Scammers are Tricking Instagram Into Banning Influencers (propublica.org) 53
ProPublica looks at "a booming underground community of Instagram scammers and hackers who shut down profiles on the social network and then demand payment to reactivate them."
While they also target TikTok and other platforms, takedown-for-hire scammers like OBN are proliferating on Instagram, exploiting the app's slow and often ineffective customer support services and its easily manipulated account reporting systems. These Instascammers often target people whose accounts are vulnerable because their content verges on nudity and pornography, which Instagram and its parent company, Meta, prohibit.... In an article he wrote for factz.com last year, OBN dubbed himself the "log-out king" because "I have deleted multiple celebrities + influencers on Meta & Instagram... I made about $300k just off banning and unbanning pages," he wrote.
OBN exploits weaknesses in Meta's customer service. By allowing anyone to report an account for violating the company's standards, Meta gives enormous leverage to people who are able to trick it into banning someone who relies on Instagram for income. Meta uses a mix of automated systems and human review to evaluate reports. Banners like OBN test and trade tips on how to trigger the system to falsely suspend accounts. In some cases OBN hacks into accounts to post offensive content. In others, he creates duplicate accounts in his targets' names, then reports the original accounts as imposters so they'll be barred for violating Meta's ban on account impersonation. In addition, OBN has posed as a Meta employee to persuade at least one target to pay him to restore her account.
Models, businesspeople, marketers and adult performers across the United States told ProPublica that OBN had ruined their businesses and lives with spurious complaints, even causing one woman to consider suicide. More than half a dozen people with over 45 million total followers on Instagram told ProPublica they lost their accounts temporarily or permanently shortly after OBN threatened to report them. They say Meta failed to help them and to take OBN and other account manipulators seriously. One person who said she was victimized by OBN has an ongoing civil suit against Meta for lost income, while others sent the company legal letters demanding payment....
A Meta spokesperson acknowledged that OBN has had short-term success in getting accounts removed by abusing systems intended to help enforce community standards. But the company has addressed those situations and taken down dozens of accounts linked to OBN, the spokesperson said. Most often, the spokesperson said, OBN scammed people by falsely claiming to be able to ban and restore accounts.... After banning an account, OBN frequently offers to reactivate it for a fee as high as $5,000, kicking off a cycle of bans and reactivations that continues until the victim runs out of money or stops paying.
A Meta spokesperson told the site they're currently "updating our support systems," including a tool to help affected users and letting more speak to a live support agent rather than an automated one. But the Meta spokesperson added that "This remains a highly adversarial space, with scammers constantly trying to evade detection by social media platforms."
ProPublica ultimately traced the money to a 20-year-old who lives with his mother (who claimed he was only "funnelling" the money for someone else). After that conversation OBN "announced he would no longer offer account banning as a service" — but would still sell his services in getting your account verified.
OBN exploits weaknesses in Meta's customer service. By allowing anyone to report an account for violating the company's standards, Meta gives enormous leverage to people who are able to trick it into banning someone who relies on Instagram for income. Meta uses a mix of automated systems and human review to evaluate reports. Banners like OBN test and trade tips on how to trigger the system to falsely suspend accounts. In some cases OBN hacks into accounts to post offensive content. In others, he creates duplicate accounts in his targets' names, then reports the original accounts as imposters so they'll be barred for violating Meta's ban on account impersonation. In addition, OBN has posed as a Meta employee to persuade at least one target to pay him to restore her account.
Models, businesspeople, marketers and adult performers across the United States told ProPublica that OBN had ruined their businesses and lives with spurious complaints, even causing one woman to consider suicide. More than half a dozen people with over 45 million total followers on Instagram told ProPublica they lost their accounts temporarily or permanently shortly after OBN threatened to report them. They say Meta failed to help them and to take OBN and other account manipulators seriously. One person who said she was victimized by OBN has an ongoing civil suit against Meta for lost income, while others sent the company legal letters demanding payment....
A Meta spokesperson acknowledged that OBN has had short-term success in getting accounts removed by abusing systems intended to help enforce community standards. But the company has addressed those situations and taken down dozens of accounts linked to OBN, the spokesperson said. Most often, the spokesperson said, OBN scammed people by falsely claiming to be able to ban and restore accounts.... After banning an account, OBN frequently offers to reactivate it for a fee as high as $5,000, kicking off a cycle of bans and reactivations that continues until the victim runs out of money or stops paying.
A Meta spokesperson told the site they're currently "updating our support systems," including a tool to help affected users and letting more speak to a live support agent rather than an automated one. But the Meta spokesperson added that "This remains a highly adversarial space, with scammers constantly trying to evade detection by social media platforms."
ProPublica ultimately traced the money to a 20-year-old who lives with his mother (who claimed he was only "funnelling" the money for someone else). After that conversation OBN "announced he would no longer offer account banning as a service" — but would still sell his services in getting your account verified.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
....trick it into banning someone who relies on Instagram for income.
Good. Posting on Instagram/Facebook/Whatever should be a hobby, not an occupation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's spelled "influenza".
These people are a disease, let's label them accordingly.
Re: (Score:1)
Like Watching Two Clowns Stabbing Each Other (Score:5, Insightful)
Influencers are basically grifters, scammers, con artists, and general social parasites. Always hopping from one trend to another to peddle snake oil and/or get into petty drama with other people. And lots of websites effectively encourage and pay these types of shills. This is practically karma being paid in full with interest.
Re: (Score:3)
It's bottom feeders who are a net negative socially being victimized by criminals who are a much larger net negative.
Unless they're committing criminal acts themselves, I'm not going to cheer on the criminals for victories over the merely less-than-desirable.
Re: Like Watching Two Clowns Stabbing Each Other (Score:1)
Fair enough. In an ideal world neither would exist, but reality is a compromise at best. Though both groups are imo thieves in their own right, but one is considered more socially accepted than the other.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they're committing criminal acts themselves, I'm not going to cheer on the criminals for victories over the merely less-than-desirable.
I am, somewhat, because the real world isn't that simple.
"Influencers", who - to take one common recent example - push crypto scams on their simp fanbases, may technically have not been breaking the law on some occasions (though many often were), but as a group they've been accessories to or instigators of crimes far more harmful than "narcissistic grifter loses access to the platform they work their grift from".
The *entire* "influencer" model is about taking money from people who can't really afford it by
Re: (Score:2)
While, yes, if on a jury I'd have no real option on which way to vote,
Never heard of jury nullification?
Re: (Score:2)
You forget that a number of these "influences" are really just over-entitled a**holes in the end too. As any popular business providing a service if they've been approached for "free stuff" in exchange for "promotions". You'll find practically every retail store has at some point been asked to provide something to an influencer for free (food, product, service, etc) in exchange for "publicity". The smaller the store, the greater the number of times they've been asked.
Sure you can blame the store owners for
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud is illegal, willfully spreading falsehoods for profit is fraud, influencers spread bullshit ideas they're paid to spread in exchange for money. QED their business model is technically illegal, but it's barely different from any other advertising activity in this country and the political gravy train depends on corporate success no matter the amount of malfeasance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fuck are you talking about. Show on the doll where the woke mind virus touched you.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I read the word "woke" in any context I immediately assume the speaker is an idiot. I might be wrong occasionally, but I'll nail it 9/10.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not what it was, it's what it has become. My sense is people have walked away from it because idiots have taken the ball and sprinted with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should consider the context to not be an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Snark doesn't make you right (Score:2)
Are you seriously trying to pretend like nothing ever happened?
Fuck [cnet.com] off [nytimes.com].
Can we get more of this? (Score:2)
Seems like a societal good.
Re: (Score:3)
Any societal good would be only fleeting. Having them erased forever and blocked from returning would be some good.
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds like outright extortion to me. But perhaps law enforcement is too busy elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Extortion scams for example usually threaten to leak sensitive data that you want to keep private for whatever reason. While ransom on the other hand locks you out of data that you need to work. For the latter, security measures like redundant backups can prevent larger damage. For the former, backups wouldn't really help in preventing the leak that you don't want to happen. There can be some overlap between the two, like when it comes to business secrets, which you need ac
All Social Media should have fair appeals (Score:3, Informative)
Facebook, Reddit, now Instagram - all ruined by shit moderation.
Re: All Social Media should have fair appeals (Score:1)
They're all really shit sites from the very beginning. Especially Fecebook.
Re: (Score:1)
it should be a legal requirement of running a discussion site that there is both a moderation process and that there are FAIR appeals of that process's decisions.
Everyone refers to these sites as "social media"... but that's not indicative of those sites' actual purpose. The sites really only exist to collect personal information from as many people as possible, and then monitize what they've gathered. It just so happens the easiest/best way to scam people into providing the most information is to say "come use our site to talk with your friends and relatives online"...
Re: (Score:3)
it should be a legal requirement of running a discussion site that there is both a moderation process and that there are FAIR appeals of that process's decisions.
Facebook, Reddit, now Instagram - all ruined by shit moderation.
Competent moderation would require hiring competent people to do the moderation, and that would cost money. Anything that doesn't increase profits is just never going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I wrote: "it should be a legal requirement..."
Re: (Score:2)
it should be a legal requirement of running a discussion site that there is both a moderation process and that there are FAIR appeals of that process's decisions.
That's not really possible. In the end it's going to be a subjective decision and even if it's reasonable 99% of the time, you'll eventually end up with someone getting mad and going to whine to daddy Elon about how they're discriminated against for their believes.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook, Reddit, now Instagram - all ruined by shit moderation.
No kidding. The best part about all of this is that actual porn spammers/dating site scammers are usually not touched by the moderators. Even the people selling $3000 items for $300 don't get touched even if the actual trademark owner complains.
Welp (Score:2)
The very nature of blackmail indicates it is performed by folks with little predisposition toward honesty and a moral code.
How in the World can you expect these folks not to come back with their hand out a second time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, I get that these influencers are, by and large, difficult people to like. They do have their massive follower bases, so it seems likely on the order of tomorrow's sunrise another will rise from the ashes of the one you destroy to pick up those aimless, needy followers.
Z
I'm not going to go into a treatise on why it is wrong to blackmail or steal from people you dislike or disagree with, although it seems that sensibly is the case.
The point I'm at odds with is how you could trust a blackmailer to s
Re: (Score:2)
If the smart phone I'm chained to can really be used as a listening device when I'm in traffic and listening to political talk shows, my social credit score is Subzero.
When they wipe out the first and worst of us, someone will be calmly telling a subordinate at my house to Finish Him.
To pile on . . . (Score:2)
And? I fail to see the issue.
- A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell - (Score:4, Insightful)
"Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread"
- English poet Alexander Pope, 1709
Usetabe that you could cruise US Route 66 and visit a hundred quaint small towns. Each had a main street lined with shops, restaurants and bars. Most were welcoming, but sometimes you could tell just by looking at a certain bar that you might not want to go in. Maybe it was all the motorcycles parked outside, or the skull and crossbones over the door.
On the internet you can find a hundred quaint sites along the way. Most are welcoming with colorful animated advertising and neverending video promos. But some start right out by demanding your personal information before you can play and then dump you into a toxic den of social noise and hate.
Some people did go in to those bars on route 66, and they go into those hives on the internet. It is unclear what motivates them, but they get what they deserve. Banning is a blessing in disguise.
Do they take donations? (Score:2)
I mean, do the "Scammers" take donations? I think I'd subscribe to that service.
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather, could we pay them so they do not reinstall the influenza they cure, I mean, take down?
April 1 or Not. (Score:2)
This is me... (Score:2)
... not caring.
The world needs less "influencers" and more thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The problem that the existence of "influencers" illuminates is however that most people do not want to think and rather copy some "insights" from others (no matter how stupid) and hence influencers are a thing.
Why the influencer hate? (Score:2)
The title might be new but the role is pervasive, Every pundit on TV, every morning show host, every product reviewer... all influencers. The fact that this generation has found a new medium doesn't change anything. It's a job. Some people are good at it, most aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
You act like we didn't think that they are a pest as well.
It's like watching reverse Alien vs Predator (Score:2)
Whoever loses.
We win.