Tell HN: Banned from LinkedIn for Reporting Wickr Drug Spam
I read about this on my LinkedIn feed then decided to search for "Wickr" there to see who else was talking about this. The search returned dozens of spam messages offering drugs in Asia and the US with information to contact on Wickr for price.
I reported these drug spam posts to LinkedIn - which is supposedly an anonymous report.
Next day I got a flood of reports on my own comments (nothing to do with that topic), so many I didn't bother to appeal as I had other things to do. Few hours later my account was down.
Seems that for retaliation the drug network decided to find me out and use their accounts to subvert LinkedIn's policy and ensure I can't stop their spam. They have new spam up now while my account is gone.
No good deed goes unpunished I guess.
258 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 292 ms ] threadIf you have a sufficiently popular CRUD, and you don't go our of your way to stop them, bad actors will leverage it to do crimes. It's that simple.
It's pretty interesting actually, on facebook you see people show off a manufactured persona that is always laughing, on vacation in exotic or glammy places, and on LinkedIn it's the exact same phenomena but the success indicators are different.
I'm still a bit clueless on the whole LinkedIn influencer thing though. Is there some monetary gain from that? I don't think they have the same possibilities for eg ad space or sponsorship as eg youtube or blog influencers, so perhaps it's more a personal vanity thing, or selling books and courses.
</rambling>
Some people seem to be advertising their coaching services (for example: by targeting people looking for jobs), some are trying to advertise themselves professionally (lots of people showing Microsoft/Oracle/AWS certificates and writing articles about it), some are trying to advertise themselves as industry leaders so they can advance internally in their company, some are trying to build a network they can recruit from, and some are just misguided and are trying to replicate what they see on other networks.
I guess that's why content is all over the place.
I think that people who are "active" on LinkedIn rank higher in searches & suggestions, so the feel-good shitposts might be a way to improve their "SEO" if they rely on LinkedIn to find leads (recruiters, etc).
Every day some one on my twitter timeline will retweet a "10x your biz on linkedin" - reading them makes me reconsider if intelligent life exists on this planet.
Though these could be honeypots or straight up scams
People shouldn't forget that they used to scrape your contacts from your email account through some sneaky user flow that got you to give them your email password.
Context: https://medium.com/@danrschlosser/linkedin-dark-patterns-3ae...
As soon as Linkedin knows I switched companies I start receiving a deluge of spam on "guessed" emails (first_name@company.com, first_name.last_name@company.com).
1. Either LinkedIn is hacked by drug mafia 2. Or drug mafia has people inside LinkedIn
But first thing - you should share you full report that you've sent to LinkedIn. You don't risk outing yourself - since mafia already knows your account.
If you let other people see that you viewed their profile then LinkedIn will let you see who viewed your profile.
So yeah your theory seems most likely unless OP had Private Mode turned on for his profile (then they wouldn't be able to see that he saw their profile regardless of whether or not they have LinkedIn Pro).
Shortly after putting in for it, my linkedin reported I had a visit from a "Law Enforcement professional from the Washington-Baltimore area", which I thought was amusing.
And they'll be arrested?
Maybe you can prove them in person it is not your account, but that mean you would have to get a real visa not an ESTA.
Not if the viewer has Private Mode on. Having Private Mode off for yourself is not sufficient to see who viewed your profile.
This Linux journal article talks about how we are losing our freedom of expression and one of these areas are the war on hyperlinks: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/whats-our-next-fight
Support social networking sites that don't try to lock you into there ecosystem by making communication less free.
Like you, I'd thought I had a good run without it.
More recently, I noticed that some of the people who were way junior to me earlier in my career, are way ahead of me because they were strategically switching jobs every 1-2 years. After speaking to some of them, the common factor turned out to be LinkedIn, and I begrudgingly rejoined it in January.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_LinkedIn_hack
I just recently got a new job that I think it's pretty good, and I didn't have to submit a single "blind" application. All of my interviews came through recruiters via Linkedin.
It's a relatively low effort way to have a steady flow of opportunities, one of which might turn out to be good once in a while.
I do very actively maintain my linkedin page, but honestly I got all of my jobs by personally reaching out to companies where I want to work (through their own website).
As such, I wonder if this is correlation vs causation: people are really eager to advance their career might want to keep all options open, including linkedin, regardless of whether it has actually helped them in their career so far.
Are you easily doxable ?
He'll be fine.
And the part that sucks is clearly the retaliation from whoever it was.
No, it's not a shame. Mocking someone because their wording is imprecise is a bit shameful, though. Also against the HN guidelines. You can do better.
(You can just respond “no”)
I haven’t expressed any opinion about drug advertisements at all, in any way. It’s a bit of a bummer that my poking fun at a (from my perspective as an adult) misguided naive spammer is seen as the same thing as supporting crime.
Serious question: Is everybody that would consider this individual, for example, a “fucking idiot that got predictably banned” also a supporter of crime?
(You can just respond “yes”)
In either way, I think you have it all backward, maybe intentionally.
Op did spam fighting. And was banned for it. (Or is LinkedIn nowdays a market plattform for drugs?)
But what your point actually is, is not entirely clear to me. But it is not close to arguing in good faith, which would be the style of discussion I prefer around here.
Sorry that “trolling” means “disagreeing with me” that must suck. Thankfully that’s not an issue I have.
Why is it so important that we elevate the experience of a person that objectively used linkedin wrong and was kicked out? What do you get out of maintaining your position and siding with the backseat modding? Are you looking for modding work?
I was actually just trying to give you an advice, maybe for self reflexion, to help you understand, why your posts are not welcome here. You are free to decline that advice and I do not feel responsible for you and have actually other things to deal with.
There are certain groups of users that you generally _HAVE_ to ban for a functioning community. Spammers, scammers, criminals, nazis and… so as to not offend you, “people that apparently lack fundamental understanding of, well, anything”
This last group is often the worst group to deal with because while they’re not directly harming the community they are sucking up your time that could be spent banning pedophiles or identity thieves or drug dealers. They often suck up an immense amount of time by filling up your reports queue and are sure that their issue deserves your immediate attention, and if you don’t drop what you’re doing and address their issues instantly, they complain. This means you have to take more time away from moderating to field emails in addition to de-cluttering your queue.
It is absolutely crucial to ban these types of spammers, otherwise you can’t do anything productive. Generally this type of ban is temporary unless the self-appointed mod is particularly egregious.
And then there is a subset of these people: let’s call them “crusaders.” This group will make as much noise as possible offsite in order to Own The Mods. They might even invent a conspiracy theory about a shadowy underground group that has it out for them.
OP could have reported one account and included a note saying “this phenomenon is happening when you search this keyword.” They did not do that. They decided to tackle the issue themselves. When their mod queue spam got them banned, they whined as publicly as possible, which takes up even more time that could’ve been spent actually removing drug dealers.
The inclusion of “illegal imagery” in the complaint was factually wrong, and since moderators have to deal with a LOT of reports, it absolutely makes sense why this was ignored. When you say “illegal imagery”, in some cases that means child pornography or state secrets or any number of things that are meaningful to somebody whose job it is to moderate content.
So to summarize: I am certainly not the only person to consider this person a “fucking idiot”, I’m just the only one that said that on here.
You so far called the OP of this thread (who is a member here), "rando spammer", "misguided", "naive" and "fucking idiot". Considering that that it seems even a Microsoft employee offered support to him, it seems that you're alone in your opinion. Also please take some time to self reflect that maybe those adjectives you used apply to you instead.
Edit: Also, food for thought: I genuinely did not know you could buy drugs through linkedin. In the OP’s complaint I’ve been informed of what website to go to, what app to install, and what search terms I should use to get into contact with drug dealers.
Should the OP be reported for illegal speech or is that just relegated to jpegs?
I don't care about your cuckoo fantasy theories and nobody else does. You're out of your depth and out of your mind if you think any of your ideas make sense.
So, stop the trolling and stop trying to save face.
Edit: I don’t really understand the position of “you said a swear word so I will fundamentally disagree with your underlying point.”
If the OP has said fuck or piss or shit while describing their experience of being the victim of a criminal conspiracy, would your position on this matter reflect mine?
Thank you for your unsolicited advice, but I implore you to provide your (very simple) solicited opinion from the first sentence of this post. Namaste.
About the last paragraph: I don't care about what you think or if anything I say is solicited by you or not.
I understand that your interest is strictly and solely on policing my language. Good job “catching” me being publicly rude! I almost got away with it!
It is genuinely a bummer that you refuse to address the actual topic of this thread, namely the conspiracy to ban somebody from linkedin!
I explained it to you in my message. You're clearly having trouble understanding other people on this website, since OP's post is not about his complaints, like you insist, but rather his account. So I'd suggest maybe quit the mockery since you're not looking too smart yourself.
Illegal can definitely mean different things in the context of images: illegal to possess (child pornography), illegal to copy (some documents) or illegal to be an advertisement (drugs).
EDIT: I don't give a damn about "LinkedIn moderators" or "drug advertisement" and nowhere did I indicate I care enough to have a discussion about this. I literally couldn't care less about this subject or what you think about it.
My response was "I'm not on LinkedIn."
edit: part of it in my rationale is "being nice" but yeah I mostly use LinkedIn to get a job
edit: ratio is about 25% recruiters
was interesting though I recently accepted a new role and out of the 30+ talks in a month about 95%+ were LinkedIn. The conversion for me was 10% actual interview phase, then where I actually got a job was Hired. -- some jobs wrong tech or I was not qualified for
I'm sure a GAN picture that looked like a strong team member with a close-but-not-the-same name and lots of connections to people I knew well would fool me.
Also, the cost to me incorrectly friending such a person is much lower than missing a strong hire or new job opportunity.
Edit: Also, as someone hiring, you can't even reasonably ban people for this stuff. Some crappy recruiter database integration startup occasionally merges me with a coworoker, then spams out the fake profile. I've had my own company try to poach me before.
[1] https://threatpost.com/linkedin-intro-app-equivalent-to-man-...
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/the-incredible...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Socialist
(Ie just the messaging part)
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc (Report an Issue)
1. compromised in the spy movie sense of them voluntarily passing information to the scammers (potentially for money)
2. compromised in the IT security sense of their accounts or computers having been hacked
3. some superset of 1. and 2.
Insider threat is still a significant concern to companies, and were one representing Microsoft one might want to at least take a peek at what happened and make sure nothing untoward is occurring.
Standard Disclaimers apply. I am not a Microsofty, nor do I play one on TV. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear.
Physical security was long ago solved by pre-20th century tech like locks and security guards. No, it was always a trusted insider. There's no reason to assume that is any different with social media companies.
It’s not just in the movies.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/a-closer-look-at-the-lap...
> Microsoft says LAPSUS$ — which it boringly calls “DEV-0537” — mostly gains illicit access to targets via “social engineering.” This involves bribing or tricking employees at the target organization or at its myriad partners, such as customer support call centers and help desks.
> “Microsoft found instances where the group successfully gained access to target organizations through recruited employees (or employees of their suppliers or business partners),” Microsoft wrote.
Or people they unknowingly hired?
Small distinction?
Network directly with engineers where they spend time online. Not recruiters in purpose built HR portals.
Where would that be? I wouldn't recommend HN for networking purposes.
Some like to complain about projects using Slack or Discord because they’re not open and can’t be archived publicly but really who is pulling value from old IRC logs today? Nostalgic lizard brain is all that is.
When projects use Slack or Discord (or, for that matter, IRC) as their primary support channel it becomes a lot more painful to search online for solutions to problems.
Thanks, I guess, for suggesting I keep a perspective I already had in mind (as evidenced by the constrained choice of words).
I see a lot of useless posts end up on my feed - self congratulations and a lot of what equates to a press release for some product - but those have to target a user base of some kind that isn't there to just do that or it ends up being bots talking to bots (effectively), which is arguably bad for the company (e.g. bad for their valuation).
Seems like the largest userbase are mid-career white collar workers, even if they don't make up the majority (or even a plurality) of the public posts/interactions happening.
Similar to a gacha mobile game you need some minimum amount of userbase to create the environment where "whales" will be encouraged to engage with their money - in this case that's advertising revenue through sponsored posts and premium accounts.
One CEO I know mentioned they only hire recruiters for engineers. Other slots are filled in other ways. Some are with job posts, others might be with referrals.
Another mentioned that engineers are like gold. A valuable commodity that's mineable via a process, enough of a commodity that everyone agrees on value.
I very much minimize my time there, because it is the spammiest, clingiest "social" network I've tried. I abandoned Facebook too, but there is at least marginal usefulness on LI, so I log in periodically.
I'd say that those who engage most are either directly recruiting or marketing, or self-annointed "thought leaders". At least the recruiters are unashamed in their role there. I cringe most at the thought leader types who apply the term to themselves. Like "hacker" or "guru", the term should usually be given by other people.
Spending time reporting issues and care-taking Microsoft is a waste of time.
Don't bother doing things for Microsoft that Microsoft is perfectly capable of doing itself. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from solving problems like this themselves. They don't give a shit.
If Microsoft had not acquired LinkedIn in 2016, it might still be led by people whose lives depended on the health and integrity of the site. Microsoft effectively poisoned Linkedin.
I think after a social media network reaches X or XX number of million users, all users should have the right to appeal getting blocked / deleted / removed arbitration by an independent third party
A colleague was leaving, and I'd been asked to go around the team of 200 people, gathering farewell greetings. Another work project at the same time was the software language translations for our product.
I manually trimmed the list of 200 colleagues down to 70 "international" names. Then I manually searched for each colleague on Google, and clicked the first link. Usually that was Facebook or LinkedIn.
I manually viewed 55 LinkedIn profiles over the course of 2 hours, and copy-pasted out only their "spoken language" field.
LinkedIn proceeded to block my account. "Your account has violated the LinkedIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies. Due to the number and/or the severity of these violations, this account has been permanently restricted."
Politely explaining the situation to several customer service agents [Case: 211020-004202] didn't help. Had I been warned about viewing too many profiles too quickly, I'd certainly have slowed down! My actions weren't automated. I'd rather return to their online community and make this a learning experience, if possible.
Being unable to use LinkedIn may affect my future career prospects, but I feel powerless to change it at this stage.
It sounds insane, but I suspect what tripped their heuristic was not so much looking at a lot of profiles but not messsaging any of them within LinkedIn's messaging system, which is their use-case for making money (recruiter/journalist/hiring manager/etc.) So your browsing behavior appears to LI's heuristics either like a scraper or a legit user who isn't likely to convert into a paying customer, and they simply don't care which you are (whatever the TOS might allow).
I'm shocked LI's heuristics are that bad. I recommend you post your issue here (suitably anonymized) as a separate thread (link from here), and I expect it'll get upvoted.
So much for curated stores.
But In Brian Krebs' book he highlights the high quality of the drugs sold, and even the fact that big pharma investigated them expecting to bring people some scary stories, but they didn't find any. These pharmacies care about their customer's experience (of course they do, the want to sell you more).
And I will bet you, at any odds you like, that the harms done by heroin (uh, 'medical diamorphine') and other opioids outstrip the few virtuous uses a hundredfold.
[0] Perhaps second to the so-called dark web, though that serves a discovery purpose which is a bit orthogonal (and complementary) to Wickr.
Or, instead of buying stretched medication that can kill you, buy from somewhere like Costplusdrugs.
1 can be achieved by making it costly to break the rules. If new accounts have fees and privileges that accumulate over time (such as being able to post links, upload media, etc basically anything that is prone to abuse) then people will be less likely to break the rules since creating a new account will cost them money and time having to "level up" the new account before it can be useful again. This raises the cost of spamming dramatically and will often make it unprofitable.
Stack Exchange has a model of this where new accounts with little "reputation" can't do much and are heavily rate-limited & unable to post links/images and gaining reputation involves contributing to the community which makes spam significantly harder. The same "reputation" system is used to encourage people to moderate the community (in a way that requires input from multiple people & fully transparent, so misuse is hard and will be easily detected).
2 involves making money which means "growth & engagement" goes out the window and you need to charge for the service. Not being based on "growth & engagement" means you can also achieve 1 because you can now be selective with the kinds of people & content you accept.
> it's easy to get somebody on the inside to get to know the inner workings of the moderation process.
Knowing the process shouldn't be a problem. Ideally the process should already be public - aka the list of "rules" one should abide by when joining the community.
This is a non-problem that forums from back in the day managed to solve on a much lower (often zero) budget. It's only a problem when your business model is "growth & engagement".