Hey, I know Kit IRL. Fantastic guy, bit of a MtG nerd. He started really small, but it's been so cool to see him grow and people start copying his strategies. Good to see whitehats in the scam world.
MTG has been a stable acronym for years, way before some unpopular politician came to share that same three letters. I hope people continue to use the acronym for what it has been, and hopefully we can forget the horrible person that associates with it soon too.
I don’t mind scambaiting in theory and there’s a very long history here going back 20+ years - however, please bear in mind that often these scammers are also victims to trafficking and blackmail themselves, which is why they often come across as so desperate.
Don't care, screw them. If they are made ineffective at their jobs their bosses / slave masters might punish them, but inefficiency in the scamming industry also reduces the incentive to bring new people into it. Sucks for them, just like it sucks for the Russian soldiers drafted into the army when a drone drops a nade on their head. So sad, but I don't care.
Complex, systemic problems tend to require systemic solutions. Petty vigilante justice can make us feel good about ourselves but rarely makes much difference.
The podcast I linked in your other comment talks about a few potential avenues to help make real change, ranging from diplomatic pressure, to crypto regulation, to education.
I don't think Kitboga (or any of the other scambaiting people) would disagree with anything you're suggesting.
I agree that it's a systemic problem, and it is probably a job for regulators and maybe even the FBI/CIA.
I don't think any of these scambaiters are claiming that they're saving the world or "make much difference", but I think there can still be value in short-term solutions as well. It might take decades for politicians to actually solve the problem in a way that it needs to be, and in that time Kitboga wasting some time is making a small effect.
I would tend to agree if the stakes are small. But in this case, when you're dealing with human trafficking, there's a real chance their actions make the scenario much worse while being veiled in self-righteousness.
I guess what I take issue with is that you keep claiming that it's making the situation worse...How? In the short term what are the alternatives? Let the scammers keep trying to rip people off, with some level of success?
There's a couple things we need to agree on to get there.
1) A lot of this industry is based on human trafficking. I've linked elsewhere to a good podcast that explains this and others have chimed in with other references.
2) By wasting the scammer's time, you are putting them at risk of abuse because of #1.
So if you can agree that "increasing the risk of human physical violence to live out some vigilante sense of justice" is worse than "not," it leads to worse outcomes for disproportionately little net gain.
Edit: (sorry, I was actually editing this as you were already posting. I had already answered this in multiple other comments, so it was getting tiresome)
The UN is already working on diplomatic pressure in countries like Cambodia that seem to specialize in this sort of thing. Countries like China (where there are victims on both sides of the problem) have created movies [1], in part, to educate the populace. I'm not claiming there are any silver bullets, but I think the types of actions in the article are more about feeling like you're doing good than actually doing good. And it hits home because most of us have similar thoughts. It's a bit masturbatory in that regard, and I want to push back a bit on the idea that it's actually solving much of anything despite what our baser instincts are telling us.
You didn't actually answer the question. I'll agree with both points (though I take a bit of issue with the second with some of the wording), but you didn't suggest any short term solutions.
ETA:
I want to clarify, these people will have violence inflicted on them if they're not collecting money. If Kitboga is wasting their time, they're not collecting money. If they just get a bad shuffle and don't get anyone gullible for a few days, they're also not collecting money. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this.
My whole point has been regarding #1. There is some probability that the scammers get "a bad shuffle" and get abused. However, if you deliberately waste their time, you have just increased that probability to 100%. I'm claiming that makes things worse.
If your new question is how do we solve the human trafficking problem that undergirds this industry, I'm afraid I don't think there's "this one hack" that can solve that. But at least we don't have to make things worse in the short term.
Ok, but this is the point that I think we disagree; I would think that the "bad shuffle" is what we want? I think you would agree that grandmother spending her entire retirement on Google Play cards is a bad thing. Deliberately wasting their time guarantees that at least that scammer is not extracting money from some random person. I'm having trouble seeing how that's a bad thing; all these scambaiters are doing is kind of forcing the "bad shuffle".
I think I must be misunderstanding because it genuinely seems to be that you're suggesting that the best course of action is to just let people get scammed for hundreds of thousands of dollars until there is a systemic solution. A systemic solution can take years, maybe decades.
It reads that we are speaking past each other and I think the misunderstanding comes from your consistent reframing as the choice between two bad outcomes. I've already commented that dichotomous thinking isn't helpful. So, again, I don't think there are only two options: a) let someone get scammed and b) let someone get abused. I think that kind of thinking is incompatible with finding good solutions.
But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will. In a (falsely) dichotomously framed argument, there is a clear hierarchy. Physical safety trumps money. "My kingdom for a horse" and all that.
I think the best option for the person in TFA is to get proactively involved in providing systemic solutions. If they aren't up for that, the next best option is to ignore the calls. I wouldn't even put the "scam the scammers" in the same discussion because, as we'd talked about ad nauseam, it's not really a solution and probably antithetical to a solution because it potentially makes things worse. Again, at the very least, we can not make things worse. You seem to be advocating for the "making things worse" choice because you've constrained yourself to only two options and you already decided that one is unacceptable.
> But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will.
Ok, so there's actually a word for that, it's called "extortion". It's generally frowned upon.
You have repeated that it's a "false dichotomy" like seven times now, but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem. "Get involved in providing systemic solutions" is absurd; what the hell does that even mean? I vote for politicians that might do something about it? I write a letter to the UN? Ok, so that's great, maybe I make a change.org petition while I'm at it. Maybe in twenty years something will actually get done.
You also have not actually explained how things are "being made worse" by these scambaiters. I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused. It's very sad, I don't like them being abused, but what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted, and doesn't actually make any sense if taken to its logical extreme.
This will be my last reply because I've already responded to all those claims multiple times.
I think the gist is we fundamentally disagree about this point:
>"I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused."
So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth? Okay, I guess, but I find it hard to believe. As long as you value money over physical safety, we probably will disagree. (I suspect it has more to do with psychological distance than really feeling that way. If, instead of some abstract person in a third world country, it was a loved family member at risk, would it change your response?) So, in that context, along with rehashing the points I've already addressed, your responses come across as either someone who makes sport of arguing for its own sake, or you're just incapable of accepting information when it's provided.
E.g., >but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem.
In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"
>what the hell does that even mean?
I deliberately left it vague because it's up to you to decide what level of effort is reasonable given your value system. On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it. Even simply marking the call as spam is more reasonable IMO than actively increasing the risk of physical violence on someone being trafficked because it's of no consequence to you. There's plenty of wiggle room for each individual to figure out what works for them. Again, at the very least, I would argue they have a duty to not make things worse. Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree. There are many situations in life when doing nothing is the better option.
>what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted
The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction. In the short-term, it makes them feel good because of our innate bias toward a sense of justice, but once you get past that bubble it's worse overall (my claim, which you obvious disagree with, but haven't really explained why). There is a certain arrogance in it which effectively says, "I am so very very smart, I will outwit this scammer for the lolz" while being oblivious to the larger consequences. My entire point is that people need to be aware of the larger consequences and it's pretty clear the subject of TFA is not.
>if taken to its logical extreme.
This is exactly what people with dichotomous thinking do. By not recognizing any grey, you are constraining yourself to only two extreme choices.
I've explained why it does more harm. I've explained why it confuses what the real problem is. I've offered better options, both at the individual and nation-state level. There are some potentially reasonable philosophical reasons to disagree with those points, but you just bypass them like you never read them to begin with.
> So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth?
It's not analogous. Of course I'd hand my wallet over. The better analogy is asking if I would hand my wallet over to protect some stranger's teeth from being knocked out, and that's a "it depends" situation. I don't want to be extorted. It's not about the money.
I mean, there's a reason that DHS typically does not negotiate with terrorists; they don't want to create a system that incentivizes people to try and extort money out of them.
> In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"
That is not a solution. If we "ignore the scammer" like you suggested, they will be beaten in the same way because they are not extracting money. I already explained that and you decided it wasn't a point worth responding to. This is why I said you didn't actually provide a solution. You didn't really "explain" why it was preferential, you just asserted multiple times making vague allusions to the idea that somehow the scambaiters wasting time is going to lead to more violence than people ignoring the call.
> On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it.
That just sounds like even more vigilantism, and puts yourself in serious risk. The only thing that would make any sense is to get the authorities involved.
> The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction.
The "larger consequences" of what the extortionists do are beyond the scambaiters control.
What you suggested instead is to just lightly fund this extortionist operation, enough to keep them going so that they don't beat the trafficking victims as much, until the "systemic" solution comes out.
> Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree.
People commit suicide because of these scams. People have their entire lives ruined, and they will continue to have their lives ruined. It's not just money; they have their identities stolen, they're blackmailed, they're made destitute. The scambaiters wasting time isn't going to save the world, but it might prevent just one person from having their life ruined, that's a good thing, and it's better to not fund terrorists just because they threaten to hurt more people.
That is why I said what you were suggesting was ridiculous.
A scammer comes up to you and says "give me your wallet or my boss will knock out all my teeth." Do you give him your wallet, or tell him to fuck himself? It's your wallet so that's on you, but what you're suggesting throughout this discussion is that other people have a moral responsibility to reduce the harm suffered by the scammers. That's fucked up.
I'm suggesting that's the way grown-ups should act in a society, within limits. The main point that seems to get lost is that, globally, I'm saying the upside of this tactic is far outweighed by the downside. There's a weird abstraction that this discussion displays related to psychological distance that minimizes that downside. And, putting aside moral arguments because they can be debated forever, there is a legal concept related to proximate cause that somebody has a duty to avoid those actions if it is foreseeable that they would cause an injury. So while not legally applicable in a case that crosses borders, it is certainly an acceptable concept.
E.g., if you are on the phone negotiating with a kidnapper and I snatch the phone, tell the kidnapper to go fuck themselves and hangup, I'm probably liable for injuries to the victim.
> I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will.
That is tactical thinking as opposed to strategic thinking. What if 1000 beatings saved 10000 beatings and saved 100000 little old ladies from being scammed out of thousands of dollars. Making the scam industry unprofitable is more important than making it profitable to avoid some violence. No matter what, someone has to sacrifice, why not sacrifice where the end goal eliminates the problem rather than exacerbates it?
>why not sacrifice where the end goal eliminates the problem rather than exacerbates it?
It doesn't eliminate the problem. Covered by others, but it's a collective action problem. The fact that a few people "scam the scammers" doesn't actually make the industry unprofitable. So unless you can get a tipping point where lots of people are willing to spend inordinate amounts of time "scamming the scammers" (you won't), it doesn't do anything to eliminate the problem, and probably makes things worse.
I don’t buy this argument…especially any speculation about it making it worse. I certainly don’t accept this notion that we “probably shouldn't scam bait and just let some people get monetarily victimized because some other person half a world away might be beaten by another”.
Someone evil enough to traffic and enslave another to scam grannies is not going to give less beatings if Kitboga stops what he is doing. These content producers are shining a light on these assholes, the more views they get the more the people see and can identify and convey the red flags to their loved ones to shrink the market of potential victims.
I think this is just rationalizing behavior (which humans are really, really good at), and it's exacerbated by the psychological distance from those who bear the actual cost. If you read through some of the discussion above, people are making the case that the consequences of scamming are worse than human trafficking. That's a really, really weird perspective and demonstrably false. There is no cosequence in scamming that doesn't have an correlary in human trafficking that is worse. Even as tragic as it is, a suicide driven by a scam is still less bad than a murder of a trafficked victim. The latter has less agency than the former. I would also argue that the probability is higher for those being trafficked. So if both the severity and the probability are higher, the risk is higher. That means people are trading a lower risk for a higher one. Why? I'd say it's because it's more about the gratifying feelings of self-righteousness of the act than actually improving anything. And that's a feeling deeply rooted in our evolutionary brain, so we will go to great ends to rationalize it. Humans are going to human, and we bring all kinds of weird biases that don't really make much sense upon inspection. Add a sprinkling of tribalism, and people get really weird about their justifications. (e.g., even though scambaiting is done under the guise of protecting a stranger from being scammed, people here still use the justification that protecting a stranger being trafficked is less valuable on account of them being a stranger)
> people are making the case that the consequences of scamming are worse than human trafficking
I’m not making that case, but I am sure a trafficking component doesn’t apply as much as being suggested here to the Kitboga, Pierogi, and Jim Browning videos considering where those scammers originate and the types of scams they are pulling. If you watch their videos, scammers are far too proud and smug about what they are doing even when called out. Even if they are forced, their joy and lack of concern for their victims make them complicit.
Also, I can certainly feel sorry for someone forced by another into that situation under threat, but that does not mean we shouldn’t protect those getting scammed under some altruistic assumption that the scammer on the other end of the line might be being forced to do this against their will, and might have violence perpetrated against them because their scam was thwarted.
In other words, I think it’s better to stop the evil you know is happening as opposed to ignoring and hoping your inaction somehow prevents an evil that you don’t know for sure is happening.
Sure, I get that. The major distinction in our views is my rating of severity. Because I weigh the human trafficking aspect as much more severe, that probability can be much less certain and still have a higher risk in my eyes. Again, risk = severity * probability. And I think it’s important to differentiate between the probability of someone trying to scam, and the probability of it working. It’s definitely a big problem, but not a commensurate risk IMO.
The word “might” is doing most of the heavy lifting in your argument. And I agree, there’s no certainty that someone will get beaten. The problem is you are only applying that to one side of the equation. There’s also no guarantee that someone will get scammed if you hang up. My contention is that when there is uncertainty on both sides, you should defer to the side with higher risk. So if you agree that the consequences of human trafficking carry greater risk than the consequences of scamming, it follows that you should err on the side of the person in bondage.
I would concede that if the probably between the two sides gets highly skewed, that could change. But nobody has made that argument (and I doubt they could given the lack of data)
Kitbogas antics also bring visibility to the problem. He gets millions of views, millions of people made aware of the problem and how the scammers operate. If not for efforts like this, the scammer problem would be far less visible not least because the victims often conceal their victimhood out of shame or unwillingness to believe they've been had.
Kitboga isn't committing any war crimes, so blow it out your ass. Reducing the number of grandmas being scammed absolutely justifies the """atrocity""" of wasting the time of scammers and hypothetically having them get punished by their bosses. The real problem here is you obviously have more sympathy for scammers than their victims. "Oh but the scammers are victims too..." Well you've got two groups of victims then; people who are pure victim and people who are simultaneously victim and criminal, and you favor the latter. You're wrong.
Do you have sources for those claims? It always seems like they're India nationals in India, which makes the claim around trafficking seem a little off?
the groups doing "tech support scams" are different from the ones doing instant message "romance" scams, which are again different from the individuals and groups doing email "Nigerian Prince" scams
But year, part of the reason the "tech support" and "phone upgrade" scams work so well is they're recruiting from literally the same demographic that the actual callcentres hire from. I'm sure some of the people have hard luck stories about being laid off from their original callcentre job or reasons for being desperate to make money fast, but in general I think they're more educated and employable than most of their fellow countrymen.
I agree that we shouldn't dehumanize them, and we should keep that in mind and not necessarily condemn the people Kitboga is actually talking to. It's easy to sit and judge someone comfortably from your cushy office job, and a lot of people aren't as lucky. Desperation is a horrible thing, and it becomes disturbingly easy to turn off your empathy when you feel things are otherwise hopeless.
That said, I think it's still ok for Kitboga to do it, simply because if they're talking to him, they're not screwing someone's grandparents out of their life savings. Whether or not he's talking to the person in charge or a victim of something absolutely horrible, they're still distracted from scamming someone else who might be more vulnerable.
Also, the people actually running the scam operations can go fuck themselves.
In the long run we want all these operations to fail. It’s sad that people will be hurt as these criminal bosses see their groups stop being able to steal, but it’s better than more people being recruited into them. That’s in addition to the good of preventing thefts.
The guy featured in this article is just part of the marketing arm of a bigger public awareness and enforcement trend that is (slowly) reducing demand, if you will, and making it easier to either find them or cut them off from communication services in the target country.
We're talking about something a bit broader than the article now. The article is just a fun personal interest story that ties into what I think is a more serious problem. Part of the reason NPR promotes Kitboga is to help its audience be more likely to ignore these calls. Awareness works in hand with coordinated Interpol investigations, FCC sanctions of networks routing excessive robocalls, and so on.
The article using catchy just-so writing doesn't mean it's the end of the bigger story.
I don't know where you got the idea that the NPR article contradicts this as an effective public policy/public safety approach, but I won't ask if you read it.
I appreciate the effort and support public awareness.
That said, and FWIW, the content of your documentation is NOT from the DOJ, but from a non-profit in coordination with the DOJ [from 2000 and targeting the National Youth Network]
The DOJ even goes on to disclaim ownership of the contents!
> Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, BJA, or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Still, I will stand by the contents. I'm surprised to have gotten so much pushback about the concept of public awareness being related to safety and lower crime, but it's been good to think about it some more. Stay safe.
Maybe. But this is not unlike the libertarian ideal of letting the economy crash in 2008. It can create a tremendous amount of short-to-medium term suffering based on the faith that the long term outcome will be better. I’m of the mind there are probably better solutions that mitigate a lot of that downside.
I mean, that's really sad, and of course I don't want people to get beaten, but is the only way to stop that to give into extortion and have grandma be ripped for for $10,000 in the form of Google Play cards?
It's deeply unfortunate that people have to go through that, but fundamentally I don't think we should be capitulating to extortionists. If we do that, we're effectively creating a market for threatening and hurting people.
This is displaying dichotomous thinking. I don’t think the only choices are a) waste their time with vigilante justice and let them be beaten/raped/killed and b) allow the extortion and scamming to continue by capitulating.
I've already stated it elsewhere in this thread, but there are diplomatic, regulatory, and educational avenues that would probably be more impactful than a few dudes taking it upon themselves.
In my mind, it's not unlike the people who half-block a traffic lane when there's a merge upcoming. In their mind, I'm sure they think they're doing the Lord's work, and it scratches their itch for a sense of justice in an unjust world. In reality, it slows everyone down and makes the system worse. Giving into our human biases for seeking justice can often lead to worse outcomes.
I am very open to something else, I just don't know what it is. Obviously this is really the job of the authorities to deal with, but they are either unable or unwilling to fix the problem.
What are you actually suggesting here?
ETA:
I should point out that I really don't think what Kitboga does counts as "vigilantism" in the classic sense. He's not going out to directly do anything outside of wasting people's time and reporting bank account numbers to relevant authorities.
I'm just suggesting that the actions within the article make the situation worse rather than better. As you alluded to, there are other, more fruitful ways to attack this problem, usually related to systemic changes.
I do think his actions count as vigilantism since that term is applied to actions explicitly intended to prevent crimes. From TFA "those who aim to waste scammers' time otherwise spent ripping off innocent victims."
Sure, no argument with this: it would way better to get authorities involved. I agree with your sibling comment that it would be probably fruitful to increase some of the regulations around crypto. In fact that would probably help with a lot of domestic crimes as well...
But just to kind of play devil's advocate; lets suppose we educate people about this stuff, and it's extremely successful, no grandpa is selling his house to buy Google Play cards because we were so good at communication. Wouldn't those same people get beaten (or worse) in the same way that you're suggesting with Kitboga?
>Wouldn't those same people get beaten (or worse) in the same way that you're suggesting with Kitboga?
I think this underscores the importance of looking at this systemically. It's easy to think this is just a story about phone scams. Looking at the bigger picture, though, it's really about human trafficking. To directly answer your question, if we were able to solve the root human trafficking issue that allows these criminal industries to be profitable, then we'd prevent those beatings in the first place. In fact, some people running these organizations are already looking at using AI to run the scams rather than humans. Under that scenario, your educational outreach would be a huge success, but it does require working at the root problem first.
I'm all for increasing education on this, and I do think that would have some value, though I'm not 100% sure what this would look like. My mother-in-law's husband has fallen for these gift card scams multiple times, losing thousands of dollars, even after I've tried showing him some obvious and less-obvious warning signs [1]. Some people are just really gullible, for whatever reason, and I'm not 100% sure that education will actually help them.
I actually don't think we disagree very much about the actual solution to the problem. This is definitely bigger than a few Youtubers making scambaiting videos. It's going to be a brave new world with AI voices getting better and better, and I think law enforcement agencies are going to be pretty proactive.
[1] e.g. the IRS will never ask for payments in gift cards or cryptocurrency, neither will the police, don't just let anyone connect to your computer with Teamviewer or Anydesk, if you're going to be arrested they probably aren't going to do it over the phone, etc.
Sorry, but it really isn't. "How do I handle a scam phone call?" has a number of options, regardless if you're viewing it as an individual or a society.
When I brought up dich0timous thinking, it was not in response to "no, that wouldn't change my mind" but rather "the only options are to capitulate to the scam or fight it in a way that puts someone else at risk".
There's a strange correlation between pedantry and dichotomous thinking in resarch literature. They are also over-indexed in STEM fields, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising when it's commonly encountered on this forum.
There is way too much joy, pleasure, and pride in the grift that I have seen in the Kitboga, Pierogi, and Jim Browning videos for me to worry or care too much about these folks being victims themselves. My bet is those folks are there by choice and are knowingly doing wrong. Screw them…even if they are doing wrong out of desperation, they are still doing wrong.
Already knew this would be about Kitboga before I even clicked the article.
The level of effort he invests to bait these scammers is equally admirable and hilarious. I'm particularly fond of the instances where he "redeems" gift cards right in front of the scammer's eyes.
72 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering
The podcast I linked in your other comment talks about a few potential avenues to help make real change, ranging from diplomatic pressure, to crypto regulation, to education.
I don't think any of these scambaiters are claiming that they're saving the world or "make much difference", but I think there can still be value in short-term solutions as well. It might take decades for politicians to actually solve the problem in a way that it needs to be, and in that time Kitboga wasting some time is making a small effect.
1) A lot of this industry is based on human trafficking. I've linked elsewhere to a good podcast that explains this and others have chimed in with other references.
2) By wasting the scammer's time, you are putting them at risk of abuse because of #1.
So if you can agree that "increasing the risk of human physical violence to live out some vigilante sense of justice" is worse than "not," it leads to worse outcomes for disproportionately little net gain.
Edit: (sorry, I was actually editing this as you were already posting. I had already answered this in multiple other comments, so it was getting tiresome)
The UN is already working on diplomatic pressure in countries like Cambodia that seem to specialize in this sort of thing. Countries like China (where there are victims on both sides of the problem) have created movies [1], in part, to educate the populace. I'm not claiming there are any silver bullets, but I think the types of actions in the article are more about feeling like you're doing good than actually doing good. And it hits home because most of us have similar thoughts. It's a bit masturbatory in that regard, and I want to push back a bit on the idea that it's actually solving much of anything despite what our baser instincts are telling us.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28076784/
ETA:
I want to clarify, these people will have violence inflicted on them if they're not collecting money. If Kitboga is wasting their time, they're not collecting money. If they just get a bad shuffle and don't get anyone gullible for a few days, they're also not collecting money. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this.
1) How do we not make things worse?
2) How do we solve the problem?
My whole point has been regarding #1. There is some probability that the scammers get "a bad shuffle" and get abused. However, if you deliberately waste their time, you have just increased that probability to 100%. I'm claiming that makes things worse.
If your new question is how do we solve the human trafficking problem that undergirds this industry, I'm afraid I don't think there's "this one hack" that can solve that. But at least we don't have to make things worse in the short term.
I think I must be misunderstanding because it genuinely seems to be that you're suggesting that the best course of action is to just let people get scammed for hundreds of thousands of dollars until there is a systemic solution. A systemic solution can take years, maybe decades.
It reads that we are speaking past each other and I think the misunderstanding comes from your consistent reframing as the choice between two bad outcomes. I've already commented that dichotomous thinking isn't helpful. So, again, I don't think there are only two options: a) let someone get scammed and b) let someone get abused. I think that kind of thinking is incompatible with finding good solutions.
But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will. In a (falsely) dichotomously framed argument, there is a clear hierarchy. Physical safety trumps money. "My kingdom for a horse" and all that.
I think the best option for the person in TFA is to get proactively involved in providing systemic solutions. If they aren't up for that, the next best option is to ignore the calls. I wouldn't even put the "scam the scammers" in the same discussion because, as we'd talked about ad nauseam, it's not really a solution and probably antithetical to a solution because it potentially makes things worse. Again, at the very least, we can not make things worse. You seem to be advocating for the "making things worse" choice because you've constrained yourself to only two options and you already decided that one is unacceptable.
Ok, so there's actually a word for that, it's called "extortion". It's generally frowned upon.
You have repeated that it's a "false dichotomy" like seven times now, but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem. "Get involved in providing systemic solutions" is absurd; what the hell does that even mean? I vote for politicians that might do something about it? I write a letter to the UN? Ok, so that's great, maybe I make a change.org petition while I'm at it. Maybe in twenty years something will actually get done.
You also have not actually explained how things are "being made worse" by these scambaiters. I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused. It's very sad, I don't like them being abused, but what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted, and doesn't actually make any sense if taken to its logical extreme.
I think the gist is we fundamentally disagree about this point:
>"I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused."
So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth? Okay, I guess, but I find it hard to believe. As long as you value money over physical safety, we probably will disagree. (I suspect it has more to do with psychological distance than really feeling that way. If, instead of some abstract person in a third world country, it was a loved family member at risk, would it change your response?) So, in that context, along with rehashing the points I've already addressed, your responses come across as either someone who makes sport of arguing for its own sake, or you're just incapable of accepting information when it's provided.
E.g., >but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem.
In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"
>what the hell does that even mean?
I deliberately left it vague because it's up to you to decide what level of effort is reasonable given your value system. On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it. Even simply marking the call as spam is more reasonable IMO than actively increasing the risk of physical violence on someone being trafficked because it's of no consequence to you. There's plenty of wiggle room for each individual to figure out what works for them. Again, at the very least, I would argue they have a duty to not make things worse. Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree. There are many situations in life when doing nothing is the better option.
>what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted
The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction. In the short-term, it makes them feel good because of our innate bias toward a sense of justice, but once you get past that bubble it's worse overall (my claim, which you obvious disagree with, but haven't really explained why). There is a certain arrogance in it which effectively says, "I am so very very smart, I will outwit this scammer for the lolz" while being oblivious to the larger consequences. My entire point is that people need to be aware of the larger consequences and it's pretty clear the subject of TFA is not.
>if taken to its logical extreme.
This is exactly what people with dichotomous thinking do. By not recognizing any grey, you are constraining yourself to only two extreme choices.
I've explained why it does more harm. I've explained why it confuses what the real problem is. I've offered better options, both at the individual and nation-state level. There are some potentially reasonable philosophical reasons to disagree with those points, but you just bypass them like you never read them to begin with.
It's not analogous. Of course I'd hand my wallet over. The better analogy is asking if I would hand my wallet over to protect some stranger's teeth from being knocked out, and that's a "it depends" situation. I don't want to be extorted. It's not about the money.
I mean, there's a reason that DHS typically does not negotiate with terrorists; they don't want to create a system that incentivizes people to try and extort money out of them.
> In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"
That is not a solution. If we "ignore the scammer" like you suggested, they will be beaten in the same way because they are not extracting money. I already explained that and you decided it wasn't a point worth responding to. This is why I said you didn't actually provide a solution. You didn't really "explain" why it was preferential, you just asserted multiple times making vague allusions to the idea that somehow the scambaiters wasting time is going to lead to more violence than people ignoring the call.
> On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it.
That just sounds like even more vigilantism, and puts yourself in serious risk. The only thing that would make any sense is to get the authorities involved.
> The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction.
The "larger consequences" of what the extortionists do are beyond the scambaiters control.
What you suggested instead is to just lightly fund this extortionist operation, enough to keep them going so that they don't beat the trafficking victims as much, until the "systemic" solution comes out.
> Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree.
People commit suicide because of these scams. People have their entire lives ruined, and they will continue to have their lives ruined. It's not just money; they have their identities stolen, they're blackmailed, they're made destitute. The scambaiters wasting time isn't going to save the world, but it might prevent just one person from having their life ruined, that's a good thing, and it's better to not fund terrorists just because they threaten to hurt more people.
That is why I said what you were suggesting was ridiculous.
E.g., if you are on the phone negotiating with a kidnapper and I snatch the phone, tell the kidnapper to go fuck themselves and hangup, I'm probably liable for injuries to the victim.
That is tactical thinking as opposed to strategic thinking. What if 1000 beatings saved 10000 beatings and saved 100000 little old ladies from being scammed out of thousands of dollars. Making the scam industry unprofitable is more important than making it profitable to avoid some violence. No matter what, someone has to sacrifice, why not sacrifice where the end goal eliminates the problem rather than exacerbates it?
It doesn't eliminate the problem. Covered by others, but it's a collective action problem. The fact that a few people "scam the scammers" doesn't actually make the industry unprofitable. So unless you can get a tipping point where lots of people are willing to spend inordinate amounts of time "scamming the scammers" (you won't), it doesn't do anything to eliminate the problem, and probably makes things worse.
Someone evil enough to traffic and enslave another to scam grannies is not going to give less beatings if Kitboga stops what he is doing. These content producers are shining a light on these assholes, the more views they get the more the people see and can identify and convey the red flags to their loved ones to shrink the market of potential victims.
I’m not making that case, but I am sure a trafficking component doesn’t apply as much as being suggested here to the Kitboga, Pierogi, and Jim Browning videos considering where those scammers originate and the types of scams they are pulling. If you watch their videos, scammers are far too proud and smug about what they are doing even when called out. Even if they are forced, their joy and lack of concern for their victims make them complicit.
Also, I can certainly feel sorry for someone forced by another into that situation under threat, but that does not mean we shouldn’t protect those getting scammed under some altruistic assumption that the scammer on the other end of the line might be being forced to do this against their will, and might have violence perpetrated against them because their scam was thwarted. In other words, I think it’s better to stop the evil you know is happening as opposed to ignoring and hoping your inaction somehow prevents an evil that you don’t know for sure is happening.
I would concede that if the probably between the two sides gets highly skewed, that could change. But nobody has made that argument (and I doubt they could given the lack of data)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/whos-behind-these-scammy-text-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-08-17/my-crypto...
But year, part of the reason the "tech support" and "phone upgrade" scams work so well is they're recruiting from literally the same demographic that the actual callcentres hire from. I'm sure some of the people have hard luck stories about being laid off from their original callcentre job or reasons for being desperate to make money fast, but in general I think they're more educated and employable than most of their fellow countrymen.
That said, I think it's still ok for Kitboga to do it, simply because if they're talking to him, they're not screwing someone's grandparents out of their life savings. Whether or not he's talking to the person in charge or a victim of something absolutely horrible, they're still distracted from scamming someone else who might be more vulnerable.
Also, the people actually running the scam operations can go fuck themselves.
These videos usually end with "[x] has been reported to authorities" with a hopeless probability of law enforcement taking action.
The article's tagline is "Scams are on the rise -- and so are..."
I know it's against HN etiquette to presuppose openly, but you didn't read the article. Did you?
The article using catchy just-so writing doesn't mean it's the end of the bigger story.
I'm not.
If you have support to show these influencers are effective at "reducing demand" (which would go against the article's claims), then please share.
I don't know where you got the idea that the NPR article contradicts this as an effective public policy/public safety approach, but I won't ask if you read it.
That said, and FWIW, the content of your documentation is NOT from the DOJ, but from a non-profit in coordination with the DOJ [from 2000 and targeting the National Youth Network]
The DOJ even goes on to disclaim ownership of the contents!
> Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, BJA, or the U.S. Department of Justice.
It's deeply unfortunate that people have to go through that, but fundamentally I don't think we should be capitulating to extortionists. If we do that, we're effectively creating a market for threatening and hurting people.
In my mind, it's not unlike the people who half-block a traffic lane when there's a merge upcoming. In their mind, I'm sure they think they're doing the Lord's work, and it scratches their itch for a sense of justice in an unjust world. In reality, it slows everyone down and makes the system worse. Giving into our human biases for seeking justice can often lead to worse outcomes.
What are you actually suggesting here?
ETA:
I should point out that I really don't think what Kitboga does counts as "vigilantism" in the classic sense. He's not going out to directly do anything outside of wasting people's time and reporting bank account numbers to relevant authorities.
I'm just suggesting that the actions within the article make the situation worse rather than better. As you alluded to, there are other, more fruitful ways to attack this problem, usually related to systemic changes.
I do think his actions count as vigilantism since that term is applied to actions explicitly intended to prevent crimes. From TFA "those who aim to waste scammers' time otherwise spent ripping off innocent victims."
But just to kind of play devil's advocate; lets suppose we educate people about this stuff, and it's extremely successful, no grandpa is selling his house to buy Google Play cards because we were so good at communication. Wouldn't those same people get beaten (or worse) in the same way that you're suggesting with Kitboga?
I think this underscores the importance of looking at this systemically. It's easy to think this is just a story about phone scams. Looking at the bigger picture, though, it's really about human trafficking. To directly answer your question, if we were able to solve the root human trafficking issue that allows these criminal industries to be profitable, then we'd prevent those beatings in the first place. In fact, some people running these organizations are already looking at using AI to run the scams rather than humans. Under that scenario, your educational outreach would be a huge success, but it does require working at the root problem first.
I actually don't think we disagree very much about the actual solution to the problem. This is definitely bigger than a few Youtubers making scambaiting videos. It's going to be a brave new world with AI voices getting better and better, and I think law enforcement agencies are going to be pretty proactive.
[1] e.g. the IRS will never ask for payments in gift cards or cryptocurrency, neither will the police, don't just let anyone connect to your computer with Teamviewer or Anydesk, if you're going to be arrested they probably aren't going to do it over the phone, etc.
When I brought up dich0timous thinking, it was not in response to "no, that wouldn't change my mind" but rather "the only options are to capitulate to the scam or fight it in a way that puts someone else at risk".
There's a strange correlation between pedantry and dichotomous thinking in resarch literature. They are also over-indexed in STEM fields, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising when it's commonly encountered on this forum.
The level of effort he invests to bait these scammers is equally admirable and hilarious. I'm particularly fond of the instances where he "redeems" gift cards right in front of the scammer's eyes.