[HN Gopher] Victims speak out over 'tsunami' of fraud on Instagr...
___________________________________________________________________
Victims speak out over 'tsunami' of fraud on Instagram, Facebook
and WhatsApp
Author : pseudolus
Score : 68 points
Date : 2023-06-16 16:35 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| rocketnasa wrote:
| 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.
| jsbg wrote:
| 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.
| sincerely wrote:
| 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.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > 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?
| Animats wrote:
| _" 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.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| 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.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Presumably all the gullible people will lose their money to AI
| scams and then there won't be any AI scams.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > 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.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| 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.
| BrandonS113 wrote:
| The demographic most likely to fall for scams is the 20 year
| old. So. no.
| er4hn wrote:
| 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.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| I got "scammed" three times on social media.
|
| 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.
| shmde wrote:
| Not trying to victim blame you but I will,
| Facebook/Insta/Twitter are not exactly reliable marketplace.
| Never ever order stuff from social media websites. Thats why
| they are called that.
| zgluck wrote:
| 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.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| It certainly feels that way. Scams and fraud grow more common
| and brazen by the day.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| 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
| briffle wrote:
| 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...
| zgluck wrote:
| 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.)
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Only going to get worse with conversational AIs and voice
| synthesis
| Sparkyte wrote:
| 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.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| 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?
| expertentipp wrote:
| 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.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| 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
| totallywrong wrote:
| 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.
| olibhel wrote:
| 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
| data-ottawa wrote:
| 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.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| Er.. is everywhere like that ?
| pengaru wrote:
| Mmm, overpopulation.
|
| Will you be blaming social media for their overcrowded trains
| too?
|
| https://imgur.com/gallery/2Xo9x
| disco_framework wrote:
| 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.
| pengaru wrote:
| 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.
| twilightzone wrote:
| 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.
| pengaru wrote:
| > 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.
| vaidhy wrote:
| 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.
| pengaru wrote:
| 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.
| waboremo wrote:
| 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.
| totallywrong wrote:
| 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.
| disco_framework wrote:
| 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.
| mejutoco wrote:
| Information reduces uncertainty. A lot of talking or a lot of
| misinformation does not increase information but noise.
| flangola7 wrote:
| It is on average beneficial for LGBT+ kids, especially if their
| family or local culture are unsupportive or hostile.
| dmoose wrote:
| 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.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 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.
| balder1991 wrote:
| 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.
| skciva wrote:
| 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.
| totallywrong wrote:
| 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.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| 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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| totallywrong wrote:
| [flagged]
| stubybubs wrote:
| > 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.
| stubybubs wrote:
| 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.
| jstarfish wrote:
| 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.
| mejutoco wrote:
| I found the concepts that help a lot in discussing this in
| its essence are equality of opportunity vs equality of
| outcome.
| stubybubs wrote:
| > 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.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > 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.
| stubybubs wrote:
| 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/clima
| te-...
|
| I guess you're invoking something about trans people? I
| mean them too but honestly it's everybody.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Death threats are an actual crime. Nobody's been held
| accountable for that though.
|
| That seems like an odd claim to make. https://duckduckgo.co
| m/?q=arrested+for+making+death+threats&...
| lordfrito wrote:
| > 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.
| stubybubs wrote:
| > 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?
| disco_framework wrote:
| [flagged]
| stubybubs wrote:
| [flagged]
| disco_framework wrote:
| [flagged]
| simmerup wrote:
| [flagged]
| stubybubs wrote:
| They pulled out Emmett Till being beaten to death and I'm
| being hyperbolic?
| disco_framework wrote:
| [flagged]
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| [dead]
| spicymapotofu wrote:
| 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.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > 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.
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| jjulius wrote:
| >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.
| rcme wrote:
| 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.
| totallywrong wrote:
| > 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.
| asylteltine wrote:
| [dead]
| paulpauper wrote:
| Seems simple enough: if someone asks for money on
| Facebook/Instagram, just say no. Don't buy anything advertised
| there either.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>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.
| jstarfish wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| owlninja wrote:
| 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.
| veave wrote:
| >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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-16 23:02 UTC)