Showing posts with label Spam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spam. Show all posts

Monday, August 25, 2025

Dead Internet Theory

Anchorage in Summer...
The fear of AI replacing software engineers comes a lot across our discussions. The issue I see is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Students regressing to "vibe coders" and using shortcuts, rather than getting fundamentals. Such behaviors could make them easily replaceable by AI or more likely by those who don't even have a CS degree. An enthusiastic manager may decide to "vibe code" themselves, rather than hiring a fresh CS graduate to vibe code for them.

On the other hand, if the CS graduate is very talented and knowledgeable in their fundamentals and latest technologies, they may become the ones who build the AI/LLM tools. After all, we still need CS folks to build those AI tools. Those tools don't build themselves. At least not yet.

Another argument that favors CS degrees are, at least for now, LLMs are good at individual programs - but they are not sufficiently sophisticated to configure and deploy complex systems. You can write some Python (or Java, Erlang, Go, ...) code with LLM. But it is still not possible to build a hybrid cloud architecture with load balancing and security policies configured. I can compare it with dishwashers. Dishwashers may wash the dishes - but you still need to do the initial cleaning (don't throw dishes in with huge chunks of food waste in them), loading, and unloading. These tools may have made our life easier - but did not eliminate house work completely (sadly).

Similarly, the AI/LLM tools may help eliminate redundant, repetitive, and boring tasks. But they won't replace the software engineers completely. But, if our undergraduates let the AI/LLM replace them, it will replace them (individually, not collectively). I emphasize in all my courses that students should see the AI/LLM tools as an extension to themselves, rather than a replacement to themselves.

Sadly, some students tend to misuse AI/LLM in places where it won't even function properly (for example, to summarize videos; ChatGPT cannot even watch a video!)

Another point is, coding is not the only job of a software engineer. It may be just 10 - 50% of the time. Rest of the time goes with attending meetings, making presentations, design decisions, testing, ... These cannot be replaced by vibe coding after all...

I also wonder... if humans stopped making content (blog posts, videos, drawings, audio recordings, ...) AI will continue to train on the slop it itself produced and keep regurgitating recycled slop. YouTube comment sections, Twitter feeds, LinkedIn comments, even YouTube videos themselves are AI slop. We are getting close to the dead Internet theory. Hopefully, it is just a minor, temporary phase.

Friday, April 8, 2022

Random spam and a train journey...

Kansas City, KS
Have you ever received a WhatsApp or a WeChat (WeiXin) message like, "Hello, I'm Stella, are you Mr. Jack, the costume designer introduced by Annie?" from someone with a Chinese woman as the profile picture but a US number?

My friends and I kept receiving those messages frequently. The template is always the same:

"Hello, I'm [a woman], are you [a man], [description to the man's job] introduced by [another woman / my colleague / my secretary]?"
A Google reverse image search on the profile picture will take you to the source - where they have stolen the image from.

For fun, we tried to reply to those to see where they would go. "Oh, sorry, you have messaged the wrong person." They respond, "my bad, at least you are kind enough." But these never proceeded further. They always sensed that I was trolling them and discontinued the chat almost immediately.

Train from Kansas City to ABQ
But managed to continue the chat a bit longer as I was on a long train trip. After this "wrong number," the person, who claimed to be a cloth designer from California, suggested I add to their Telegram since the WhatsApp is apparently for their work discussions only. So, I added them to their Telegram, a number from Indonesia. The person also introduced themself as a divorcee with a child and even shared a family photo (again, stolen from the Internet) after I shared a selfie from the train. They again shared the sketch of some cloth they designed and their lunch downloaded from the Internet. At this point, I can see how lazy these scammers are. They are not lazy. They just don't want to invest too much time on each potential victim as they cannot be bothered and have to function at large. Seriously, why can't they send an actual selfie of their lunch?

Anyway, in the beginning, they mentioned they also invest in crypto (they shared a selfie in front of a crypto dashboard - again taken from the Internet). At this point, I was sure this was either a crypto scam, romance scam, or a scam that would make me pay for their cloth design. This chat was dragging on over a couple of days as if they had formed a close and caring friendship with me. Usually, their conversation was in bad/broken English. But every time they talk about crypto, they get more professional and convincing - as if they were copy-pasting some paragraphs they wrote sometime back (not from the Internet. No text matches on the Internet). They even offered to help me invest. Ok, that is when I decided this was a crypto scam. My long train trip was coming to an end too. They also realized I wasn't falling for them - instead, I wasted their valuable scamming time. Their chat was getting repetitive with little time investment from them (just photos and videos stolen from the Internet). They stopped trying to convince me into crypto investments, and I blocked them.

Some arrests have been made on these crypto scams.

Thursday, November 4, 2021

Meaningless and comedic reviews on Google Maps

Google Maps is full of meaningless and comedic reviews. Especially, the remote regions such as Arctic lands are filled with such jokes. They undermines the usefulness of the reviews, by flooding with these jokes. These are annoying especially when these remote regions are hard to reach and these reviews mask the legit reviews with their comedy.

If you have not been to a place, why are you reviewing it? It just skews the correct ratings. Reviews are meant to be from those who have already experienced the place. Not from those who cheat the system to become a "Local Guide" for Google.



Here, this person has apparently landed on this remote Arctic island on Google map and decided to leave this review. Unfortunately, this useless review has received more positive reviews than the legit reviews from those who took the pain to visit this totally amazing remote land.



An idiotic review that claims this Arctic island, easily one of the coldest in the world year around, to be hot and humid. Then people be up-voting it as a joke. Hope Google also introduces a down-vote. Then people like me can down-vote such stupid reviews.



And more irrelevant reviews.

Some reviewing on behalf of their siblings and friends who have actually visited the place.

Others reviewing after spotting the place on Google maps.

Unless Google fixes its review system, Google reviews will remain the most useless reviews we ever have had.

Friday, January 29, 2021

Anatomy of a "link spammer"

Link spamming with music
I have encountered several annoying link spammers in the past. Who is a link spammer? A link spammer uses the comment/quote functions in blogs and Twitter to promote their web site (which is usually a garbage site). Most often than not, the link spammers are bots. They are auto-configured to post links and music videos to random web pages, tweets, or blog posts.

Recently I encountered a sockpuppet and the link spammer, and reported them both. The link spammer (who was quoting random tweets with links to his pyramid-scheme website) was taken down within a few hours. The racist sockpuppet still continues to spam random Tweeps with his hateful replies. It shows how social media treats spam. Adding random links to several tweets as a comment/quote is an easier way to get suspended than posting random nonsensical text and images, even with nasty content.

Link spamming with personal web page
Later I encountered another link spammer, whose entire aim was to spam random people with a link to a specific song. The song eventually reached one billion views on YouTube. I don't think the link spammer contributed to the views significantly. But I am sure that link spammer was a bot as it was spamming random people en masse, without engaging to comments.
 
Today's encounter was with a person who would reply to random tweets with his garbage irrelevant website, hoping unsuspecting users would click his garbage link - check his twitter profile to find it out yourself. Sometimes these links are harmless, aiming to get traffic to their web site. Other times, they are a phishing attempt. Be careful of what you click, especially when it comes out of nowhere from a link spammer. My blog comments are moderated due to the severity of link spamming. They are quite a nuisance.

Monday, August 24, 2020

Why do I see East Asian music videos popping up randomly on Twitter?

TWICE, a group commonly found in Twitter fan cams

The Internet is filled with stars and their stans (basically, fan accounts that dedicate the entire account to post videos and photos of the star/idol). Often they just post the videos and photos in their own profile. Sometimes, they post them as a reply under popular posts, hoping to get more views.

There was a time when K-Pop stans were sharing fan cams to completely random Twitter threads that have no relevance to them. Their only aim was to increase the views of their idol's videos and the reach of the idol. These stans are not necessarily from South Korea. Their love for K-Pop music unites them. Their posts' had a short lifetime since others find it quite annoying and report them instantly for spam every time they post.

 

Then came 2020

Like everything else of 2020, K-Pop fan cams unexpectedly faced a paradigm shift. They formed as a left-leaning political force in the USA. From what I know, this change happened in a decentralized manner. There was no leadership or careful planning. What they did was simple. Many random stans independently targeted hateful hashtags, and then post a cute fan cam of their idol with the respective hashtag of their idols -- for example,  #TWICE. Then everyone else of the idol's hashtag did the same. #[IDOL-NAME] #[HATEFUL-TAG] and boom, the hateful hashtags became music libraries! K-Pop won, hateful hashtags lost.


Interestingly, this pattern also extended to J-Pop and C-Pop to a smaller extent. For example, I noticed a few fan cams of #SNH48 C-Pop girl group popping up to dilute the racist hashtags. Eventually, K-Pop stans also conquered TikTok. People started noticing only after the stans had already made a difference in the USA political scene.

 

 

Consequently, people's perceptions changed. Most tweeps (i.e., Twitter users) started to see the K-Pop stans more and more positively. People stopped marking fan cams as spam. I certainly stopped reporting them altogether!



I decided to test this. I tagged #Twice on a hateful post from a "verified" account. Yep, I got the response back from some stans as a video reply.

 

Another time, I had an interaction similar to this:

 

Stan: People should be kind to each other #[HATEFUL-HASHTAG] [A random video from TWICE].

Me: That's a beautiful video, thanks for your service.

Stans: Thanks for your kind words. #[HATEFUL-HASHTAG] [Another random video from TWICE]. 

 

 

It works

The stans are diluting hateful hashtags, taking over the Internet with their cute fan cams. You may consider it a spam. They even risk an account suspension, as indeed their behavior fits the typical profile of a spammer. But they are always harmless.

 

Such replies annoy a racist or a troll.

It goes like this: 

 

Racist: [some nasty stuff]

Stan: [random-fan-cam]

Racist: [some more nasty stuff]

Stan: [another-random-fan-cam]

 

The racist gets all worked up and loses his/her energy. But a stan doesn't lose his/her cool. The racist says nasty things to them. He/she will get a reply, yet another fan cam. You may mistake the stans as bots. But they are not. They are cool people out there, conquering the Internet with fan cams.


K-Pop fan cams are the new cat videos of the Internet! Yes, 2020 y'all.

 

Now, if you see me replying on Twitter fights with K-Pop, C-Pop, or any random music videos, you know where I got the motivation from.

 

For actual Twitter wars, we shouldn't give too much variety in the videos in our replies. That derails the purpose. Best to stick to one artist or a girl group such as #TWICE. For added moral support, add their recent tags. #TWICE_Beyond_LIVE#트와이스#MOREandMORE

Sunday, August 23, 2020

Sockpuppets and where to find them

The Disguiser. An unrelated scene.
Internet Sockpuppets are an annoying online phenomenon. 

* A sockpuppet qualifies as a fake account, when it assumes a fake identity -- typically with a real-sounding name, a physical location that sounds real, a random photo scrapped from the Internet ideally not of a popular person, and some profile text/story to create a persona that looks real to a non-suspecting reader. 

* A sockpuppet qualifies as an anon account, when it comes with minimal identifying information -- no real name, no photo, nothing personal or identifiable information.

So what exactly is a sockpuppet?

There are several definitions. My definition goes like this:

"A sockpuppet is a fake or an anonymous profile created by someone with an existing established profile in the same platform, when the new profile aims to boost the popularity/prominence of his/her established profile (i.e., the "primary" account) or attack those presented opposing views of the existing account."

The distinction needs to be made because, sockpuppets are typically attached to the hand of the owner. They cannot stray away. That is the same for the Internet sockpuppets too. They stay close to the primary account.

Why do sockpuppets exist?

1) To manipulate the social media democracy + meritocracy

Social media and online platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Wikimedia, and StackOverflow thrive by a combination of democracy and meritocracy. 

Each account usually has a single "vote". That means, you can typically "like" or "upvote" a comment/story only once. This is a democracy.

On the other hand, those who with most views/likes/shares/retweets receive larger reach and prominence in the discussions. As you receive larger reach, you are also rewarded by the platform. For example, you may get promoted to an "upper level" and receive additional capabilities such as moderating new posts (in case of platforms such as StackOverflow and Wikipedia). This is a meritocracy.

Then why doesn't this beautiful combination of democracy and meritocracy work flawlessly? This combination should work well in the physical world. But in social media, a vote typically means an account. Most platforms do not have proper means in place to ensure that a human creates only one account. In fact, several platforms allow and encourage owning multiple accounts for various purposes. I have maintained 3 bot accounts in my Twitter life so far (they are listed here), to automatically post updates from my blog and undergrad project. But of course, they are not sockpuppets. They are stand-alone bots. They are not fake, not really anon either as they have identifying information pointing to me. 

A sockpuppet, on the other hand, *will* interact with its primary in some way or another. Because that is their responsibility: making the primary appear stronger than it really is. With the "rich gets richer" scenario in social media, retweets by a large number of fake accounts (including sockpuppets) is expected to receive more legitimate retweets too. Sockpuppets, unlike typical fake or bot accounts, will organically interact with the primary account for the betterment of the primary account, through supportive comments, retweets, and likes.

2) To fight the opposing views without compromising the primary account's legacy

The sockpuppet, once created, will start traversing its primary account and respond accordingly. I have identified several sockpuppets in Twitter, from all sides of political spectrum.


Sockpuppet owners can be actually smart people. Don't underestimate them. That makes the sockpuppets smart too - but with no accountability (since they are a fake/anon). That is a dangerous combination.

Unlike the primary account, the sockpuppet will attack you vigorously, perhaps using racist, provocatory, or vulgar messages.

How to spot a sockpuppet?

In fact, it is easier to spot and confirm a sockpuppet than you expect. Sockpuppets are close to their primary. They respond positively to the views that support the primary. They will attack the opposing views with nastiest mean comments. They all follow a similar pattern, and leave obvious traces to connect with the primary. Typically, they will reply to the negative comments that haven't been replied by the primary adequately (if at all). Their replies will be uninhibited. This aims to maintain the neutral stance of the primary and to keeps the primary more professional. Sockpuppets will try to provoke you. They are a sockpuppet whereas you are in your main and perhaps the only account in the platform, which you may also be using for professional purposes and connect with your colleagues. Sockpuppets thus use your restrain as their strength.

However, sockpuppets fortunately have a big weakness unlike other fake accounts. That is, their proximity to the primary. They will first reply to the messages directed at the primary, or try to be smart and reply to the posts made by the opponents - but not directly on the same thread as the primary. Their language and timing usually will leave sufficient hints to tie the sockpuppet's identity to the primary. 

Some sockpuppets try to be too smart and alter their behavior. I once dealt with a sockpuppet (who is in real a software developer and a Twitter star) who pretended he did not know how to message via Twitter! This is a deliberate attempt to look different. Most sockpuppets will also casually talk with the primary (as in a dual acting by the same actor in a movie), to make it sound like they are different people. Sockpuppets also have a trait of deleting their old tweets to remove traces for future interactions. Because, unlike you, sockpuppets don't really have a reason to keep their tweets safe. Once they have served their purpose (for example, trolling their opponent), they can be deleted.

Every time I suspect a sockpuppet, I casually drop the name of the suspected primary, after sufficiently distracting the sockpuppet. The sockpuppet instantly panics and loses its cool and track/flow. Once, a sockpuppet stopped responding to my tweets for hours but instantly in 5 seconds replied with a nasty tweet once I mentioned the suspected primary's name as in "Hi [primary]!"Usually, if you publicly accuse the primary for being the same person as the sockpuppet, the primary will categorically reject the claim.

How do online platforms treat the sockpuppets?

Wikipedia bans sockpuppets outright. I love that. They trace the IP addresses and once they confirm the sockpuppets (ensuring that you are not merely two people from the same household), they suspend and ban the sockpuppet instantly. It ensures that Wikipedia is fair, especially when making important decisions: should we keep this new wikipedia page that is proposed for a speedy deletion, for one example. If a repeat offense is detected, Wikipedia will also ban the primary.

Twitter does the same too, but not that vigorously. Because, Twitter indeed allows multiple accounts. But if the sockpuppet is proven malicious, then Twitter bans it. Make sure to report the suspected sockpuppets to Twitter when they become disruptive. Twitter will check the pattern and suspend them if confirmed.

The first step in winning a sockpuppet is to identifying one, and then making sure the sockpuppet does not emotionally attack you to make you a weaker persona than the primary. Let's keep the social media clean and sane. Peace!

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Spam comments with garbage links

I keep getting more and more garbage comments on this blog. Comments are moderated. Therefore they don't really make it unless I manually approve.

Now the spammers are getting creative. They post some positive generic praise before positing their garbage link. In fact, it is most often just a bot that crawls the web and posts random comments. Sometimes it is a crowdsourced effort. Each comments receives a few cents. The generic praise is just to sound relevant and trick the moderator to approve the spam. It also tries to make random readers to click the link once the spam comment is approved (often, by mistake).

Sharing a few garbage comments my blog posts have received below, after removing the link (why would I post the garbage link myself? lol).

*************
Mr Asj has left a new comment on your post "Is Freelancer.com a Scam?":

Hi, there very cool web site. I’m glad to find useful information. Well written. For more amazing info visit once [GARBAGE-LINK]

*************
Micheal Alexander has left a new comment on your post "[KDD 2015] MEDIator: A Data Sharing Synchronizatio...":

Great blog. All posts have something to learn. Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts [GARBAGE-LINK]

*************
seo seller has left a new comment on your post "Fake reviews and Amazon.com":

[GARBAGE-LINK] These you will then see the most important thing, the application provides you a website a powerful important internet page: [GARBAGE-LINK]

^^ OK, this dude is greedy. He has added 2 garbage links.

*************

Shehab has left a new comment on your post "Is Freelancer.com a Scam?":

You are very articulate and explain your ideas and opinions clearly leaving no room for miscommunication.
Please Kindly check My web: [GARBAGE-LINK]

*************

peaker.com has left a new comment on your post "Is Freelancer.com a Scam?":

You are very articulate and explain your ideas and opinions clearly leaving no room for miscommunication.Please Kindly check My web: [GARBAGE-LINK]


*************

Unknown has left a new comment on your post "Is Freelancer.com a Scam?":


[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

[GARBAGE-LINK]

^^ OK, this is most definitely a bot, a stupid one. It has added 8 garbage links and only those.

*************

Arrow Estates LLC has left a new comment on your post "Is Freelancer.com a Scam?":

[GARBAGE-LINK] GARBAGE-COMPANY provides real estate solutions to homeowners that want to sell fast without paying any extra realtor fees.


^^ Some spams at least try to praise my post in a generic manner before throwing their irrelevant garbage link. This comment comes directly to elaborate its garbage company following the garbage link.

*************






Friday, February 23, 2018

Twitter bots, trolls, fakes, parodies, and anonymous

Twitter indeed has numerous bots. But not every weird account that you encounter on Twitter is a bot. There is a clear difference among the bots, trolls, and fakes, though often the demarcation is vague.

First, a bot is not necessarily bad, though often bots are deployed with malicious intent, such as distributing propaganda and making viral content out of useless posts. Twitter bots are an economic model, with companies such as Devumi selling them to like, retweet, comment, and share your posts automatically for a price. 
 
I had two bots Llovizna and @on_my_way_home to tweet every time I post something to my blog. I stopped these accounts and their posts in 2016. I could have made these automated posts directly to my main Twitter account Pradeeban. In 2009, I chose to create proxy accounts to tweet my blog posts to keep my Twitter account under my entire control, with no automation.

People often confuse a bot with a fake account and an anonymous account. An anonymous account is usually genuine. It hides the real identity of the user but does not try to create an alter-ego or another personality for the human behind the user. An anonymous account may have 0 to 100% of identification information of the user. On the other hand, a fake account is intended to misrepresent someone. If I create an account with no information at all to post on sensitive topics, that is an anonymous account. On the other hand, if I pretend to be a princess from Sweden in my Twitter profile, that is a fake account. 

Some fake accounts acknowledge they are fake, and often function with a touch of humor, faking the identity of a known person, such as politicians, leaders, and actors. They are parodies, as long as they acknowledge this in their profile, so as not to mislead an unsuspecting follower.

A bot account is still a complete account. By logging into the account, a human still can post tweets as in a regular account. However, usually interacting with a bot account is fruitless.

Trolls can be a regular account, though more often than not they are fakes, parodies, or anonymous accounts, as the repercussions of being a troll are imminent in the current sensitive world. It is often advised not to involve the trolls, as the more you interact with someone over the Twitter in their timeline, more visibility they get.

I have seen arguments on Twitter, where a verified user or a user with several followers discrediting the other party by their number of followers. "She got only 50 followers. She must be a bot" or "He got only 30 followers. He must be fake". These arguments are flawed for several reasons. First, if someone is making an intelligent communication, it is (still) not possible to be a bot. Second, you cannot judge a person fake by their number of followers. The person can just be someone who is busy with their real life than harvesting Twitter followers in a shady practice followed by many popular and verified accounts (more on this in my previous post, Twitter is inherently flawed and unfair - and "Influencers" are ruining it).

I also noticed that those who use the "number of followers" as a measure to judge the validity of someone's tweets are the ones that pay for fake/bot followers, or use the shady practice of "follow and unfollow after a follow back" used by accounts such as and

Twitter bots are not necessarily bad. They do some specific useful tasks, such as creating news syndicates and reporting weather alerts. Therefore, disabling the potential for bots is not a good idea. However, it may be a good middle ground if Twitter makes it mandatory for the bot creators to explicitly identify and acknowledge them as bots and offer to identify information to the creator. Such restrictions are already in place for parody accounts - you must self-identify your account as a parody if you are impersonating someone (usually a famous person). Otherwise, your account may be terminated by Twitter. We need similar measures to bots to ensure ethical use of bots.

Fake accounts can be entirely fictitious or imitate a real living person to some degree such as using someone else's identity or photo. Fake accounts are often harmful and are malicious in intent (for example, consider someone faking as a minor/child, or someone faking as a racial or sexual minority to make a political statement). They need to be controlled too. Twitter needs to improve a lot. Their workflow is flawed. Their verification program is broken and harmful. I still appreciate the simplicity of Twitter, despite its shortcomings. It is always an excellent platform to share your thoughts publicly, even if no one is listening.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Twitter is inherently flawed and unfair - and "Influencers" are ruining it

Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook are a few of the social media platforms that are frequented by the "Influencers." LinkedIn and Facebook have a more balanced approach than Twitter and Instagram. I am not a user of Instagram. So I will limit my focus to Twitter now.

Twitter is very light-weight. Anyone can join, in several capacities. This lead to companies such as Devumi selling fake followers - followers created with the help of bot applications in a significant amount.

Twitter, knowingly or unknowingly, has created a class hierarchy with its verification program. Any journalist, a public-facing person, an author, or an "influencer" can become verified, proving a significance or importance. All these definitions fall into a million shades of gray. 

Twitter intentionally has kept its platform with minimalist features. For example, you do not even know who unfollows. This is similar to Facebook. However, Facebook unfriend is different as it is two-way. When someone unfriends you, they also lose you. This is not the case for Twitter. You would not believe how many verified Twitter users with blue/white ticks follow you, and later unfollow you once you have followed them back. Many of us have blogged about this before. There are tools such as Fanbase that automates this ill practice, making it even easier.

For example -  see this amazing post by Matt Navarra: Twitter is being spoiled by one type of user

Consider a case you receive a follow from two of these Twitter users:
User A with "10 following and 20 followers."
User B with "5,000 following and 1.25 Million followers."

Who would you follow back?
If you are an innocent Twitter user such as the below kid, you will follow back the user B. After all, B has 1.25 Million followers, and he has chosen to follow you first. Such a humble person!

Fig 1. The innocent kid was followed by an "influencer" author with fame and money in his mind.

But you know what? He/she would unfollow you within a period (anywhere between a week, to a few months), once you have followed them back. Of course, they would unfollow you even if you did not follow them back - but that is fairer relatively.

This is more of a numbers game - the same play by the pickup artists (PUA). Follow 1000 users every day. 100 will follow back. Repeat. At some point, you will have anywhere around 10,000 - 1 million followers. Now you can continue your following game. But at the same, keep unfollowing at intervals. As you reach thousands of followers, the naive users will follow you back more when you follow them first. No one really notices that you unfollowed anyway.

Unfortunately, Twitter does not alert the unsuspecting Twitter user when someone unfollows. Of course, there are applications such as Tweepmaps. But not many are aware of it. Even those who are aware of it, do not know the economics behind this numbers game.

Jeff Emmerson, followed me when he had just 5000 followers. He continued his follow-and-unfollow loop to harvest 1.25 million followers, while "following" only a few thousands at any time. In Figure 1, he followed the kid first. The kid followed him back. But as usual, our Jeff Emmerson unfollowed the kid later.
Fig 2. How to become an "Influencer."

Anyone would question me. Why does this matter? Am I looking into a silly thing? Who cares - who follows me and unfollows me? Right? Wrong.

This is a power play and economics. Someone such as Jeff Emmerson who authored a book needs to show that he is indeed an influencer. When he followed me and around 9 of my connections, we followed him back since he looked genuine. But he was just promoting his upcoming book (probably his biography with some fiction. Did not read it). Then he also started to promote other brands. Each such promotional tweets with 1 million followers can be as expensive as 2,000 - 20,000 Euro! This is real money. You are just a number in this pool.

Fig 3. One of the advertisements, among many, for the same brand.

When I politely questioned Jeff Emmerson on this, all he did was just blocking me. Interestingly, I found at least another user having experienced the same!

Fig 4. Blocked by someone claiming to be a "mental health advocate!"
It is plain wrong. Someone claiming to be a mental health champion follows people with interest in mental health. Those posts on Twitter on tags such as #depression #mental #health #adhd #bipolar. Then unfollows them after they follow back. Very helpful, dear verified influencing best-selling author!

Well. To be fair, Jeff is not the only "influencer" that follow this pathetic Twitter loop. I found many. . did the same thing and blocked me when I found this.

CamMi Pham () is another interesting case. She followed me. I followed her back. She unfollowed me in a day or two! I unfollowed her back. She followed me back in a month or so. (It is hard to forget these people with the same profile picture and verification). :) Giving the benefit of doubt, I followed her back. She unfollowed me again within a week or so. I unfollowed her again, confirming that she indeed is a Twitter parasite. Guess what? She followed me again after some time. I did not follow-back. She unfollowed soon after. She did not follow me again yet. :P Interestingly, the Twitter community has indeed noticed her tactics - and a hashtag has appeared to call her out on this shady practice.


Fig 5. CamMi Pham, the one who spams you with frequent follow-unfollow
As you see above, I am not the only one spammed by CamMi Pham's frequent follow-and-unfollow loops. :D

Fig 6. Some replies to CamMiPham

As you can see above in the replies, you can see some identifying her tactics of "bait and switch" or "follow to unfollow." However, Twitter hides these negative replies under "More replies" tag where they show up only if you click, once the profile owner (i.e., CamMiPham) hides them. So this works in favor of the owner of the profile.
Some other individuals following this shady practice are listed below. There are many. I did not trace everyone:


is not really an "influencer" per se. but a company with the same shady practice.
Twitter is taking notice of fake accounts and trying to shut them down. However, it does not seem to take any action against those who use the bots or manual malpractices to increase their follower count unethically. Even Twitter accounts such as Amitabh Bachchan, the most popular Bollywood actor, care about their follower count! :D

Fig 7. The Bollywood Veteran is not so happy about the loss of followers.
I asked myself, why would someone need to unfollow. Why can't they just follow people and keep following those accounts? At least, keep following the accounts that followed you back. Isn't that more ethical? After all, they did not know you before YOU followed them first. I found the answer from CamMi Pham's promotional webinar material.
Fig 8. The secret sauce of becoming an "influencer."
"Twitter followers:  963K.  Instagram followers:  66.5K.  That merely touches the iceberg of CamMI Pham’s global fan base.  How did she do it?  Join us Wednesday, February 7 from 11:00 a.m. Central time until 12:00 p.m. (noon) Central Time and listen to CamMI talk about “Dare to Be Bold!"

This is her business. She lives out of this. It is essential to show that she has a million followers - as in an idol.
Madonna has 2 million followers when she follows less than 50 accounts. Everyone knows and adores Madonna. But is that the case with these unknown "influencers"? These unknown influencers also want to be Madonna. So they must unfollow, even those accounts they followed first. It is also like the restaurants in the touristic area. It is a known scam. In some places, they populate the shop with their friends to look popular. Once you look popular, more crowd will follow. "Fake it till you make it," they say.

Regardless of several complaints, Twitter does not seem to improve at all. Just the way fake reviews ruin websites such as TripAdvisor, these influencers continue to ruin Twitter for everyone. I might consider leaving Twitter. But it still remains as the ideal platform to complain about a company or a politician. So for now, we have to live with Twitter, though it sucks. I am of course tracking these "influencers" in Twitter itself.

In summary, next time if a "popular" user follows you out of nowhere, remember that they are just adding you to their affiliate marketing pool. No need to follow them back unless you know them already, or if you think their tweets are valuable to you.

Monday, October 23, 2017

Where the "textbook-marketers" went wrong

Repeating identical emails and mail even after unsubscribe
All over LinkedIn and Twitter, I hear how you should never give up as a sales/marketing person. Didn't you hear back from the first email? Do not give up. Send a follow-up email. Better, send a Twitter message. Send one more reminder next day. Keep posting. Someone was bragging in LinkedIn how their 11th email got a positive response. What is the morale of the story? Never give up. Wrong.

You guys spam everyone. Our attention span is limited, and mailboxes are flooded with messages. But when you decide to spam my university email with useless advertisements on a daily basis, that is not right. That just makes me lose trust (if I had any, previously) on you.

One example was a predatory book publishing company. They had the liberty to subscribe me to their mailing list around one month ago. After receiving 9 emails in ~30 days (they were the most frequent mail sender to my university email address last month), I finally unsubscribed yesterday from their mailing list that I never subscribed myself in the first place. I got the email "You are unsubscribed." Everything is fine now; right? No. I got another email (a regular daily one) from them reminding me that they are waiting for my response for one of their offer?!. So that is the 11th email. It seems I have no way out. Today morning I sent them a personalized email asking them to unsubscribe me. Also left them a twitter message. Let's see how long this spam game goes. (Update: They sent me a well-written email apologizing for this. I hope this is resolved. Let's see. :))

In short, if you are an entrepreneur and have an excellent idea, and decided to send me a message, that is fine. Don't send me 11 messages just because I may reply positively to your 12th message. Remember, we are spammed by millions of such offers every day. If I am interested in your offer, I would have replied to your first email itself. Also, given that my unsubscribe request and my personalized email to unsubscribe me from their list were ignored, I am not even sure whether they will take me seriously even if I send an email mentioning "I am interested." Maybe they will. They are programmed to read only positive emails, probably. Never mind. Now, let's get back to real work.

Friday, October 20, 2017

How to end up in everyone's spam folder

Many companies are apparently under the belief that they may purchase email addresses in bulk from those who cultivate a lot of addresses to resell (this may include your electricity company or insurance company). This is how I am signed up into weird mailing list without my consent. I have to each time manually sign out of each of these weird marketing lists. Every time I unsubscribe from these spam, I make sure to report it as Spam in Gmail filters. The Gmail God will eventually make sure to send email from these senders directly to spam folder, if everyone follows what I do. Please, if I want, I will subscribe myself to your email list. It was never helpful that you do this on behalf of me, without even asking me. 

Worse, many of these spammers do not even have an easy option to unsubscribe. The ideal example is Roomster. A scam room-sharing company which creates fake profiles with beautiful profile pictures, and then send you an email asking to share the room with you. The girl who wants to share her room with you may not even live in your continent. To reply (and in some cases, even to view) these messages, you need to pay some money (as high as 3 - 5$) or go for an even higher monthly subscription. Funny part is, if you want to unsubscribe from the mailing list of this scam company Roomster, first you need to log in to your Facebook and open your Roomster account (it will auto-create if it does not exist yet), to unsubscribe from the emails or to delete your account. It was so complex that I did not unsubscribe for a few months despite loothing this scam/spam web site. 

Remember kids, there are many reports that once they get hold of your credit card, they will charge you for 3 months or so, without you even asking. Stay away from Roomster. Thank me later.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Predatory Recruiters and Where to Find Them

You may have seen many of those posts in LinkedIn with 1000s of likes: "Pls like this post if you are available to start working in Dubai, Doha, Singapore, and Abu Dhabi". These posts usually serve the purpose to increase the views and rankings of the recruiter. On the other hand, some of these posts are indeed partially genuine. They create a farm of potential recruits for the recruiter, to whom the recruiter will later send a mass email collecting CVs and personal information for a job that may or may not be relevant. Some of these jobs may not even exist.

I was recently contacted by a recruiter (Let's call him Tim) from such a predatory HR startup called ProvidePeople on the pretense of a job in an open source company, through LinkedIn. He sent me a connection request (by that time he was a 2nd-degree connection). He then messaged me to email him my CV. He referred to me as "Ganesh". This was the first warning that he was copy-pasting to a mass list. I was reluctant to reply to an email that was not even addressing my name properly. But he reminded me again. So I replied later.

Followed by that, he started asking personal questions such as "Current and expected salary, visa status". Further, he sent a coding challenge (or requested to share a link to a public code). I chose the latter. His SMS-style language ("u" instead of "you", no proper capitalization. Are we talking in SMS?) was the second warning. I did not pay too much attention to these warnings.


After a day or two, he replied that the company found that my CV does not have their required experience. I reminded him that it would be more appropriate to send the CV first and then find more personal information. He vigorously defended his stance, and CC'd the "co-founder" of his company so that the co-founder can support him. Interestingly the co-founder never replied to my email, defending his employee. Probably the co-founder is busy, fishing for the product (i.e., potential employees).

Part of the email communications are given below (omitting personal information):

Tim says:
[Quote]
Thank you…

What is your

Current salary:
Desired Salary:
Notice Period:
Visa Status:

Cheers
 
[/Quote]
---------------------------------------------

I shared with him in detail the notice period and visa status, though I explained to him why it is not relevant to discuss the salary right now.

I later indicated him:

[Quote]
A piece of suggestion: Pls consult the employer next time on getting the first reply before asking personal questions such as
Current salary:
Desired Salary:

Notice Period:
Visa Status:
These questions can be left  a later stage. Especially the salary details can be left to the final stages of the interview.

It wastes both of our time and invades my privacy unnecessarily. It did not reflect well on Provide. I will share my feedback with Provide later on this aspect.

Regards,
Pradeeban.

[/Quote]

----------------------------------------------------

Tim replies back sooner.


[Quote]

Hi Pradeeban,

Thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately, I must whole heartedly disagree with:
These questions can be left at a latter stage. Specially the salary details can be left to the final stages of the interview”. We need to know this information prior to submitting your CV… this is basic information all clients ask for prior to submission, it is part of our SLA agreement. It saves wasting time with potential candidates who’s salaries not online with client budgets budgets, have maybe inflated salary expectations, visa issues that we cannot support or too long a notice period if we need a hire to start within a month.

This might be the difference between the research and commercial worlds, but the R&D organizations I work for also request this basic information upfront. Image investing 4 hours of you time in interviews, just to get to the final stages and realise the salary we have is too low for you? For a client also, that could be up to 11 man hours wasted in interviews.

I have cc’d one of our founders, ***** ******,  into the email so you can talk openly. I am sure he will voice a similar stance to myself.

Kindest Regards
[/Quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------

I reply back now addressing the "co-founder". Let's call him Stephan:

[Quote]

Hi Stephan,
Probably Tim misunderstood or misrepresented my comment (that is in the email).

"These questions can be left at a latter stage"
A quick overlook of the CV to find the match requires just 2 minutes, specially for a rejection. You may ask further personal questions when there is a match based on CV, and when the employer showed the first interest (as in, "the CV looks good. I need more information").

The same can be mentioned about asking to do the coding challenge (defer it after to the first reply from the employer. I did not do the coding challenge. I just shared a link to my work. But if someone did a coding challenge before the CV screening, this is a waste of time for the prospective employee. I estimate it may take up to an hour for this coding challenge).

I stand by my stance on asking the salary details early on is a no-no. It should be left to the employer. It is better if the employer is transparent on potential offering instead. It is a win - win. But that is a separate topic/discussion.

I have interviewed myself candidates for junior roles for my previous employers in the US and Sri Lanka. Also in my experience, I had zero instance where a recruiter (those who represent companies and research labs) asked for my salary and visa details when the CV is not even shared with the employer. This is somewhat a predatory practice.

I would rather prefer if you contact the potential employees with more personal questions when there is some interest and match from the employer's perspective. But if this is your business model, I have no say on that.
But feel free to reflect upon these comments during an internal discussion.

Regards,
Pradeeban.
[/Quote]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No replies from Stephan. Probably Stephan's email address is not even valid. Or may be he does not care about us - we are his product. His customers are the employers.

What is next? Provide People and similar companies will ask questions such as "Are you pregnant? Do you have any life-challenging diseases?" to help the companies weed out these "anomalies" earlier?
It is not just me. Someone else has observed that Providepeople.com are scammers/spammers and included them in a spam list. These are predatory companies that discriminate based on nationality, gender, and sexuality, I learned later. Meaningless expect fairness from them, although they may be functioning borderline illegal and outright immoral in their predatory/shady hiring practices. Online reviews mentioned mandatory 8 am - 6 pm work hours. We are in a weird situation where employees are brain-washed to believe their founders. I believe Tim is one of them who "must whole heartedly disagree with" me.