Last year I was "sex-torted" on Facebook but not by a ring of French criminals. Instead, it was by someone I had chatted with on the internet years ago (while we were both still teenagers)
She had recently gotten divorced and contacted me after many years away. We spoke about intimate things (I never shared intimate images, though she did) and were getting closer and closer to each other.
She eventually asked me for money to cover an expense for her daughter, but I didn't send it fearing I was being scammed. In exchange, she took screengrabs of the most intimate parts of our conversations and shared them to all of my professional contacts via LinkedIn as well as friends , colleagues and family on Facebook.
The experience haunts me to this day, I discussed consensual kinky stuff with her and she used this to paint me as a freak and deviant. The only people who understood it were those who had been in a similar situation or those who were in the "lifestyle" as well. Strangely, most of the support I received after the fact were women who have been similarly extorted. Men in my entourage just whispered and snickered.
To this day, I still feel shame in certain circles because of what is unsaid. The police have done absolutely nothing even in the face of evidence (reports filed with local police and FBI) but it's simply not a priority. Facebook won't even pull the posts because no intimate images were actually shared and it doesn't technically violate their "guidelines"
Net result: I've deleted my social profiles. Every last one of them (and feel better as a result). However, the damage is done and I'm totally still feeling PTSD as a result of the ordeal.
I consider myself very tech savvy (engineer, infosec background, on the internet since the early 90's) and able to smell a scam. However, it's really really easy to fall victim to something like this. Be careful.
I'm interested in how you mitigated the damage once the post was published. A good strategy might have been to simply discredit it as being fake/photoshopped along with a small tutorial showing how easy it is to create (most aren't tech savvy enough to understand this already).
True you'd be lying, but this is certainly not below the level of someone who's falsely accusing you.
If they slipped and someone caught them lying, it would become exponentially worse. Bad idea.
But they should be proud of their sexuality. Whether it's BDSM or hotwifing or whatever strange kink, who cares? It's the same as shaming someone for being gay.
I dislike that we have to be so Victorian about sex. It's the social climate we live in, but... Why?
There are also broader implications: Whenever we discredit the truth, we're contributing to how easy it is to manufacture fake news. There's a certain piece of potentially fake news I've been dying to bring up. It had a big impact on me, and then I realized it might be fake. But in an era when the truth is so easy to distort, what should you believe?
It's religion. It teaches roughly 4 bn† people that sex is dirty, that nakedness is shameful, and that talking about it's acts and/or requisite body parts is taboo.
† According to Wikipedia 2.4 billion Christians, and 1.6 billion Muslims.
There is a whole book in the Bible that is all about sex (Old Testament: [Song of Solomon](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon...). The only difference is that sexuality is supposed to be shared and enjoyed in a marriage.
Then of course we get (big R) Religion, where humans use it as a means of power over other people. This is where we get the things we associate with religion today.
That does not seem to hold. Looks like religions just tend to echo some sort of natural chastity. And that is hardly surprising given how recent things religions are and how old thins STDs are.
"Oh you have tingling feeling in your weewee, it's wrath of God!" and you just explained one thing away while giving more credibility to the god thing your trying to promote.
You do! I'm guessing (apologies if wrong) that your thinking modern mainstream religions like Christian / Islam / Judaism. Much of these are from the same roots and and naturally similar.
Look at religion over longer history in distinctly separate branches of the tree e.g Buddhism is more relaxed than afore mentioned. The Greeks, Romans and Norse (same tree) were very liberal. Shinto / Confucianism looks as sex as healthy. Among the plains indians sex could be part of a spiritual ceremony to pass power. Australian aboriginals used to share women.
And I'm not saying religion is the cause of these views. A better way to look at that would be to see how sexual views change as religion does. It does seem Christianity brought a lot of judgement around sex and other matters that were not there before during colonisation period. I dont know much about this so someone can likely add to this much better.
Not following you. The Decalogue exists in Judaism, Christianity and in Islam. The Decalogue, and marriage, are indeed extremely recent social constructs.
I'm not promoting religion - I despise any form of it. I merely posit religion as being the source of humanity's prudishness (something the rest of nature does not share).
Nature as a whole may not, but there are species even more monogamous than we are out there. I've sort of played a game of "construct an even remotely sensible sexual strategy no species uses" and so far I've come up empty; everything you can think of, including the closest equivalent to "prudishness", is used out there.
On that note, the "missing link" for you is probably that sex and reproduction are inextricably linked for all non-humans, and for all humans up until very recently. Hangups about sex are not hangups about sex; to put it in quite atheistic terms, they are hangups about whose selfish genes get to win out over whose. Start looking at it that way and it makes a lot more sense than your current model, probably.
Our current reproductive strategies are currently in total chaos because of the extremely recent introduction of effective birth control and I see little reason to believe that we have found the best response to that in what is still effectively just one generation, nor that our current responses will be stable over the generations, because the shock is simply too recent in generational terms. (Not to mention all the near-in-generational-term shocks that may be yet to come, including but not limited to: Effective male-directed birth control, effective sex robots for males, technology to permit cloning without loss, technology to edit genes in eggs or sperm, technology to permit taking children to term out of a biological womb, and in the craziest case, technology to completely digitize people and make biology essentially irrelevant.) In particular, it does not seem particularly clear to me that the idea that "sex is 100% just sex and nobody should be ashamed about anything as long as it is consensual" is going to win out, because that crowd tends to use birth control of one form or another, and therefore, in the next several generations can be expected to be bred out. By some definitions of morality it may well be moral, but it won't be stable.
A significant amount of people with power to negatively affect your career.
Relevant to the mention of bdsm and tech, Larry Garfield a fairly prominent person within the Drupal industry, got banished after his fetlife (or similar website maybe) account got exposed and spread around.
My ex's new boyfriend shared a bunch of our FB messages with a group of friends because he was jealous.
No amount of security could have prevented that. It's a social hack.
But I've heard of many many cases where Facebook message history has been used to defame someone. They should have incognito channels like snapchat so things just go poof.
You can trust someone now but no guarantee for future trust.
If such a tape existed for anyone else and was in the hands of a foreign government, that person would not be able to get the lowest level of security clearance in the US because the opportunity for blackmail places them at great risk.
In an ideal world Americans would be more like the French and not care about people’s personal consensual sex lives at all, in which case the tape would lose all its blackmailing power, but since the American public does care, the possibility of blackmail is real.
It's unclear to me whether that even counts as a kink: if it's true, I'm not sure Trump was getting a sexual thrill out of it. My guess is that it's more of an unchecked mental illness, with Trump as Captain Ahab chasing after his great white whale.
But that's a problem because it's exactly this kind of conversational shift that makes derailment a good tactic for mitigating the impact of political scandals.
AFAIK, there's no more or less reason to believe it now than there was when it first came out.
He is also dumb, but that has nothing to do with being a racist or our discussion.
I speculate you are right, though, that less people these days would give a flip about whether one modeled for a underground fetish publication in the late 1960s, even if true.
Unfortunately, there are still a significant amount of people who would have an issue with this. But to me (and probably others), the claims made say nothing about Ann Dunham (even if they were true). But they say a heck of a lot of negative about the authors of what seems to be the primary source of this muckraking .
 https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/11135/are-these... (link warning, possibly NSFW)
What makes you think that in some time before it was easier to find the truth?
Take something as simple a speed limit sign. That sign is not literally 'true', it simply refers to what the calculation for penalties will be based if you exceed the unstated actual speed limit. Reporting is at best a game of telephone, social media ends up so many hops from what actually happens to be nearly completely separated from reality.
Sure there may have been more signal to noise ratio, but robber barons had much more influence. Like Bezos and WaPo but EVERY paper.
That being said, I find if laughable that the op considers himself "infosec" savvy but when it came to his sex life made such a glaringly obvious mistake. I'm not saying the woman who extorted him was in the right, but touting yourself as an infosec guy but opening yourself to the oldest trick in the blackmail book is pretty funny
I'm not naive. Dirty shit happens. But the current trend seems to be: guilty til proven...oh no need for proof.
Same goes for "other side" who puts antifa in every shooting or crime out there, but I suspect they do it more for the lulz because media baits the Russian propaganda or not narrative, which makes these people do it even more as we all kniw if you're familiar with Chan culture.
He might have done that. I know if this happened to me and I denied it, I'd still be scarred for life.
I can see why the police/fbi can't really do anything. It doesn't seem like there was anything criminal technically. They might be able to go after the person with a civil suit for slander? I don't know though, not a lawyer.
In particular this part of your post bothers me: “The experience haunts me to this day..”
No - This shouldn’t be the case. You did nothing wrong. While there is no magic wand to “fix” how you feel - and esp low probability that an online post from a stranger would do anything but please consider the following strategies:
1. Try to understand shame. What is it and Why it is there? (evolutionary reasons) It might be liberating.
2. Know quite simply that the past doesn’t exist. Except In our heads.
3. Take inspiration: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37735368
4. Try to research into revenge porn - what happened to you is very common; in some parts of the world with serious consequences for women - understanding that you are not alone (or special) might be oddly liberating.
5. Talk to someone. Maybe even a pro.
Just some strategies that are available to you - hope you heal soon.
(I am sure you are already trying to recover - Your message just stuck a cord and I wanted to offer advice)
Every time one of these celebrities denies a true accusation it causes a whole new wave of damage not only to the victim but, to every person who will ever have to fend off a wrongful accusation, because it muddies the waters and creates FUD.
Yes, the data suggests the percentage of false accusations is small. However it burns me when people suggest bringing it up at all diminishes the bigger issue of assaults on women. In fact I think they enhance each other because they’re both about seeking clarity and justice.
I’ve seriously heard people debate the death penalty by arguing, that the possibility of executing an innocent person is not one of the big issues because, that probably happens small percentage of the time. Scared the crap out of me to hear it articulated by a real person.
Some media outlets have chosen to be critical of Louis CK’s response to the accusations against him. They think they are advocating for women, when actually they’re doing all of us a huge disservice.
Focusing on the quality of apologies is a red herring. Only two things matter, the crime and the truth getting out about crime. Judge his apology/non apology anyway you like, at least he ended it decisively, instead of propagating it for enternity by sowing doubt.
This scares me. With this huge stream of information (disregarding signal to noise ration) stories lose "longevity" - lifetimes of stories are getting shorter and shorter and there is less and less time to react. Collecting facts for good rebuttal takes time and for trickier cases may take so long that publishing a good rebuttal backed with facts is like beating a dead horse. People tend to react to public outcry. Everyday we see a new mass hysteria, which is just perfect place to spread fake news and propaganda.
What are you talking about? It was "ended" by the NYT publishing, in this current Weinstein/Spacey climate, an article about his offences and leaving him absolutely no other choice but to finally come clean.
He was publicly painting his victims as liars (which you quite rightly condemn in your second paragraph) as recently as a couple of months ago:
NYT: So [the accusations are] not real?
CK: “No. They’re rumors, that’s all that is.”
The huge problem is, that even when it’s damning enough that 99% of people call bullshit, their denial will continue to cause great pain and make it difficult for other people to get justice in the future.
In a perfect world they wouldn’t have committed the crimes in the first place, but it’s a relative scale, and having an uncontested documented case is a bigger win over a denial, than having a good apology is over a bad/non apology.
I agree. The mistake is crediting that to CK ("at least he...") when in the wake of an article as damning as the one in the NYT, in the current climate where the story was not going to go away, as before, he had absolutely no other option than admit it.
> That’s the whole point, they don’t have to ever admit it, regardless of the publicity, short of hidden camera footage.
I think that was true before (pre-Weinstein), and will unfortunately probably become true again, but right now there is too much attention being paid to showbiz abuse/harrassment for someone to get away with ignoring/denying truthful allegations against them.
I understand the rationale behind thinking "oh they should just have just gotten up and walked away" but it makes me sick to my stomach to justify sexual harassment at all PERIOD.
It just screams limited hangout where the big wigs make the new money pervert take the fall in order to take the heat off them.
You assume discussions are driven by who to focus on, when they are driven by understanding and figuring out the best way forward for healing and justice weighing all variables.
It’s natual to be angry, there’s nothing wrong with it, please carry on with doing it. However I’m asking we separate that anger from discussions of any lessons, priories, strategies, conclusions we can learn from any of this if it has a chance of improving perspective in the long run.
Critical analysis is different from grieving and empathy, and very hard to mix. I’m sure I probably couldn’t separate them if I were a victim or someone close to me was.
(lots of heavy sighing/sarcasm should be inferred)
It isn't manly to be a victim.
The people whispering and snickering are likely either horrible people who don't get victimized because they make sure they are taking advantage of other people and leaving no openings, or they have more terrible things to hide. Snickering is a form of denial of their own guilty behaviors.
I wonder how many people who get sent that stuff really change their opinions about their friends, family, etc?
That's not to take anything from your experience, it sounds terrible.
It's just sex, and people into kink tend to have better sense of consent and mutuality.
Mores and interpretation change over time. In other words, yesterdays actions are viewed through today's lenses.
If only the "I have nothing to hide" crowd would understand this.
No one on my LinkedIn is on my Facebook. Only 1 person on my LinkedIn is on my twitter and only 2 people on my facebook are on my twitter.
Facebook & Linkedin are not open to public.
Lawsuits are incredibly expensive. Figure $10k before going to trial, and $50k for a relatively simple case. Few or no lawyers will take such a case on contingency (plaintiff is not sufficiently flush).
I'm not saying don't do this, but you're going to want to think through the process very carefully, and be very much aware of what the process might, or might not, produce. There are downside costs that might emerge as well, including the prospect of paying the plaintiff's legal fees, and undergoing discovery yourself.
Talk to a lawyer, or several, if you like. Be aware that they also have their own incentives, and might be quite happy to run up billable hours, so long as you're good for them.
You hear people say everybody likes sex, but it’s not true. Actually everyone mostly hates sex. What they really mean is, out of one million possible sexual acts, there are 3, 6, or maybe a dozen they love, and 99.9% that they think are disgusting. The only difference between any of us is whether or not we insist that our 6 are better than everyone else’s.
Since she knew your real identity, did you know hers? Did the possibility exist that you could sue her in civil court? I don't feel like I'm the litigious type but that case seems to be begging for a legal response.
I wish there were more justice in the world. I wish fighting the good fight were more rewarding. But that is often not a pragmatic approach.
Oh, and he didn't even share it publically. He shared it with an internal group discussing these issues. It was then "leaked", and everybody piled on. And you now took part in exactly that, repeating the slander.
Complete with more abuse, victim blaming, that poor little alt-right guy who actually wanted this. He totally planned it!
HE didn't leak it. People opposed to it leaked it. He didn't go public before losing his job, did he?
So, my point still stands, and you added to it. Abusive intellectually dishonest people cheer this kind of stuff on.
Well the hard truth is you are trying to dishonestly maintain your sexual market value. You know they type of girl that high value men like and you don't want to limit your options. However you are not that person.
(and SJW oblivion shall commence)
Also who says "my entourage" when referring to their friends?
Feel free to put your money where your mouth is.
I've managed to limit his internet usage to an iPad and a chromebook - but as mentioned above that does little good. He is extremely proud and talking to him is useless. A good chunk of these events come while browsing porn, which he refuses to admit. I feel hopeless and am in the process of separating any financial connections with my mother for fear I'll become a victim. My mother has been saving cash for years to insulate herself (my dad also refuses to write a will - but thats another problem entirely).
I know a major event is coming soon. While I'm fairly certain his porn usage is tame, all it would take is a fake $THAT_ACTRESS_WAS_ACTUALLY_17_WE_WILL_REPORT_TO_FBI email and he could probably be extorted for everything he has. I don't know what to do honestly. This is a real threat to millions of Americans and it seems there is no solution.
Perhaps some training is in order. You may not have the means to simulate a scam from his favorite "adult" website, but perhaps you could do something with a throwaway email account, or maybe simulate collateral damage from a successful scam.
And yes, you need to insulate your respective financial lives from that risk ASAP
(There are publicly available lists of known botnet / scam IP's)
Also, they thankfully show no interest in social networks.
Another problem, yes - but a huge one all the same. Does your mother have a will?
I went thru this with my parents; my dad had a will but my mom did not. My dad passed away; no biggie. But my mom never probated his will. I didn't find this out until after she passed away - without a will.
I ended up spending quite a bit of money with a lawyer, plus more than a few trips between where I live and where my parents lived (thankfully only a few hundred miles away - but still far enough to be annoying), plus gathering documents, and a whole host of other issues.
It was not fun. The only thing that saved my butt was the fact that before my mom passed, I was able to get power of attorney (as well as medical POA), because she ultimately slipped into dementia (my wife and I caught it in the nick of time, while my mother was still coherent enough). Without that, accounts would have been frozen preventing me from taking care of my mother before she passed, and later the estate, afterward (though I had to go thru a short process to be appointed as executor).
But without a will, and my dad's will not probated, things went slowly. There were fortunately no real major assets involved (a house and a couple of old cars were the only things), plus I was an "only child" - but I still had to go thru the process of no one contesting my dad's will (I did worry that something might come up from his past or from his family), or contesting me as sole heir.
Ultimately it worked out - but it could have turned into more of a logistical nightmare than the merely annoying situation it only turned out to be.
So - I implore you to try to fix this, especially if other family or large assets are involved. If not, and you don't care about things otherwise, you might talk with a lawyer about other options. I am not sure if this is possible, but it might be possible to "reverse disown" your immediate family (mother/father). It would be a very harsh thing to do, but it may be the only thing that keeps you from being dragged down into a potential economic morass.
Made me think about this stephen king short story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitters,_Inc.
1) Someone elderly being scammed by randos is not elder abuse.
2) if there is a scam your "elder abuse attorney" is not going to be able to do any more than the police considering the vast majority of these scams are from overseas.
> extremely proud and talking to him is useless
This is terrible, and I can't think how I'd cope with it :(
Shaming porn usage does nothing to reduce its prevalence and just encourages users to hide and deny, hence your suggestion is not productive.
2. Separately to the above, a reasonable amount of men (perhaps women to? I don't know, I feel like it is more men) will happily look at girls, whether this in a Playboy Magazine in the 50's, looking at girls as the enter a bar in the 90's or whether it is flicking through images of a girl on Facebook/Instagram in the 21st century. Some of these men actually know it is a scam, but don't really care, at the end of the day it's a picture of an attractive girl/woman, they so they look through. Maybe they even add that profile as a friend, as they don't mind having the pictures appearing naturally in their news feed. I don't know whether many (any?) of this group of people end up getting scammed. Perhaps somehow overtime, they get convinced the account isn't fake, or perhaps they still think it is fake but agree to go onto a video chat and then are convinced on there, or perhaps they are trying to catch the scammer out, but end up being caught out themselves.
Another danger is that with the extended access to your profile, they could get enough content to clone you convincingly, and then you get the scam where all your friends receive a duplicate friend request from "you", and the new profile tries to sell them on some scam.
The opportunities are endless. Just think for example the latest developments on speech synthesis (voice transfer). Improvements in CGI will allow creating believable fake videos. Mobile phones with fancy camera tech will allow 3d scans of people faces.
There was a ReplyAll podcast episode where one of the reporters actually tracks down a shop in India; even goes there and talks to people who've worked at a "tech support" places which charges $400 to remove fake viruses they've implanted.
I think this is even more insidious because they're preying on people who may be extremely lonely or desperate. When you really think about that, it's really sad. It's either psychopathic or they justify it to themselves in some horrible way like, "These people are losers anyway," or "If we say the girls are underage, then we're only going after sexual predators." .. The same crazy logic used by the Ashley Madison leakers.
If some of Facebook's own moderation team cannot differentiate between spam accounts and legitimate ones then what hope is there for others?
Facebook would rather leave 999 false profiles up and not accidentally close 1 genuine profile that just happens to look spammy. From their perspective, ruining someone's Facebook experience by deleting their account is worse than letting everyone else have a slightly worse experience (after all, even those fake profiles are generating ad revenue).
In contrast, Youtube is flagging, demonetizing, and three-striking channels left and right, using much more trigger-happy moderation (and even auto-mods) to control videos. They have plenty of content creators, but need to keep both viewers and lawyers happy.
Be careful that you know where you stand on these platforms, especially on important things like Amazon AWS accounts.
A lot of very large companies use it, including a lot of Fortune 500s for their ordinary company websites, as well as major web apps like Netflix, Reddit, Pinterest, Spotify, etc. And of course Amazon itself.
Now, those listed sites probably would get a call if something were to happen, but too many HN startups are running on AWS accounts linked to the founder's gmail and personal shopping account. Imagine if a dispute over a return of some counterfeit junk bought on Amazon by some CTO suddenly took down all of Netflix...
Surely there are signs; surely there are common characteristics, and if this journalist can write such a detailed exposé with only public data, Facebook can do much better.
The data disagrees with your analysis.
Facebook will only remove the accounts that give them too much (media) trouble.
There may be no immediate financial incentive, but I'll bet good money that they fear a future of regulatory compliance.
Edited for spelling.
The burden is on us to disengage from Facebook rather than clutch our virtual pearls.
However, that is not the case for a pre-revenue or pre-profitable business. Those startups are dependent on VC funding, they might lie about users and usage to get more funding (see Silicon Valley Season 3). *This is 100% inappropriate and should not be done. You will burn credibility with investors, for your current venture and any future ventures. It's better to shut down a venture and move on, than to lie about your metrics.
I'm sure Facebook creates filters that helps delete some, but remember it's a constant war between spam script writers and platforms. They're constantly finding ways to get around each other.
I'd rather suspect those are false confessions and more an attempt to attract new members in this scheme network who hope to make huge amount of money.
What I find interesting is that to me and I assumed a lot of people, fake profiles are very obvious and as such I assumed there were, relatively, easy techniques to deal with them.
After working on some twitter marketing campaigns over the years and witnessing the swarming bot networks do their thing I have concluded that they are not dealt with whole heartedly on purpose.
Long story short: they wanted me to cam with them and to see my picture. I sent them a link to non-existent page on my domain and logged their IP.
I confronted them with their IP and the fact that they were in Nigeria and not south Carolina. The account was immediately deleted.
As a note, I hadn't received an email from facebook since pretty much I registered many years ago. Since I deleted the app a few weeks ago, facebook started spamming my email with notifications. And they use this trick that is really a new low, they create a thousand different kinds of mailing list so that every time you unsubscribe from one, you still receive new spam because it's "another" mailing list.
The technical implementation is fine, seems reasonable, only concern is that a human has to screen every image.
The real problem is that internet users have learned "Anything you upload to the internet is as good as public." Facebook is trying to teach people a new precedent: "Images uploaded to facebook in the right way will REMOVE images from the public".
People are going to fail to read the fine print, and thousands will be phished for nudes through facebook with similar schemes.
> Some journalists and film critics have cast doubt on the filmmakers motivations. Kyle Buchanan of MovieLine questions why the filmmakers would begin obsessively documenting Nev's online relationship so early on, and argues that it is highly improbable that media-savvy professionals like the Schulmans and Joost would not use the Internet to research Megan and her family before meeting them. Buchanan and others have suggested that the filmmakers likely discovered the fabrications in Wesselman-Pierce's story earlier than is presented in the film and pretended to be fooled only so that they could exploit her story for the documentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish_(film)#Authenticity
Your links only talk about the film makers; the phenomenon of cat-fishing is real.
That's brilliant. I couldn't find anything about this episode on google, but I'm interested to know how the hosts reacted to that.
I can't remember the exact reactions but Machine Gun Kelly was a guest host and was not happy about it. I imagine the producers where pretty happy that they got something exciting happening.
I have a mortgage in silicon valley and a young child, so i'm not in a position to take the time and risk to do this. But i really desperately want to see it in the world.
All we have to do is use the social graph to verify each other, and follow 'verified' edges to determine trust in a third party. People can just tell fb or twitter 'yes i know this account', and that's all we really need.
If I can't follow any 'yes i know this person edges' to a remote account, don't let me interact with that account. Shadowban them. It's THAT simple. This technique stops bots and it stops trolling by fake remote accounts.
If someone claims "i know all these fake accounts", then we ban that person, for creating all the fake accounts. Fake accounts are easily identified after the fact; when no real person pays any price, they'll keep getting created.
Yes it has the downside of temporarily slowing adoption. That's the main reason imagine twitter and FB haven't done this. They think us being harassed is less important than onboarding new people.
I had hoped they would have done a bit of work to track the money flow in these scams. Clearly there is an opportunity here to disrupt that cash flow since most use electronic payment providers with at least some level of tracking. I want the electronic equivalent of 'marked bills' which have mandatory reporting requirements at all financial institutions that process them.
Wrote about the process here: https://medium.com/@vonkunesnewton/facebook-parasite-the-sec...
1. Sextortion scam for personal gain
Back in 2002 i was using MSN Messenger as a teenager, being like 17yo and full of testosterone, I accepted any girl wanting to share intimate details with me. There was one local girl, chatting with me for 2 years, but always had excused for not opening her cam. I was sharing intimate details while being on cam, but finally stopped, as she never wanted to meet me, despite living 20km away. She always had excuses.
Two years later, I was dipping again into script kiddie stuff and trying out some trojan generators, combining it with an exe cryptor to make it undetectable for the early anti-virus tools. I contacted that girl again, and told her I had some new videos of my holidays. Sent it to her (holiday-in-france.avi.exe) and two mins later I was on "her" PC.
Turns out it's a local guy, 5 years older than me, having like 100 folders named after local boys, where he kept videos, screen grabs and photos neatly organized. Most of them underage.
Fortunately I found a word document with his resumee, even with a photo of him.
I reported that guy to the feds the same day.
2. Sextortion with the wrong guy
Years later I migrated to an asian country. I now speak the local language and have a second Facebook and Skype profile that I only use for local contacts here, that I barely know and who are not family, friends or business contacts.
Every now and then some fake russian/eastern european girls try to add me on Skype or Facebook randomly. This time those girls are real, they even start a real webcam conversation.
But this time I'm prepared, being interested in infosec and online since the early 90ies and prepared because I was scammed before (see story 1.).
Those girls quickly start skype video calls, where they try to scam guys. Me, knowing this scam for years, had a laugh and continued the video chat, also sharing intimate details with them, and who says no to watch a beautiful girl undress herself and sharing her sexual preferences?
After usually 20-30 minutes of showing off on the camera, asking my sexual preferences and begging to add me on Facebook, they will change the tone of the conversion and try to blackmail me. Since I knew the scam, I was laughing and telling them, that my whole online presence is fake and all the profiles they have from me are filled with fake friends. They swore at me and immediately blocked me on Skype and Facebook.
Happened several times.
Sex has a strong emotional component. People who are "sexually needy" are often really emotionally needy and emotionally unhealthy. They are attracted to things with a strong emotional component, but low commitment. Liking pics of people who have cancer or whatever fits those criteria. The people gushing at pathetic photos of that sort are (probably) more likely than others to also be vulnerable to sextortion.
I am handicapped and had a lengthy medical crisis. Lots of people wanted me to be their big feels hit for the day while not actually giving a flying fuck about my welfare. Trying to get people to invest two nanoseconds in actually being helpful instead of merely using me as some emotional drug was a huge uphill battle.
A good filter for who to not waste my time on is folks who seek me out because I have a disability (or other sob story) and they have such big feels about it. These are always leeches who cannot respect me as a person and will only ever talk to me to meet their emotional needs. It's really sick stuff.
Sometimes when I warn my friends and family about oversharing online, and the "dangers of social media" (on-the-internet-nobody-knows-you're-a-dog 1993 cartoon) they think I'm paranoid.
This is a very good case study for all social media users to understand.
Apparently yes. It's no secret that FB's numbers are not accurate, but they are still making a ton of money.
> I don't think deleting fake accounts is necessarily an easy problem. Particularly when we consider that a false positive is much worse than a false negative as far as user impact goes.
Nobody said it was easy. Only that FB is incentivised to do detection poorly. FB doesn't really care about user impact, they only care about profit. If it's not enough user impact to cause a dent in profit, they aren't incentivised to care.
I think you've misunderstood my point (or perhaps glossed over it). From a UX perspective, it's way, way worse to delete a real person's account and tell them they're fake (tons of negative news coverage every time these screw-ups happen) than it is to let a fake account slide. So any technique that errs on the side of being too aggressive they are unlikely to use.
And since FB advertisers are paying for engagement, not impressions, the amount of ad fraud is likely insignificant.
I appreciate the desire to experiment with the medium, but it just does a disservice to the content.
It's crazy how often I need to do this as well. I remember back in the old days hitting esc would stop all the animations on a page, now you need to inspect + delete those elements.
There needs to be some crowd sourced way of doing this, so if you delete an element and I visit the site, the element is gone.
This is how adblockers work (sort of).
We could probably leverage the same tech used for adblockers to make UI blockers, which maintain lists of "bad" UI and remove their tags and scripts.
Of course, I find it easier to just not use those websites.
But if it can't work reliably, it's not worth it at all. That's ultimately what makes technical solutions hard, not doing it at all, but rather doing it well enough to be worth the effort.
Just have a look at https://outline.com/vznfxw
It was so easy to get rid of unwanted divs. I would like something like that for the latest version of firefox, but I couldn't find anything similar.
I've mainly used it to block all the shit youtube puts on top of videos, block position fixed videos on news sites, and make a bunch of forums less painful to browse.
* Ctrl + Shift + C
* Select your div
* Press [Delete]
Those bots would point to video chat services, encouraging the man to masturbate himself while viewing pre-recorded videos of a girl masturbating. Then, the person would be threated to give a ransom or else have the video leaked, with the additional threat that he was masturbating to underage woman sometimes.
Fraudulent porn websites stealing credit cards were also shared by the bots network.
How? Unless the fake profiles manage to generate significant amount of ad fraud along the way, the advertisers still end up paying for actions, not impressions.
Why would an operator of a fraudulent network click on ads, sign up for third-party newsletters, install promoted mobile apps or do whatever else the dominant ad unit in his/her feed would promote?
If Facebook were using an open protocol like Ostatus anyone could make a peer network that is better than Facebook and actually compete, but their userbase is entirely locked into their platform. On purpose, of course, thats why investors value FB so highly. Its entirely against their interests to enable competition.
like alcohol, casinos+lotteries, and free-to-play games with microtransactions
Now, only the most gullible, most desperate of people would fall into such "obvious" scams, which means a greater return rate for the effort spent.