads like you trying to stand between me and my friends. If you don't like social media that's fine for you, but the rest of us quite like it and that's no business of yours. Butt out.
You like social media but you take things written by random people on a forum as personal attacks?
It is on average beneficial for LGBT+ kids, especially if their family or local culture are unsupportive or hostile.
I would have agreed with you until recently. It appears that much of the anti LGBT+ sentiment sweeping communities and legislatures is being driven via social media. This can easily swing the pendulum back to net negative.
None of those things are exclusive to social media, some of them aren't even bad (gossip), and the rest have equal positives (misinformation = abundant information, bullying = uplifting each other).
I always question what intention does someone have painting social media in such broad strokes. Especially when we consider who actively gains from narrowing where information can be accessed.
I always question what intention does someone have painting social media in such broad strokes. Especially when we consider who actively gains from narrowing where information can be accessed.
I see your point, the problem with social media is the exposure and scale. Kids these days can't fool around like we did, someone is always recording and you can go viral. I read not long ago about kids with severe anxiety in school due to the constant fear of the wrong photo or video going on social media.
And the abundant information, is that really a good thing? How much of it is good? Remember the Trump election, the amount of outright lies thrown around and the level of polarization, with even family members unable to speak to each other.
I'm not saying there's nothing good at all between the mud, but on the whole I think it's been a disaster.
And the abundant information, is that really a good thing? How much of it is good? Remember the Trump election, the amount of outright lies thrown around and the level of polarization, with even family members unable to speak to each other.
I'm not saying there's nothing good at all between the mud, but on the whole I think it's been a disaster.
I think there was a sweet spot right before major social media adoption where lines were more clearly drawn. By that I mean you could find information if you needed/wanted to but you were constantly bombarded with it in tones that spoke it with 100% confidence with the sole purpose of getting you to click on something.
Information reduces uncertainty. A lot of talking or a lot of misinformation does not increase information but noise.
> the most self-centered generation in history
Boomers?
Also I'm not sure cancel culture is a bad thing. It's just negative branding for what is essentially the first time marginalized groups could have their voices heard. People who are used to writing op-eds and never hearing any criticism of their ideas are finally getting some negative feedback and they're super mad about it. You get absolutely unreal outrage about that, like this NYT opinion:
> For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.
That is the first sentence in the piece. Unreal. There has never been a right to say what you want without being shamed or shunned. Shaming and shunning is part of free speech. Boycotts are part of free speech.
That's how backwards this whole "cancel culture" outrage is. Better to call it accountability culture, or response culture, or feedback culture.
Boomers?
Also I'm not sure cancel culture is a bad thing. It's just negative branding for what is essentially the first time marginalized groups could have their voices heard. People who are used to writing op-eds and never hearing any criticism of their ideas are finally getting some negative feedback and they're super mad about it. You get absolutely unreal outrage about that, like this NYT opinion:
> For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.
That is the first sentence in the piece. Unreal. There has never been a right to say what you want without being shamed or shunned. Shaming and shunning is part of free speech. Boycotts are part of free speech.
That's how backwards this whole "cancel culture" outrage is. Better to call it accountability culture, or response culture, or feedback culture.
No amount of euphemisms makes up for what cancel culture really is-- cyberbullying at scale.
Scott Cawson, the creator of Five Nights at Freddy's, was doxxed, harassed, and had death threats issued against himself and his pregnant wife.
His crime against society? Being outed as a Republican political donor. Not a crime, just exercising his right to participate in democracy. His ability to do so was subsequently attacked and stripped from him by brave keyboard warriors.
Death threats are an actual crime. They are not free speech. Nobody's been held accountable for that though.
This is the problem with modern "equality" movements. They don't want parity at all. They just want to tilt things enough in their favor so they can be the ones doing the bullying.
Scott Cawson, the creator of Five Nights at Freddy's, was doxxed, harassed, and had death threats issued against himself and his pregnant wife.
His crime against society? Being outed as a Republican political donor. Not a crime, just exercising his right to participate in democracy. His ability to do so was subsequently attacked and stripped from him by brave keyboard warriors.
Death threats are an actual crime. They are not free speech. Nobody's been held accountable for that though.
This is the problem with modern "equality" movements. They don't want parity at all. They just want to tilt things enough in their favor so they can be the ones doing the bullying.
> Death threats are an actual crime. They are not free speech. Nobody's been held accountable for that though.
There are laws about this. If they're difficult to enforce then somebody needs to make a decision about how much anonymity to allow on the internet, and other such difficult subjects. That's kind of the world we live in.
You realize that marginalized people get doxxed and have death threats made against them every single day, often multiple times per day, and nobody seems to hear about it? Because again, they're not famous or notable in any way, they have nobody to call up to write that op-ed or have their signal boosted. It doesn't make the threats to their lives less serious. They can't afford the "private security" that people often say they're getting in order to make their death threats seem more serious.
Are you interested in stopping such death threats in general on the internet? It's doable, but you'd have to make some sacrifices.
Almost like how you have to sacrifice being free from criticism if you really want free speech.
There are laws about this. If they're difficult to enforce then somebody needs to make a decision about how much anonymity to allow on the internet, and other such difficult subjects. That's kind of the world we live in.
You realize that marginalized people get doxxed and have death threats made against them every single day, often multiple times per day, and nobody seems to hear about it? Because again, they're not famous or notable in any way, they have nobody to call up to write that op-ed or have their signal boosted. It doesn't make the threats to their lives less serious. They can't afford the "private security" that people often say they're getting in order to make their death threats seem more serious.
Are you interested in stopping such death threats in general on the internet? It's doable, but you'd have to make some sacrifices.
Almost like how you have to sacrifice being free from criticism if you really want free speech.
> You realize that marginalized people get doxxed and have death threats made against them every single day, often multiple times per day, and nobody seems to hear about it? Because again, they're not famous or notable in any way, they have nobody to call up to write that op-ed or have their signal boosted. It doesn't make the threats to their lives less serious.
What exactly is your point here? I know what you're getting at but dare not invoke their name. Sure, "marginalized people" getting threatened is a problem. They're not exactly without a platform-- they're perfectly capable of coordinating on Twitter and elsewhere to attack and deplatform anybody that dares oppose them. One of the more contentious ones literally uses the exact term "signal boosting" to issue calls to arms. So they're not exactly powerless either. America's "marginalized people" are apparently more effective than the Ku Klux Klan, since they get to intimidate opposition while masquerading as victims who cannot be challenged, lest they stalk and attack everyone associated with you and cost you your livelihood. We won't kill you, we'll just isolate you from your entire support network to ensure you and your family starve to death. Such magnanimous treatment from the uwu innocent widdle victim peopurrs! Better think twice before you speak out!
This isn't equality, nor is it a matter of free speech or criticism-- advancing a political cause through intimidation, violence and fear is literally the textbook definition of Terrorism. I expect nothing less though; every red flag of fraud has been repurposed by a certain demographic as central to their "identity," so why not normalize terrorism as a means of discourse while we're at it? Biden insists it's inbred gun hoarders we need to be worried about-- because we meet so many of those on a daily basis. Meanwhile, I have to play wordsmith with every fucking character I post online or my wife and children face death/rape threats and I get bricks thrown through my windows. You know, all the fun stuff the KKK used to do to blacks in the 60s. Remember: the people throwing the bricks are the real victims, and don't you dare suggest otherwise or you're next. That's just criticism coming through the window, and nobody deserves protection from that.
Your idea of marginalized people is a lie-- misdirection at best. Anytime white men (always white men) start wearing dresses and seeking political power, they form a child-sex cult, a hate group, or both. I once bought into their bullshit, but there's no fooling me twice.
What exactly is your point here? I know what you're getting at but dare not invoke their name. Sure, "marginalized people" getting threatened is a problem. They're not exactly without a platform-- they're perfectly capable of coordinating on Twitter and elsewhere to attack and deplatform anybody that dares oppose them. One of the more contentious ones literally uses the exact term "signal boosting" to issue calls to arms. So they're not exactly powerless either. America's "marginalized people" are apparently more effective than the Ku Klux Klan, since they get to intimidate opposition while masquerading as victims who cannot be challenged, lest they stalk and attack everyone associated with you and cost you your livelihood. We won't kill you, we'll just isolate you from your entire support network to ensure you and your family starve to death. Such magnanimous treatment from the uwu innocent widdle victim peopurrs! Better think twice before you speak out!
This isn't equality, nor is it a matter of free speech or criticism-- advancing a political cause through intimidation, violence and fear is literally the textbook definition of Terrorism. I expect nothing less though; every red flag of fraud has been repurposed by a certain demographic as central to their "identity," so why not normalize terrorism as a means of discourse while we're at it? Biden insists it's inbred gun hoarders we need to be worried about-- because we meet so many of those on a daily basis. Meanwhile, I have to play wordsmith with every fucking character I post online or my wife and children face death/rape threats and I get bricks thrown through my windows. You know, all the fun stuff the KKK used to do to blacks in the 60s. Remember: the people throwing the bricks are the real victims, and don't you dare suggest otherwise or you're next. That's just criticism coming through the window, and nobody deserves protection from that.
Your idea of marginalized people is a lie-- misdirection at best. Anytime white men (always white men) start wearing dresses and seeking political power, they form a child-sex cult, a hate group, or both. I once bought into their bullshit, but there's no fooling me twice.
What?
It's anybody who criticizes anybody. Women journalists in particular, BLM activists, climate change scientists. You realize there's been a wave of scientists who have left Twitter recently?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/14/climate-...
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/08/09/lex-scott-steps-down/
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ferguson-d...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/blm-activist-s...
I guess you're invoking something about trans people? I mean them too but honestly it's everybody.
It's anybody who criticizes anybody. Women journalists in particular, BLM activists, climate change scientists. You realize there's been a wave of scientists who have left Twitter recently?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/14/climate-...
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/08/09/lex-scott-steps-down/
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ferguson-d...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/blm-activist-s...
I guess you're invoking something about trans people? I mean them too but honestly it's everybody.
> Death threats are an actual crime. Nobody's been held accountable for that though.
That seems like an odd claim to make. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=arrested+for+making+death+threats&...
That seems like an odd claim to make. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=arrested+for+making+death+threats&...
I found the concepts that help a lot in discussing this in its essence are equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome.
> what is essentially the first time marginalized groups could have their voices heard
> There has never been a right to say what you want without being shamed or shunned
So... when the marginalized groups start getting cancelled, do I get to say "well they don't have a right not to be shunned"?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
We're living in a new McCarthyism.
> There has never been a right to say what you want without being shamed or shunned
So... when the marginalized groups start getting cancelled, do I get to say "well they don't have a right not to be shunned"?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
We're living in a new McCarthyism.
> So... when the marginalized groups start getting cancelled,
After all the things that have happened to marginalized groups throughout history, mean tweets are worse?
We're all living by the sword and dying by the sword called free speech. Conservatives are boycotting Bud Light. That's their right.
The backwardness of all of this is that people keep going on cable news and writing op-eds about various subjects and when they get criticized, they call up their friends at the NYT and get their opinion blasted to millions of subscribers complaining about a nobody in the middle of Ohio who called them a jerk on Twitter and got 10k likes.
Is nobody else seeing how this is lopsided?
After all the things that have happened to marginalized groups throughout history, mean tweets are worse?
We're all living by the sword and dying by the sword called free speech. Conservatives are boycotting Bud Light. That's their right.
The backwardness of all of this is that people keep going on cable news and writing op-eds about various subjects and when they get criticized, they call up their friends at the NYT and get their opinion blasted to millions of subscribers complaining about a nobody in the middle of Ohio who called them a jerk on Twitter and got 10k likes.
Is nobody else seeing how this is lopsided?
Super sad somebody deleted their comment comparing marginalized people tweeting at millionaires to the lynching of Emmett Till. Really great stuff, it's why I'm on HN, for those big brain takes.
On Facebook, any time I see someone post with the words 'my account was hacked' they get a dozen automated replies from other users offering services to fix their account. In most cases, the person isn't even hacked, their account was cloned/impersonated. With the kind of money Facebook has, they can't set a honeypot account up and post 'my account was hacked' on it? This has been going on for months.
> With the kind of money Facebook has, they can't set a honeypot account up and post 'my account was hacked' on it?
All of those posts still count as "engagement" and even scammers generate ad impressions, so why would they not only kill the golden goose, but actually spend money doing so?
All of those posts still count as "engagement" and even scammers generate ad impressions, so why would they not only kill the golden goose, but actually spend money doing so?
It's astonishing how few patterns there are for scams on fb/ig that anyone with introductory statistics knowledge could build a classifier for even with hand-collected data, but meta lets them go on for years.
Same with the bot accounts offering tickets for sale on the event page for concerts. It seems like such low hanging fruit to clean this sort of thing up that should be noticed by anyone who works there and actually uses the site.
"According to research by high street bank TSB, 80% of purchase fraud cases reported to the bank come from platforms owned by Meta, which includes Instagram, as well as Facebook and WhatsApp."
If Meta was serious about their "real names" policy, this would be less of a problem.
If Meta was serious about their "real names" policy, this would be less of a problem.
This is a huge problem with social media and it is only going to get worse.
Another important thing to understand is the amount of fake propaganda passing off a news. Not just propaganda but we categorize some editorial style talkshows on YouTube as news. News itself isn't supposed to be bias. It isn't supposed to be entertaining. It is supposed to be just informative.
Another important thing to understand is the amount of fake propaganda passing off a news. Not just propaganda but we categorize some editorial style talkshows on YouTube as news. News itself isn't supposed to be bias. It isn't supposed to be entertaining. It is supposed to be just informative.
>According to research by high street bank TSB, 80% of purchase fraud cases reported to the bank come from platforms owned by Meta, which includes Instagram, as well as Facebook and WhatsApp.
Well obviously since those are the most used platforms. Interesting that a bank, which should be full of clever people, doesn't know to take MAUs into consideration when seeing which platforms produce more fraud.
Well obviously since those are the most used platforms. Interesting that a bank, which should be full of clever people, doesn't know to take MAUs into consideration when seeing which platforms produce more fraud.
I think a lot of this is because a large amount of our society grew up without the Internet. To them, everything that looks professional is professional. They are easy targets for scammers.
Millennials and Gen-Z were raised on the Internet and therefore have an innate understanding of what is real and most importantly, what can be faked. Its a lot harder to scam. them.
If I told my parents about a Nigerian oil executive who needs to move $20 million out of a bank account, they would scratch their head. If I told my 28 year old co-worker, he'd laugh and understand the joke.
So, maybe in 20+ years, nobody will fall for these scams anymore.
Millennials and Gen-Z were raised on the Internet and therefore have an innate understanding of what is real and most importantly, what can be faked. Its a lot harder to scam. them.
If I told my parents about a Nigerian oil executive who needs to move $20 million out of a bank account, they would scratch their head. If I told my 28 year old co-worker, he'd laugh and understand the joke.
So, maybe in 20+ years, nobody will fall for these scams anymore.
Scams, and scammers, evolve. There will always be members of society that are lonely, desperate for money, or have some other situation that causes them to ignore red flags in a Nigerian 419 scam.
Technology also enables new scams as time goes on. You can now use automation and AI-esque tools to research potential marks, simulate the voice of a loved one in a plausible distressing situation, and call to ask for money. That sort of thing was much harder 20+ years ago and is today as plausible as setting up a cold call list for selling home insurance was back in the day.
Technology also enables new scams as time goes on. You can now use automation and AI-esque tools to research potential marks, simulate the voice of a loved one in a plausible distressing situation, and call to ask for money. That sort of thing was much harder 20+ years ago and is today as plausible as setting up a cold call list for selling home insurance was back in the day.
A major danger is that there's money to be made pretending that everything that looks professional is professional and there are no risks nor bad actors. There's a generation or two that got taught (either actual teaching or just experience) that the internet is a dangerous place. When I was a child I was told not to share any personal details on the internet for example and that people could be lying/misrepresenting themselves.
Nowadays, social media and all Big Tech platforms rely on people forgetting such advice and pretending like everything is trusted and there are no bad actors anywhere, because they themselves are a bad actor. They wouldn't want a wary user that never provides personal details nor makes any payments, because this also means they won't provide any personal details to Facebook nor spend any money on a Facebook-advertised product.
I'm especially worried about the newer generations, those that never experienced the early days of the internet and started off in "walled gardens" and phones/tablets. Those are prime targets for scammers.
Nowadays, social media and all Big Tech platforms rely on people forgetting such advice and pretending like everything is trusted and there are no bad actors anywhere, because they themselves are a bad actor. They wouldn't want a wary user that never provides personal details nor makes any payments, because this also means they won't provide any personal details to Facebook nor spend any money on a Facebook-advertised product.
I'm especially worried about the newer generations, those that never experienced the early days of the internet and started off in "walled gardens" and phones/tablets. Those are prime targets for scammers.
> So, maybe in 20+ years, nobody will fall for these scams anymore.
I do IT security; people send dodgy stuff to me for vetting. But I'm naturally on my haunches for those.
I once got an gift card scam email sent from a friend's account. Scam was newish and arrived while I navigating a parking garage after a concert, car full of family. I initially responded ("w/ family, back to you soon") and was a few miles down the road before I had enough brain free to properly consider it.
These guys spray and prey. Eventually they hit something.
I do IT security; people send dodgy stuff to me for vetting. But I'm naturally on my haunches for those.
I once got an gift card scam email sent from a friend's account. Scam was newish and arrived while I navigating a parking garage after a concert, car full of family. I initially responded ("w/ family, back to you soon") and was a few miles down the road before I had enough brain free to properly consider it.
These guys spray and prey. Eventually they hit something.
The demographic most likely to fall for scams is the 20 year old. So. no.
Wow, I didn't expect that:
> In 2021, Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z young adults (ages 18-59) were 34% more likely than older adults (ages 60 and over) to report losing money to fraud, and some types of fraud stood out. Younger adults reported losses to online shopping fraud – which often started with an ad on social media – far more often than any other fraud type, and most said they simply did not get the items they ordered. Younger adults were over four times more likely than older adults to report a loss on an investment scam. Most of these were bogus cryptocurrency investment opportunities. And this age group reported losing money on job scams at more than five times the rate of older adults. Many college students reported that they were scammed after getting a message at their student email address about a so-called job opportunity. The median individual reported fraud loss by people 18-59 was $500 in 2021.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/data-spo...
> In 2021, Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z young adults (ages 18-59) were 34% more likely than older adults (ages 60 and over) to report losing money to fraud, and some types of fraud stood out. Younger adults reported losses to online shopping fraud – which often started with an ad on social media – far more often than any other fraud type, and most said they simply did not get the items they ordered. Younger adults were over four times more likely than older adults to report a loss on an investment scam. Most of these were bogus cryptocurrency investment opportunities. And this age group reported losing money on job scams at more than five times the rate of older adults. Many college students reported that they were scammed after getting a message at their student email address about a so-called job opportunity. The median individual reported fraud loss by people 18-59 was $500 in 2021.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/data-spo...
Presumably all the gullible people will lose their money to AI scams and then there won't be any AI scams.
How many people in their 20s and 30s fell for get-rich-quick crypto rugpulls? It wasn't tech-illiterate Boomers buying memecoins.
I wonder, what are the police doing in this case? These scams appear to target random people in the open so it seems like just setting up honeypot accounts and waiting for scammers to engage with then will yield plenty of information, including a money trail that should lead to whoever is the beneficiary of the scam.
Same thing with phone scams - have carriers route all inactive numbers to a police-run call center where scambaiters not only waste the time of scammers (potentially killing the entire business model of the scams) but also collect information such as the target bank account where the scammed money ends up.
Oh yeah I know, why spend effort investigating actual crime when you have an endless supply of victimless "crime" of people consensually growing/trading/consuming a plant?
Same thing with phone scams - have carriers route all inactive numbers to a police-run call center where scambaiters not only waste the time of scammers (potentially killing the entire business model of the scams) but also collect information such as the target bank account where the scammed money ends up.
Oh yeah I know, why spend effort investigating actual crime when you have an endless supply of victimless "crime" of people consensually growing/trading/consuming a plant?
I remember my trauma after watching grim and depressing movie "Requiem for a Dream" including the scene when mother of protagonist joins some cult or MLM and becomes addicted to some drugs. In the end I realized "it's just a movie, it's all good". Now I see my parents uncritically consuming mostly on mobile portals with "news", social media, obvious propaganda which agitates and addicts them. What's worse they ask me whether I'm with or against them on the topics. I'm terrified and heartbroken.
The fundamental cultural conditions of isolation and low meaning really haven't moved much on the needle since the 90s (look at the writing of David Foster Wallace to see what I'm talking about)
The Internet has just exasperated an already present issue of low empathy, reactionary politics, and get rich quick schemes
The Internet has just exasperated an already present issue of low empathy, reactionary politics, and get rich quick schemes
1. Purchased electric scooters by following an Instagram ad. It was around Christmas time. The scooters were really cool looking. Turned out, they used the promotional videos from another company’s real product. I did get the money back from the credit card company.
2. Purchased a pillow by following an Instagram ad. Never received it. It turned out to be a fake store to just steal people’s money. Wasn’t enough money to worry about it.
3. Followed an ad from Twitter for a marshmallow company. Placed an order as a gift for someone else. Turns out they never actually send orders. They just take people’s money. The online store was amazingly designed. Awesome photos and functioned really well. I think it was a legitimate business at one point, but decided it was easier to just steal people’s money. There wasn’t any reason to think the store was a scam. If I checked online reviews first though, I would have found the warnings posted everywhere not to order from them.
Came close to placing an order from a clothing store. Prices were slightly too good to be true. This time I checked online reviews and it turns out they never ship orders either.
All three times were years apart. Happened while mindlessly scrolling and when your guard is down. I don’t order stuff from random sites either, but the products were just the right thing to peak interest.