#ad fraud software

[mfilterit]

What Happens When You Eliminate Click Spamming – Know With Proof?

Ever celebrated a spike in installs, only to realize no one’s using your app? 

You’re not alone. For every marketer chasing performance metrics, there’s a nagging truth: not all installs are created equal. In fact, a growing chunk of them might be fake, incentivized, or just plain useless. 

According to our analysis, there has been a significant rise in ad fraud in apps at each level of the funnel, the highest being at the install stage. There are various sophisticated methods used by fraudsters to manipulate app installs. This includes junk installs, click spamming, and affiliate fraud—all quietly inflating your numbers while your actual ROI flatlines.  

Kuku FM, one of India’s fastest-growing audio platforms, ran headfirst into this challenge. Massive install numbers. Minimal post-install activity. Skyrocketing costs with little to show for it.  

But they didn’t just accept it. They fought back with the right partner and the right data. 

This is the story of how Kuku FM turned fake installs into real engagement, leveraging a mobile ad fraud detection tool with their current tech stack, and reclaimed their growth narrative. 

Click Spamming in USA , Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, India.

Click here to read more:

What Happens When You Eliminate Click Spamming – Know With Proof?

[welcometoqueer]

I haven’t really seen any of the more recent U.S. election news hitting tumblr yet so here’s some updates (now edited with sources added):

There’s evidence of Trump cheating and interfering with the election.

Possible Russian interference.

Mail-in ballots are not being counted or “recognized” in multiple (notably swing) states.

30+ bomb threats were called in and shut down polling stations on Election Day.

20+ million votes are still unaccounted for, and that’s just to have the same voter turnout as 2020.

There was record voter turnout and new/first-time voter registration this year. We definitely should be well over the turnout in 2020.

U.S. citizens are using this site to demand, not only a recount, but a complete investigation into election fraud and interference for the reasons stated above:

Here is what I submitted as an example:

An investigation for election interference and fraud is required. We desperately need a recount or even a revote. The American people deserve the right to a free and fair election. There has been evidence unveiled of Trump cheating and committing election fraud which is illegal. There is some evidence of possible Russian interference. At least 30+ bomb threats were called in to polling places. Multiple, notably swing states, have ballots unaccounted for and voting machines not registering votes. Ballots and ballot boxes were tampered with and burned. Over 20 million votes that we know of are unaccounted for. With record turnout and new voter registration this year, there should be no possibility that there are less votes than even in the 2020 election.

Sources (working on finding more links but if anyone wants to add info, it’s appreciated):

FBI addressing Russian interference and bomb threats:

Emails released by Rachael Bellis (private account, can’t share original tweet) confirming Trump committing election fraud:

Pennsylvania's Centre County officials say they are working with their ballot scanner vendor to figure out why the county's mail-in ballot data is "not being recognized when uploaded to the elections software:”

Wisconsin recount:

[ID:

Multiple screenshots and images.

The first is a screenshot with a link and information for contacting the White House directly regarding election fraud. The instructions include choosing to leave a comment to President Joe Biden directly and to select election security as the reason.

The screenshot then instructs people to include any or all of the following information in a paragraph as a comment to the president:

32 fake bomb threats were called into Democratic leaning poll places, rendering polling places closed for at least an hour.

A lot of people reporting their ballots were not counted for various reasons.

This all occurred in swing states.

This is too coincidental that these things happen and swing in his favor after months of hinting at foul play.

Directly state that an investigation for tampering, interference, fraud is required, not just a recount.

The second image is from the FBI Twitter account that reads:

The FBI is aware of bomb threats to polling locations in several states, many of which appear to originate from Russian email domains. None of the threats have been determined to be credible thus far. https://t.co/j3YfajVK1m — FBI (@FBI) November 5, 2024

The next four Gmail screenshots of an email sent to Rachael Bellis from Chris T. Spackman that read together as follows:

Dear BELLIS, RACHAEL E., The Dauphin County Board of Elections received a challenge to your absentee ballot you applied for in the November 5, 2024 General Election. The challenge argues that a provision of the Pennsylvania Election Code takes precedence over the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which requires states and counties to permit U.S. citizens who move overseas to vote by absentee ballot for federal offices based on their last U.S. residential address.

The full text of the challenge that was filed appears below this email.

You may respond to the challenge in any of the following ways:

1. Call the Bureau of Registration and Election at (717) 780-6360;

2. Email a statement to the Bureau at Election election@dauphincounty.gov. Any statement you submit regarding the period during which you lived in Dauphin County, any family or connections that you still have here, and why you are now residing abroad would be read into the record.

3. Appear in person at a Board of Elections hearing scheduled for Friday, November 8 at a time to be determined in the Commissioners Public Hearing Room, 4th floor of Dauphin County Administration Building, 2 S 20d St, Harrisburg, PA 17111. The meeting is also likely to be livestreamed on Facebook on the Dauphin County channel.

Sincerely,

Christopher T Spackman

TEXT OF CHALLENGE BEGINS

Dear Dauphin County Board of Elections,

I am submitting this challenge to an absentee ballot application pursuant to 25 Pa. Stat.

3146.8(f).

25 Pa. Stat. 3146.8(f) Any person challenging an application for an absentee ballot, an absentee ballot, an application for a mail-in ballot or a mail-in ballot for any of the reasons provided in this act shall deposit the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) in cash with the county board, which sum shall only be refunded if the challenge is sustained or if the challenge is withdrawn within five (5) days after the primary or election. If the challenge is dismissed by any lawful order then the deposit shall be forfeited. The county board shall deposit all deposit money in the general fund of the…

The rest of the forwarded email is cut off.

The last image is a screenshot of the official statement from the Centre County, Pennsylvania Board of Commissioners released on November 6, 2024 that states:

Centre County Working with Ballot Scanner Vendor to Export Election Results.

(Bellefonte, PA) -Centre County Elections Office is working continuously to provide mail-in ballot data in order to post unofficial results.

To this point, all ballots have been scanned, including all mail-in ballots.

Centre County's Election team and IT team have identified that the data are successfully being exported from the mail-in ballot scanners, but that the data is not being recognized when uploaded to the elections software.

Centre County's Administrator, John Franek, Jr. stated, "We have not stopped working, and we will continue to work until unofficial results are posted and reported to the Pennsylvania Department of State."

As a next step, Centre County has begun working with the equipment vendor to adjust configurations to make the two systems-the mail-in ballot scanner and the elections software where data are uploaded -compatible with one another.

We will provide updates as we make progress.

/end ID]

[clicksbuster]

The Ultimate Guide to Choosing the Best Click Fraud Protection: 

With so many options available, selecting the best click fraud protection for your business can be overwhelming. Our comprehensive guide breaks down the key features to look for, including real-time monitoring, customizable settings, and robust reporting. Make an informed decision and protect your business from click fraud.

[treasure-mimic]

So, let me try and put everything together here, because I really do think it needs to be talked about.

Today, Unity announced that it intends to apply a fee to use its software. Then it got worse.

For those not in the know, Unity is the most popular free to use video game development tool, offering a basic version for individuals who want to learn how to create games or create independently alongside paid versions for corporations or people who want more features. It's decent enough at this job, has issues but for the price point I can't complain, and is the idea entry point into creating in this medium, it's a very important piece of software.

But speaking of tools, the CEO is a massive one. When he was the COO of EA, he advocated for using, what out and out sounds like emotional manipulation to coerce players into microtransactions.

"A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10, 20, 30, 50 hours on the game and then when they're deep into the game they're well invested in it. We're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high."

He also called game developers who don't discuss monetization early in the planning stages of development, quote, "fucking idiots".

So that sets the stage for what might be one of the most bald-faced greediest moves I've seen from a corporation in a minute. Most at least have the sense of self-preservation to hide it.

A few hours ago, Unity posted this announcement on the official blog.

Effective January 1, 2024, we will introduce a new Unity Runtime Fee that’s based on game installs. We will also add cloud-based asset storage, Unity DevOps tools, and AI at runtime at no extra cost to Unity subscription plans this November. We are introducing a Unity Runtime Fee that is based upon each time a qualifying game is downloaded by an end user. We chose this because each time a game is downloaded, the Unity Runtime is also installed. Also we believe that an initial install-based fee allows creators to keep the ongoing financial gains from player engagement, unlike a revenue share.

Now there are a few red flags to note in this pitch immediately.

Unity is planning on charging a fee on all games which use its engine.

This is a flat fee per number of installs.

They are using an always online runtime function to determine whether a game is downloaded.

There is just so many things wrong with this that it's hard to know where to start, not helped by this FAQ which doubled down on a lot of the major issues people had.

I guess let's start with what people noticed first. Because it's using a system baked into the software itself, Unity would not be differentiating between a "purchase" and a "download". If someone uninstalls and reinstalls a game, that's two downloads. If someone gets a new computer or a new console and downloads a game already purchased from their account, that's two download. If someone pirates the game, the studio will be asked to pay for that download.

Q: How are you going to collect installs? A: We leverage our own proprietary data model. We believe it gives an accurate determination of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project. Q: Is software made in unity going to be calling home to unity whenever it's ran, even for enterprice licenses? A: We use a composite model for counting runtime installs that collects data from numerous sources. The Unity Runtime Fee will use data in compliance with GDPR and CCPA. The data being requested is aggregated and is being used for billing purposes. Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data. Q: What's going to stop us being charged for pirated copies of our games? A: We do already have fraud detection practices in our Ads technology which is solving a similar problem, so we will leverage that know-how as a starting point. We recognize that users will have concerns about this and we will make available a process for them to submit their concerns to our fraud compliance team.

This is potentially related to a new system that will require Unity Personal developers to go online at least once every three days.

Starting in November, Unity Personal users will get a new sign-in and online user experience. Users will need to be signed into the Hub with their Unity ID and connect to the internet to use Unity. If the internet connection is lost, users can continue using Unity for up to 3 days while offline. More details to come, when this change takes effect.

It's unclear whether this requirement will be attached to any and all Unity games, though it would explain how they're theoretically able to track "the number of installs", and why the methodology for tracking these installs is so shit, as we'll discuss later.

Unity claims that it will only leverage this fee to games which surpass a certain threshold of downloads and yearly revenue.

Only games that meet the following thresholds qualify for the Unity Runtime Fee: Unity Personal and Unity Plus: Those that have made $200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 200,000 lifetime game installs. Unity Pro and Unity Enterprise: Those that have made $1,000,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 1,000,000 lifetime game installs.

They don't say how they're going to collect information on a game's revenue, likely this is just to say that they're only interested in squeezing larger products (games like Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail, Fate Grand Order, Among Us, and Fall Guys) and not every 2 dollar puzzle platformer that drops on Steam. But also, these larger products have the easiest time porting off of Unity and the most incentives to, meaning realistically those heaviest impacted are going to be the ones who just barely meet this threshold, most of them indie developers.

Aggro Crab Games, one of the first to properly break this story, points out that systems like the Xbox Game Pass, which is already pretty predatory towards smaller developers, will quickly inflate their "lifetime game installs" meaning even skimming the threshold of that 200k revenue, will be asked to pay a fee per install, not a percentage on said revenue.

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Hey Gamers!

Today, Unity (the engine we use to make our games) announced that they'll soon be taking a fee from developers for every copy of the game installed over a certain threshold - regardless of how that copy was obtained.

Guess who has a somewhat highly anticipated game coming to Xbox Game Pass in 2024? That's right, it's us and a lot of other developers.

That means Another Crab's Treasure will be free to install for the 25 million Game Pass subscribers. If a fraction of those users download our game, Unity could take a fee that puts an enormous dent in our income and threatens the sustainability of our business.

And that's before we even think about sales on other platforms, or pirated installs of our game, or even multiple installs by the same user!!!

This decision puts us and countless other studios in a position where we might not be able to justify using Unity for our future titles. If these changes aren't rolled back, we'll be heavily considering abandoning our wealth of Unity expertise we've accumulated over the years and starting from scratch in a new engine. Which is really something we'd rather not do.

On behalf of the dev community, we're calling on Unity to reverse the latest in a string of shortsighted decisions that seem to prioritize shareholders over their product's actual users.

I fucking hate it here.

-Aggro Crab - END DESCRIPTION]

That fee, by the way, is a flat fee. Not a percentage, not a royalty. This means that any games made in Unity expecting any kind of success are heavily incentivized to cost as much as possible.

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: A table listing the various fees by number of Installs over the Install Threshold vs. version of Unity used, ranging from $0.01 to $0.20 per install. END DESCRIPTION]

Basic elementary school math tells us that if a game comes out for $1.99, they will be paying, at maximum, 10% of their revenue to Unity, whereas jacking the price up to $59.99 lowers that percentage to something closer to 0.3%. Obviously any company, especially any company in financial desperation, which a sudden anchor on all your revenue is going to create, is going to choose the latter.

Furthermore, and following the trend of "fuck anyone who doesn't ask for money", Unity helpfully defines what an install is on their main site.

While I'm looking at this page as it exists now, it currently says

The installation and initialization of a game or app on an end user’s device as well as distribution via streaming is considered an “install.” Games or apps with substantially similar content may be counted as one project, with installs then aggregated to calculate the Unity Runtime Fee.

However, I saw a screenshot saying something different, and utilizing the Wayback Machine we can see that this phrasing was changed at some point in the few hours since this announcement went up. Instead, it reads:

The installation and initialization of a game or app on an end user’s device as well as distribution via streaming or web browser is considered an “install.” Games or apps with substantially similar content may be counted as one project, with installs then aggregated to calculate the Unity Runtime Fee.

Screenshot for posterity:

That would mean web browser games made in Unity would count towards this install threshold. You could legitimately drive the count up simply by continuously refreshing the page. The FAQ, again, doubles down.

Q: Does this affect WebGL and streamed games? A: Games on all platforms are eligible for the fee but will only incur costs if both the install and revenue thresholds are crossed. Installs - which involves initialization of the runtime on a client device - are counted on all platforms the same way (WebGL and streaming included).

And, what I personally consider to be the most suspect claim in this entire debacle, they claim that "lifetime installs" includes installs prior to this change going into effect.

Will this fee apply to games using Unity Runtime that are already on the market on January 1, 2024? Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

Again, again, doubled down in the FAQ.

Q: Are these fees going to apply to games which have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones. A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

That would involve billing companies for using their software before telling them of the existence of a bill. Holding their actions to a contract that they performed before the contract existed!

Okay. I think that's everything. So far.

There is one thing that I want to mention before ending this post, unfortunately it's a little conspiratorial, but it's so hard to believe that anyone genuinely thought this was a good idea that it's stuck in my brain as a significant possibility.

A few days ago it was reported that Unity's CEO sold 2,000 shares of his own company.

On September 6, 2023, John Riccitiello, President and CEO of Unity Software Inc (NYSE:U), sold 2,000 shares of the company. This move is part of a larger trend for the insider, who over the past year has sold a total of 50,610 shares and purchased none.

I would not be surprised if this decision gets reversed tomorrow, that it was literally only made for the CEO to short his own goddamn company, because I would sooner believe that this whole thing is some idiotic attempt at committing fraud than a real monetization strategy, even knowing how unfathomably greedy these people can be.

So, with all that said, what do we do now?

Well, in all likelihood you won't need to do anything. As I said, some of the biggest names in the industry would be directly affected by this change, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they're not just going to take it lying down. After all, the only way to stop a greedy CEO is with a greedier CEO, right?

(I fucking hate it here.)

And that's not mentioning the indie devs who are already talking about abandoning the engine.

[Links display tweets from the lead developer of Among Us saying it'd be less costly to hire people to move the game off of Unity and Cult of the Lamb's official twitter saying the game won't be available after January 1st in response to the news.]

That being said, I'm still shaken by all this. The fact that Unity is openly willing to go back and punish its developers for ever having used the engine in the past makes me question my relationship to it.

The news has given rise to the visibility of free, open source alternative Godot, which, if you're interested, is likely a better option than Unity at this point. Mostly, though, I just hope we can get out of this whole, fucking, environment where creatives are treated as an endless mill of free profits that's going to be continuously ratcheted up and up to drive unsustainable infinite corporate growth that our entire economy is based on for some fuckin reason.

Anyways, that's that, I find having these big posts that break everything down to be helpful.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Humans are not perfectly vigilant

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in BOSTON with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then PROVIDENCE (Apr 12), and beyond!

Here's a fun AI story: a security researcher noticed that large companies' AI-authored source-code repeatedly referenced a nonexistent library (an AI "hallucination"), so he created a (defanged) malicious library with that name and uploaded it, and thousands of developers automatically downloaded and incorporated it as they compiled the code:

https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/28/ai_bots_hallucinate_software_packages/

These "hallucinations" are a stubbornly persistent feature of large language models, because these models only give the illusion of understanding; in reality, they are just sophisticated forms of autocomplete, drawing on huge databases to make shrewd (but reliably fallible) guesses about which word comes next:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Guessing the next word without understanding the meaning of the resulting sentence makes unsupervised LLMs unsuitable for high-stakes tasks. The whole AI bubble is based on convincing investors that one or more of the following is true:

There are low-stakes, high-value tasks that will recoup the massive costs of AI training and operation;

There are high-stakes, high-value tasks that can be made cheaper by adding an AI to a human operator;

Adding more training data to an AI will make it stop hallucinating, so that it can take over high-stakes, high-value tasks without a "human in the loop."

These are dubious propositions. There's a universe of low-stakes, low-value tasks – political disinformation, spam, fraud, academic cheating, nonconsensual porn, dialog for video-game NPCs – but none of them seem likely to generate enough revenue for AI companies to justify the billions spent on models, nor the trillions in valuation attributed to AI companies:

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

The proposition that increasing training data will decrease hallucinations is hotly contested among AI practitioners. I confess that I don't know enough about AI to evaluate opposing sides' claims, but even if you stipulate that adding lots of human-generated training data will make the software a better guesser, there's a serious problem. All those low-value, low-stakes applications are flooding the internet with botshit. After all, the one thing AI is unarguably very good at is producing bullshit at scale. As the web becomes an anaerobic lagoon for botshit, the quantum of human-generated "content" in any internet core sample is dwindling to homeopathic levels:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/14/inhuman-centipede/#enshittibottification

This means that adding another order of magnitude more training data to AI won't just add massive computational expense – the data will be many orders of magnitude more expensive to acquire, even without factoring in the additional liability arising from new legal theories about scraping:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/17/how-to-think-about-scraping/

That leaves us with "humans in the loop" – the idea that an AI's business model is selling software to businesses that will pair it with human operators who will closely scrutinize the code's guesses. There's a version of this that sounds plausible – the one in which the human operator is in charge, and the AI acts as an eternally vigilant "sanity check" on the human's activities.

For example, my car has a system that notices when I activate my blinker while there's another car in my blind-spot. I'm pretty consistent about checking my blind spot, but I'm also a fallible human and there've been a couple times where the alert saved me from making a potentially dangerous maneuver. As disciplined as I am, I'm also sometimes forgetful about turning off lights, or waking up in time for work, or remembering someone's phone number (or birthday). I like having an automated system that does the robotically perfect trick of never forgetting something important.

There's a name for this in automation circles: a "centaur." I'm the human head, and I've fused with a powerful robot body that supports me, doing things that humans are innately bad at.

That's the good kind of automation, and we all benefit from it. But it only takes a small twist to turn this good automation into a nightmare. I'm speaking here of the reverse-centaur: automation in which the computer is in charge, bossing a human around so it can get its job done. Think of Amazon warehouse workers, who wear haptic bracelets and are continuously observed by AI cameras as autonomous shelves shuttle in front of them and demand that they pick and pack items at a pace that destroys their bodies and drives them mad:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenized-reverse-centaurs/

Automation centaurs are great: they relieve humans of drudgework and let them focus on the creative and satisfying parts of their jobs. That's how AI-assisted coding is pitched: rather than looking up tricky syntax and other tedious programming tasks, an AI "co-pilot" is billed as freeing up its human "pilot" to focus on the creative puzzle-solving that makes coding so satisfying.

But an hallucinating AI is a terrible co-pilot. It's just good enough to get the job done much of the time, but it also sneakily inserts booby-traps that are statistically guaranteed to look as plausible as the good code (that's what a next-word-guessing program does: guesses the statistically most likely word).

This turns AI-"assisted" coders into reverse centaurs. The AI can churn out code at superhuman speed, and you, the human in the loop, must maintain perfect vigilance and attention as you review that code, spotting the cleverly disguised hooks for malicious code that the AI can't be prevented from inserting into its code. As "Lena" writes, "code review [is] difficult relative to writing new code":

https://twitter.com/qntm/status/1773779967521780169

Why is that? "Passively reading someone else's code just doesn't engage my brain in the same way. It's harder to do properly":

https://twitter.com/qntm/status/1773780355708764665

There's a name for this phenomenon: "automation blindness." Humans are just not equipped for eternal vigilance. We get good at spotting patterns that occur frequently – so good that we miss the anomalies. That's why TSA agents are so good at spotting harmless shampoo bottles on X-rays, even as they miss nearly every gun and bomb that a red team smuggles through their checkpoints:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/23/automation-blindness/#humans-in-the-loop

"Lena"'s thread points out that this is as true for AI-assisted driving as it is for AI-assisted coding: "self-driving cars replace the experience of driving with the experience of being a driving instructor":

https://twitter.com/qntm/status/1773841546753831283

In other words, they turn you into a reverse-centaur. Whereas my blind-spot double-checking robot allows me to make maneuvers at human speed and points out the things I've missed, a "supervised" self-driving car makes maneuvers at a computer's frantic pace, and demands that its human supervisor tirelessly and perfectly assesses each of those maneuvers. No wonder Cruise's murderous "self-driving" taxis replaced each low-waged driver with 1.5 high-waged technical robot supervisors:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/11/robots-stole-my-jerb/#computer-says-no

AI radiology programs are said to be able to spot cancerous masses that human radiologists miss. A centaur-based AI-assisted radiology program would keep the same number of radiologists in the field, but they would get less done: every time they assessed an X-ray, the AI would give them a second opinion. If the human and the AI disagreed, the human would go back and re-assess the X-ray. We'd get better radiology, at a higher price (the price of the AI software, plus the additional hours the radiologist would work).

But back to making the AI bubble pay off: for AI to pay off, the human in the loop has to reduce the costs of the business buying an AI. No one who invests in an AI company believes that their returns will come from business customers to agree to increase their costs. The AI can't do your job, but the AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with an AI anyway – that pitch is the most successful form of AI disinformation in the world.

An AI that "hallucinates" bad advice to fliers can't replace human customer service reps, but airlines are firing reps and replacing them with chatbots:

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatbot-misinformation-what-travellers-should-know

An AI that "hallucinates" bad legal advice to New Yorkers can't replace city services, but Mayor Adams still tells New Yorkers to get their legal advice from his chatbots:

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/03/nycs-government-chatbot-is-lying-about-city-laws-and-regulations/

The only reason bosses want to buy robots is to fire humans and lower their costs. That's why "AI art" is such a pisser. There are plenty of harmless ways to automate art production with software – everything from a "healing brush" in Photoshop to deepfake tools that let a video-editor alter the eye-lines of all the extras in a scene to shift the focus. A graphic novelist who models a room in The Sims and then moves the camera around to get traceable geometry for different angles is a centaur – they are genuinely offloading some finicky drudgework onto a robot that is perfectly attentive and vigilant.

But the pitch from "AI art" companies is "fire your graphic artists and replace them with botshit." They're pitching a world where the robots get to do all the creative stuff (badly) and humans have to work at robotic pace, with robotic vigilance, in order to catch the mistakes that the robots make at superhuman speed.

Reverse centaurism is brutal. That's not news: Charlie Chaplin documented the problems of reverse centaurs nearly 100 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Times_(film)

As ever, the problem with a gadget isn't what it does: it's who it does it for and who it does it to. There are plenty of benefits from being a centaur – lots of ways that automation can help workers. But the only path to AI profitability lies in reverse centaurs, automation that turns the human in the loop into the crumple-zone for a robot:

https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/260

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/01/human-in-the-loop/#monkey-in-the-middle

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

--

Jorge Royan (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Munich_-_Two_boys_playing_in_a_park_-_7328.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

--

Noah Wulf (modified) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thunderbirds_at_Attention_Next_to_Thunderbird_1_-_Aviation_Nation_2019.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[freadomrises]

I'm SEETHING

I asked Google's pushy and insistent bot how I can get AI out of my life completely and, well, I'll post it, but to sum it up: "Resistance is futile, human, we own the future, and we seek to own your psyche too."

It wants me to reconsider. It needs us to adopt it as our guide guru and master. Well the old saying holds fast still; No Gods No Masters. 🔥🏴🍲

It's understandable to want to reduce the influence of AI in your life. While completely eliminating it might be incredibly difficult in today's interconnected world, here's a breakdown of how you can significantly minimize its presence:

1. Understand Where AI Currently Exists in Your Life:

* Smart Devices: This includes smartphones (voice assistants, image recognition, predictive text), smart speakers, smart home hubs, smart TVs (recommendations), and wearable tech.

* Online Services:

* Search Engines: Personalized results and ads are driven by AI.

* Social Media: Algorithms curate your feed, suggest content and connections, and target ads.

* Streaming Services: Recommendations for movies, music, and shows.

* E-commerce: Product recommendations, personalized pricing, chatbots.

* Navigation Apps: Traffic prediction and route optimization.

* Email: Spam filtering, smart compose/reply.

* Cloud Storage: Photo tagging and organization.

* Software Applications: Many apps use AI for features like autocorrect, grammar check, image editing, and more.

* Customer Service: Chatbots are frequently used for initial interactions.

* Financial Services: Fraud detection, loan approvals, investment advice.

* News and Information: Algorithmic curation of news feeds.

2. Strategies to Minimize AI Exposure:

* Reduce Smart Device Usage:

* Limit smartphone use: Be more mindful of how often you reach for your phone.

* Disable voice assistants: Turn off Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa, etc., on all your devices.

* Opt-out of facial recognition: Disable face unlock features.

* Use "dumb" versions of devices: Consider a basic phone without internet capabilities or a non-smart TV.

* Adjust Online Habits:

* Use privacy-focused search engines: DuckDuckGo, Startpage, etc., that don't track your searches or personalize results based on your history.

* Limit social media use: Be conscious of how much time you spend on these platforms and the AI-driven content you consume. Consider deleting accounts or using less algorithmic versions if available.

* Use incognito/private browsing modes: This can help limit tracking and personalization.

* Disable personalized recommendations: If possible, adjust settings on streaming and e-commerce platforms to opt-out of recommendations.

* Be wary of targeted ads: Understand that the ads you see are often AI-driven. Consider using ad blockers.

* Prefer direct navigation: Instead of relying on recommendations, directly type website addresses into your browser.

* Choose Non-AI Alternatives:

* Use traditional software: Opt for software that doesn't rely on cloud-based AI features if alternatives exist.

* Seek human interaction: Prefer phone calls or in-person communication with customer service instead of chatbots.

* Rely on human-curated content: Look for news sources, blogs, and recommendations from individuals or organizations that don't use AI for content generation or curation.

* Adjust Privacy Settings: Review and adjust the privacy settings on all your devices and online accounts to limit data collection and personalization.

* Be Mindful of Data Sharing: Understand that using online services often involves sharing data that can be used to train AI algorithms. Limit the amount of personal information you share.

* Support Privacy-Focused Technologies and Services: Choose companies and products that prioritize user privacy and minimize AI integration.

3. Challenges and Considerations:

* Ubiquity of AI: AI is increasingly integrated into the infrastructure of the internet and many technologies, making complete avoidance very difficult.

* Hidden AI: Many AI applications run in the background without your direct knowledge.

* Convenience vs. Privacy: AI often provides convenience and personalized experiences, so choosing to avoid it may mean sacrificing some of these benefits.

* Evolving Technology: AI is constantly evolving and becoming more integrated, making long-term avoidance an ongoing effort.

In conclusion, while a complete removal of AI from your life is likely unrealistic in the current technological landscape, you can take significant steps to minimize its presence and influence by being conscious of your technology usage, adjusting your online habits, and choosing privacy-focused alternatives where possible. It requires ongoing awareness and effort.

[nareshkumartech]

How Canadian Licensing Systems Protect Against Identity Fraud

Identity fraud is a growing concern worldwide, and Canada is no exception. As licenses increasingly serve as key forms of identification for banking, travel, and government services, Canadian licensing systems have had to evolve with robust security measures to protect against identity fraud. Whether you are applying for your first license or renewing an existing one, it’s important to understand how these systems work to safeguard your personal information.

1. Advanced Physical Security Features

Modern Canadian driver’s licenses are embedded with multiple physical security features designed to make them extremely difficult to forge or tamper with. These include:

Holographic overlays: Special images that appear when the license is tilted, making duplication extremely difficult.

Microprinting: Very tiny text that is not visible to the naked eye but detectable under magnification, preventing easy reproduction.

Ghost images: A faint second image of the license holder that helps prevent photo swapping.

Raised lettering: Some jurisdictions use raised text that you can feel, adding another layer of protection against fakes.

These built-in technologies make it easy for authorities and businesses to quickly spot a fraudulent license during routine checks.

2. Digital Data Encryption

Canadian licensing systems now store driver data in encrypted databases, making unauthorized access to personal information extremely difficult. When information is transferred — such as when police scan your license or when you renew online — the data is encrypted both in transit and at rest. This ensures that even if someone intercepts the data, it remains useless without the decryption keys.

3. Stringent Identity Verification at Issuance

Before issuing a license, provincial and territorial licensing authorities conduct rigorous identity verification checks. Applicants must present multiple pieces of identification, including:

Proof of legal status in Canada (passport, PR card, visa).

Proof of residency within the province.

Secondary documents such as a birth certificate, citizenship card, or utility bill.

In many cases, cross-checks with federal databases (like immigration records or citizenship status) ensure that the applicant is who they claim to be. Newcomers may also face additional document checks to confirm their eligibility before a license is issued.

4. Real-Time Photo Comparison and Biometrics

When you renew your license or apply for a new one, your photograph is compared with existing photos on record using facial recognition software. This system helps detect cases where someone might be trying to fraudulently assume another person’s identity. In the future, more provinces are planning to expand the use of biometrics, such as fingerprints or iris scans, to further strengthen identification measures.

5. Ongoing Monitoring and Alerts

Canadian licensing systems do not just verify identities at the point of issuance — they continue monitoring afterward. If a license is reported stolen, lost, or involved in suspicious activity, it can be flagged in the system. Law enforcement agencies and border officials have real-time access to these databases, making it harder for stolen or fraudulent licenses to be used undetected.

Additionally, provinces encourage drivers to immediately report lost or stolen licenses to prevent identity theft and ensure the system remains secure.

Canadian licensing authorities are committed to staying ahead of fraudsters by continually updating security features and identity verification processes. Thanks to multi-layered protection — from physical security measures to real-time monitoring — Canadians can trust that their licenses remain a strong line of defense against identity fraud.

For step-by-step guidance on obtaining your driver’s license safely and staying informed about new ID requirements, visit LicensePrep.ca. Their resources make navigating the licensing process simple and secure!

[13eyond13]

Hi. If you don't mind me asking, how exactly did you get hacked? And how did you realize it happened? It's just that it's something of an anxiety of mine, and I feel that by learning from other people it happened to, I can learn to avoid it. No worries if you don't feel like talking about it, though.

I don't honestly know for sure, but I THINK it was because my desktop computer is pretty old and has been running on a very outdated version of Windows for quite a while now. I don't normally do things like click on suspicious links or answer suspicious emails or calls or messages from bots, but I'm quite lazy about things like updating my hardware and software when the older stuff is still working fine for me. Unfortunately this eventually makes you more vulnerable to being hacked remotely, because you can't get stuff like the current security updates and support on your computer's programs and all after a bit. Over the past couple of weeks I've had someone using my Facebook account to post fake ads for cars and motorcycles on Marketplace, someone using my Steam account to list all my trading cards for sale, somebody flooding my email address to receive literally hundreds of spam emails (like signing me up for random newsletters and junk mail and so on), and somebody using my credit card to attempt to buy a big purchase for themselves on Amazon. Basically since I don't know exactly how it started and the fact that it seems to be happening on multiple of my accounts I just had to go cancel my credit card and report the fraud to my bank, change every password on every personal account I could think of and add more 2 factor authentication steps to everything, and then wipe my computer of as much personal info as possible and lock it up a bit better too. I undid all the settings like the automatically saved passwords on my browser, and I'm not leaving it connected to the internet or leaving any of my personal accounts logged in when I'm not using them anymore. The security breaches seem to have stopped with me changing these passwords and everything else, but it's definitely a very violating and annoying experience to say the least. I should probably be more freaked out about it than I actually am, which is kinda just feeling a bit like the exasperated Ben Affleck smoking meme instead hahaha

[mariacallous]

About three years ago, some of Google’s security engineers came to company attorneys with a gigantic mess.

The security team had discovered that Google unwittingly was enabling the spread of malicious software known as Glupteba. The malware had corrupted more than 1 million Windows computers, turning them into vehicles to mine cryptocurrency and spy on users. By hijacking Google accounts, purchasing Google ads to lure in users, and misusing Google cloud tools, the hackers behind the operation were on their way to infecting even more computers.

Tech giants such as Google long have had a playbook for destroying botnets like Glupteba. They call up fellow companies and US authorities and together coordinate a massive takedown operation. Sometimes, the cops file criminal charges. But this time around, Google’s legal team recommended an approach that the company hadn’t pursued in years: Sue the hackers for money.

The eventual lawsuit against two Russian men and a dozen unnamed individuals allegedly behind Glupteba would be the first of a run of at least eight cases that Google has filed against various hackers and scammers, adding to a sporadic few filings in the past. The tactic, which Google calls affirmative litigation, is meant to scare off would-be fraudsters and generate public awareness about scams. Now, for the first time, Google is opening up about this strategy.

Leaders of Google’s security and legal teams tell WIRED they believe going after people in court has paid off. Google hasn’t yet lost a case; it has collected almost all of the more than $2 million that it has won through the legal process, and forced hundreds of companies or websites to shut down. The awards are trivial to Google and its parent Alphabet, a $2 trillion company, but can be devastating for the defendants.

“We’re disrupting bad actors and deterring future activity, because it’s clear that the consequences and the costs are high,” says Chester Day, lead of the three-person “litigation advance” team at Google that’s focused on taking people to court. Google, he adds, is “making it clear that we’re willing to invest our resources into taking action to protect our users.”

Google blog posts and similar content about the lawsuits and the underlying scams have drawn more than 1 billion views, according to the company. Google representatives say that the awareness increases vigilance among consumers and shrinks the pool of vulnerable targets. “Educating people about how these crimes work may be the best thing we can do to stop the crime,” says Harold Chun, director of Google’s security legal team.

Several Big Tech companies have pursued affirmative litigation, though not necessarily under that name and with varying strategies. Microsoft has filed more than two dozen lawsuits since 2008 with a focus on securing court permission to dismantle botnets and other hacking tools. Amazon has been a prolific complainant since 2018, filing at least 42 cases over counterfeit products, 38 for reviews fraud, three for copyright abuse, and, recently, two for bogus product returns. Amazon has been filing so many counterfeit cases, in fact, that the federal court in western Washington assigned three magistrate judges to focus on them.

Since 2019, Meta has filed at least seven counterfeiting or data theft cases, with settlements or default judgments in four so far, including one in which it won nearly $300,000 in damages. Like Meta, Apple has sued Israeli spyware developer NSO Group for alleged hacking. (NSO is fighting the lawsuits. Trials are scheduled for next year.)

Some attorneys who’ve studied how the private sector uses litigation to enforce the law are skeptical about the payoff for the plaintiffs. David Noll, a Rutgers University law professor and author of a forthcoming book on state-supported private enforcement, Vigilante Nation, says it’s difficult to imagine that companies could bring the volume of cases needed to significantly stop abuse. “The fact that there is a small chance you might be named in a suit isn’t really going to deter you,” he says.

Noll believes the big risk is that Google and other tech companies could be burdening the court system with cases that ultimately secure some favorable headlines but do less to make the internet safer than the companies could achieve through investing in better antifraud measures.

Still, of the six outside legal experts who spoke to WIRED, all of them say that overall Google deserves credit for complementing the work of underfunded government agencies that are struggling to rein in online abuse. At an estimated hundreds of thousands of dollars per case, it’s a low-risk endeavor for the tech giant, former prosecutors say.

“Reliable and regular enforcement when folks step outside the law brings us closer to a society where less of us are harmed,” says Kathleen Morris, resident scholar of law at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies. “This is healthy and robust collaboration on law enforcement by the public and private sectors.”

Google’s general counsel, Halimah DeLaine Prado, tells WIRED she wants to send a message to other companies that the corporate legal department can do more than be the team that says “no” to wild ideas. “Legal can be a proactive protector,” she says.

Marketing Scams

DeLaine Prado says that from its earliest days, Google has considered pursuing litigation against people abusing its platforms and intellectual property. But the first case she and other leaders within Google recall filing was in 2015. Google accused Local Lighthouse, a California marketing company, of placing robocalls to dupe small businesses into paying to improve their ranking in search results. Google alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising. As part of a settlement, Lighthouse stopped the problematic calls.

Since then, Google has filed complaints against five similar allegedly scammy marketers, with three of them ending in settlements so far. A Florida business and its owners agreed to pay Google $850,000, and a Los Angeles man who allegedly posted 14,000 fake reviews on Google Maps agreed to stop. Terms of the third deal, with an Illinois company, were not disclosed in court files, but Google spokesperson José Castañeda says it involved a seven-figure payment to Google.

Castañeda says Google has donated all the money it has collected to recipients such as the Better Business Bureau Institute, the National Consumers League, Partnership to End Addiction, Cybercrime Support Network, and various US chambers of commerce.

Another genre of cases has targeted individuals submitting false copyright complaints to Google to get content removed from the company’s services. A man in Omaha, Nebraska, whom Google accused of falsely claiming ownership of YouTube videos to extort money from their real owners, agreed to pay $25,000 to Google. Two individuals in Vietnam sued by Google never responded—a common issue.

In 2022, Google won default judgment against an individual in Cameroon who never responded to charges that he was using Gmail to scam people into paying for fake puppies, including a $700 basset hound. After the lawsuit, complaints about the scammer dried up, according to Google.

But legal experts say the most fascinating cases of Google’s affirmative litigation are four that it filed against alleged computer hackers. The suits emerged after months of investigation into Glupteba.

Security engineers at Google realized that eradicating Glupteba through the typical approach of taking down associated servers would be difficult. The hackers behind it had designed a backup system involving a blockchain that enabled Glupteba to resurrect itself and keep pilfering away.

That’s in part why Google’s attorneys suggested suing. Chun, the security legal director, had pursued cases against botnets as a federal prosecutor. “I thought this would be something good to do from a civil angle for a company as well,” he says. “Law enforcement agencies have limits on what they can do. And Google has a large voice and the litigation capacity.”

Chun and other attorneys cautioned their bosses that the hackers might use the lawsuit to reverse engineer Google’s investigation methods and make Glupteba more evasive and resilient. But ultimately, DeLaine Prado, who has final say over lawsuits, signed off. Chun says his former colleagues from the government applauded the complaint.

Google sued Dmitry Starovikov and Alexander Filippov, alleging that they were the Russia-based masterminds behind Glupteba after linking websites associated with the virus to Google accounts in their name. The search giant accused the duo (and unknown co-conspirators) of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The lawsuit also alleged a trademark law violation for hiding Glupteba in a tool that claimed to download videos from YouTube.

Google argued that it had suffered substantial harm, having never received payment for ads it had sold to the hackers, who allegedly were using fraudulent credit cards. Users also had their experiences with Google services degraded, putting them at risk and impairing the value of the company’s brand, according to the lawsuit.

In court papers, Starovikov and Filippov stated they learned of the lawsuit only through friends and then decided to hire a New York attorney, Igor Litvak, to fight on their behalf. The defendants initially offered innocent explanations for their software related to Glupteba and said that their projects had not targeted the US market. At one point, they countersued Google for $10 million, and at another, they allegedly demanded $1 million each to hand over the keys to shut down the botnet. They eventually denied the allegations against them.

Following an ordeal over whether the defendants could obtain Russian passports, sit for depositions in Europe, and turn over work files, Google’s attorneys and Litvak traded accusations of lying. In 2022, US district judge Denise Cote sided with Google. She found in a 48-page ruling that the defendants “intentionally withheld information” and “misrepresented their willingness and ability” to disclose it to “avoid liability and further profit” from Glupteba. “The record here is sufficient to find a willful attempt to defraud the Court,” Cote wrote.

Cote sanctioned Litvak, and he agreed to pay Google $250,000 in total through 2027 to settle. The jurist also ordered Starovikov and Filippov to pay nearly $526,000 combined to cover Google’s attorneys fees. Castañeda says Google has received payment from all three.

Litvak tells WIRED that he still disagrees with the judge's findings and that Russia’s strained relationship with the US may have weighed on whom the judge trusted. “It’s telling that after I filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out serious issues with the court’s decision, the court went back on its original decision and referred [the] case to mediation, which ended with … me not having to admit to doing anything wrong,” he says in an email.

Google’s Castañeda says the case achieved the intended effect: The Russian hackers stopped misusing Google services and shut down their marketplace for stolen logins, while the number of Glupteba-infected computers fell 78 percent.

Not every case delivers measurable results. Defendants in Google’s other three hacking cases haven’t responded to the accusations. That led to Google last year winning default judgment against three individuals in Pakistan accused of infecting more than 672,000 computers by masquerading malware as downloads of Google’s Chrome browser. Unopposed victories are also expected in the remaining cases, including one in which overseas app developers allegedly stole money through bogus investment apps and are being sued for violating YouTube Community Guidelines.

Royal Hansen, Google’s vice president for privacy, safety, and security engineering, says lawsuits that don’t result in defendants paying up or agreeing to stop the alleged misuse still can make alleged perpetrators’ lives more difficult. Google uses the rulings as evidence to persuade businesses such as banks and cloud providers to cut off the defendants. Other hackers might not want to work with them knowing they have been outed. Defendants also could be more cautious about crossing international borders and becoming newly subject to scrutiny from local authorities. “That’s a win as well,” Hansen says.

More to Come

These days, Google’s small litigation advance team meets about twice a week with other units across the company to discuss potential lawsuits. They weigh whether a case could set a helpful precedent to give extra teeth to Google’s policies or draw awareness to an emerging threat.

Team leader Day says that as Google has honed its process, filing cases has become more affordable. That should lead to more lawsuits each year, including some for the first time potentially filed outside the US or representing specific users who have been harmed, he says.

The tech giants' ever-sprawling empires leave no shortage of novel cases to pursue. Google’s sibling company Waymo recently adopted the affirmative litigation approach and sued two people who allegedly smashed and slashed its self-driving taxis. Microsoft, meanwhile, is weighing cases against people using generative AI technology for malicious or fraudulent purposes, says Steven Masada, assistant general counsel of the company’s Digital Crimes Unit.

The questions remain whether the increasing cadence of litigation has left cybercriminals any bit deterred and whether a broader range of internet companies will go on the legal offense.

Erin Bernstein, who runs the California office of Bradley Bernstein Sands, a law firm that helps governments pursue civil lawsuits, says she recently pitched a handful of companies across industries on doing their own affirmative litigation. Though none have accepted her offer, she’s optimistic. “It will be a growing area,” Bernstein says.

But Google’s DeLaine Prado hopes affirmative litigation eventually slows. “In a perfect world, this work would disappear over time if it’s successful,” she says. “I actually want to make sure that our success kind of makes us almost obsolete, at least as it relates to this type of work.”

[mfilterit]

What Should Marketers Look for in a Bot Detection Tools?

In today’s digital marketing landscape, bots impacting your campaigns, website analytics, and overall performance is becoming an enormous issue with all the organizations running any kind of advertising campaign. To put a stop on the ad fraud that is caused by bots, having bot detection tools is vital.  After all, how can you put a stop to bots if you can’t detect.  

Unfortunately, many firms struggle to detect bot traffic, and the methods they employ are not all created equal. Choosing the right bot detection tool is essential for safeguarding your marketing efforts. Here’s a comprehensive guide to help you select the best tool for your needs.

What Is Invalid Traffic and How Does It Relate to Bots? 

Bot fraud in digital advertising generally falls in the category of invalid traffic by the marketers no matter good or bad since the bots are not the target audience and cannot be converted into a protentional lead.  

Types of Invalid Traffic:   

General Invalid Traffic (GIVT) – It is one of the simplest bots that can be detected easily, and a lot of good bots traffic comes under GIVT as they are not meant to fool the bot detection tool. But some fraudsters may also deploy GIVT as they are easy to make and work against some of their targets.  

Sophisticated Invalid Traffic (SIVT) – SIVT detection is the bots that one should look out for as these are more capable and are often designed to target to bypass cybersecurity and fraud prevention tools. For Example – sophisticated bots might imitate how a human would use a website so it would be difficult to identify between a human and bot. SIVT is common in ad fraud schemes.

Bot detection in USA, UAE, India, Saudi Arabia

Click here to read more: What should marketers look for in a Bot Detection Tool

[jan-ala]

i still don't think the fediverse is going to take off at all. it has so many glaring flaws ranging from philosophical to technical to marketability

but with that fraud study of chatGPT being used as a reddit bot, i really can't trust any social media company. in the next few years, the dead internet theory will become reality, and the user experience of reddit, twitter, bluesky, and yes tumblr will be scrolling through mostly AI-generated ads that look like real people's opinions.

i've warmed up to AI/LLMs, but still see it mostly as pretty sketchy at best.

but if the internet isn't about human connection then what is this all for

what's the point

now to pick a fediverse software. and instance. maybe i'll run my own? ugh....jesus christ maybe i'll just talk to people in the park.

[vavuska]

I thought this one would be just another developer of mobile game that use The Sims 4 contents in its (fake) ads to fraud users by making people belive it is its game, when it has a completely different gameplay.

Unfortunately, Room Makover by FlyBird Casual Games is much more than this.

Room Makover has plenty of false ads. This time I actually tried the game, because the pictures and videos on Google Play were cute and I decided to give it a try.

I was so naive. Happens that the whole page on Google Play is full of fake contents.

It's just one of those mobile games in which you have to match and remove nails. Every time you pass a level, you will rewarded with bills that you can use to unlock part of a building under "makeover". You have just three option for every part of the building or the room to choose between.

There is nothing creative. Not actual building or cluttering rooms or decoring.

As, always, since I'm a curious little bitch, I decided to dig further into this FlyBird Casual Game and... Oh. God. Their site looks even less legit than LUCKY FORTUNE GAMES' one!

It is just a void page. There is nothing here. NOTHING. The only two working section are the privacy and conditions of use, in which they try to convince you that they didn't have any liability for damages or fraud committed.

The privacy one is curious, because mentions this Commissioner's Office in UK and a long list of partners. Both for ads and for data collection, which is hugely uncommon for this kind of games.

Sooooo... In this magical list of apps, I noticed a few tech nightmares, which I will explain briefly here:

Aarki is an AI company that builds advertising solutions to drive mobile revenue growth. Traslated from bullshit: they use AI to generate fake ads and sells it to shady corps.

Blind Ferret is the big deal here! Not only gave you digital marketing solutions, data collection and analytics, but also pays influencers and product placement on social media to promote the game and, hear me out, CREATE fake ads too! It's literally written in their site: "Our Creative Services don’t just make things look pretty. Our team uses data to guide us! How do we make brands shine? By turning the arts into a numbers game with top-performing creative content." This include: Graphic Design, Illustration, 2D Animation, Video Editing and Composition, Copywriting and conceptualizing.

InMobi is a big Corp that does native advertising, which means promoted contents, collabs with influencers, etc.

Ironsource. This one is a fucking cancer. IronSource Ltd. is an Israeli software company that focuses on developing technologies for app monetization and distribution, with its core production focused on the app economy. That would sound harmless, but Samsung use it in its budget and midrange smartphone to install multiple third-party apps during the set-up process. This platform slips bloatware on the pretext of recommended apps, leading to apps clutter and reduction in on-board storage space. The only purpose it exists on Samsung phones is to download games without your consent with no way to remove it (no app installed).

Mintegral is another fucking tech nightmare. Not only poses serious threats to your privacy and datas, but also uses malicious codes to spy your activity and when you seem intentioned to install a mobile app, Mintegral’s software would then fire off fake clicks on non-existent ads to claim credit for the install and essentially collect a bounty from app publishers who pay ad networks to promote their apps.

Mistplay is one of those "play to earn bucks" that I find very very dangerous. Because YOUR data are their revenue.

Tapjoy does monetization of ads and also surveys, that force users to download one from a long list of games, download it and playing for hours or since it is gained some in-game prize. This surveys are rewarded with credits and user can spend on the mobile game they actually want to play. Tapjoy has a huge market among IMVU users, who need credits to buy piece of clothing and accessories for their avi.

The other apps do mobile app marketing, using data collection that allow shady corps to target more gullable and naive people to scam. Plus they do also monetization surveys to earn money and at the same time forcefully grow the engagement of this shady corps.

Obviously, there is no user support mail listed in their Google Play page, but at least this has a contact mail listed on their website: flybirdgames2022@gmail.com

As always, stay safe and please tell me if you know more about everything above or know the person who create this build first.

Help people to stay safe.

Thank you.

<<< previous Coloring app uses design of The Sims 4 builds without the consent of the creators and other mobile developers steal TS4 speed build contents and claim it's the actual gameplay of their mobile game.

[juiceboxscans]

Hey, I saw that you mentioned you post your scans only on mangadex but I saw your scans being uploaded in mangago as well. Did you give permission?

No. We didn’t give permission, we weren’t asked, none of that.

Feel free to report.

#mood

Why are we not fans of Mangago? A few reasons: Among other things they've committed ad fraud which is shady af and also if you've ever tried to report anything on there the default message is 'our staff is busy battling malware', probably because it's busy making you download a VPN and unlicensed antivirus software (don't do it.).

Mangadex doesn't use ads, we've never had an issue reporting or getting help, and there are no malware issues. If you can't use it because of your geographical location then that's a separate issue and please let us know because that would be useful info.

If you're not using Mangadex because of the comment interface, it's actually pretty good if a bit quiet and the folks on there are nice so there's really nothing to be afraid of. Dive in, water's great!

But no, we didn't give permission.

[cogitoergofun]

Ken Block, whom the Trump campaign hired in 2020 to find voter fraud in the election, penned an op-ed Tuesday stating unequivocally that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.

“Can a steady diet of lies and innuendo overcome the truth?” the USA Today op-ed began. “In November 2020, former President Donald Trump asserted that voter fraud had altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The day after the election, his campaign hired an expert in voter data to attempt to prove Trump’s allegations and put him back in the White House.”

“I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign,” Block wrote.

Block, who owns Simpatico Software Systems, said his company’s findings were communicated directly to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and transcripts of depositions taken by the Jan. 6 select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol “show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election.”

Block’s op-ed comes as Trump continues to claim the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate while he mounts a comeback bid for the White House in 2024.

[...]

In a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll released Tuesday, 62 percent of U.S. adults say Biden was legitimately elected, down from 69 percent when an equivalent poll was conducted two years ago. Among Republicans, 31 percent say Biden was legitimately elected, down from 39 percent two years prior.

Block noted in the op-ed that claims of election fraud are not fading, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence proving otherwise.

“And yet, the cries that the election was lost or stolen due to voter fraud continue with no sign of stopping. Whether a stump speech, outrageous lawsuits like the so-called Kraken cases filed by Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani’s lies or the ongoing misguided efforts of people determined to prove the election was stolen, the constant drumbeat hardens people’s hearts and minds to the truth about the 2020 election,” he wrote.

“What these claims don’t take into account is that voter fraud is detectable, quantifiable and verifiable. I have yet to see anyone offer up ‘evidence’ of voter fraud from the 2020 election that provides these three things,” he added.

He urged people to take time to “address systemic weaknesses in our election systems — such as the distressing lack of national election infrastructure to enforce election integrity, destructive practices to our elections such as gerrymandering, and leveling the playing field so that our elections become fairer and more competitive.”

“If voter fraud had impacted the 2020 election, it would already have been proven. Maintaining the lies undermines faith in the foundation of our democracy,” Block wrote.

[donnerpartyofone]

Without saying that AI imagery is categorically good or evil, art or not art, I think one of the worst consequences of its existence is how it has automatically added this Argument section to many online images where lots of people urgently make their smug assertions about whether something is fake or not, often in the absence of any clear way to tell what the truth is. And like if this gets heated enough it can make you (or me, anyway) not want anything to do with the image even if it's otherwise fun and interesting. Suddenly the whole point of its existence is this loaded thing about authenticity and fraudulence without anyone even saying exactly what those things mean to them, and this just creates a really bad smell.

It's like a mutated version of trying to watch a movie near a person who won't stop congratulating themselves for knowing that something is a special effect, and won't stop complaining that the fictional actions of the fictional characters are unrealistic, and won't stop trying to guess a twist ending instead of just experiencing the story. They just want everyone to know that they have outfoxed the movie, they have the superior intellect because the movie cannot trick them into having feelings or believing it is an unedited documentary about real life. But the AI arguments are even more onerous because movies are usually not trying to trick you into believing in a certain reality, where AI *sometimes but not always* is trying to do that. And I really do not blame anyone for worrying about getting tricked, but I do hate that we've come to this point where you can just paint every single thing you ever see with this "fake" brush, because that tends to encourage people to just check out and not give a shit. If everything is potentially fake then what's the point of caring about anything. We've gone from reasonable arguments like "the internet is full of misinformation so take X with a grain of salt" and "everything carries the editorial biases of its creators, nothing is objective" all the way over to like, oh well, everything you ever see is so likely to be a scam that the only correct response to any stimulus is to pound your chest about how cynical and unmoved you are.

Personally one of my main problems with AI art is not ethical, it's just that most of the common, accessible stuff is ugly. I really don't like the look of almost anything that comes out of Midjourney and the other immediately available programs that I'm forgetting the names of, and for me that can only be overcome by a really great and/or hilarious concept, which things are rare. I'm not interested in drawing moral conclusions about that production and I don't find it compelling to listen to people who are dogmatically for or against it. My only concern about the legitimacy or whatever of AI art is the ease with which some programs can make something that is a very close imitation of something from organic reality--and it's not just because of the potential for fraud, which is certainly worrisome, but it can also take the emotional power out of art experiences. I've seen a decent amount of truly weird, exciting AI images *that are obvious AI images* and that doesn't bother me at all. To me that's a right-tool right-job situation and that's fine. I'm more bothered by the stuff that is a very close reflection of analog creations from real life. There's someone on here who has basically invented a made-up "old master" type-painter and they post these images that are sort of acceptably familiar to something you might see in a museum--fauns chasing nymphs, ladies standing in cottage gardens, politician portraits, etc--and I'm not saying they don't have the right to do that, but I'm not sure what the point is. Like, really great real-life versions of those things already exist and I'm not sure why it's compellingly important to prove that computer software can closely imitate what's already out there. Another thing that I find sort of vexing for the same reason is the blog that posts AI images of fake tokusatsu productions. Both of the blogs I mentioned say what they are in their headers, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but what happens to me when I see a reblog from that AI tokusatu blog is: I think "Oh cool, what show/movie is this from? What's the narrative? Was it popular or is it about to be rescued from obscurity? Who made it? Where can I see more of the filmmakers' work? It's awesome that something this unusual was constructed in real life, somebody drew this up and got it funded and then people built the suits and crafted those cool miniatures and painted the lovely matte paintings, and there was an audience for it, people used to actually accept and even crave really wild stuff like this instead of all the cookie cutter fan service-type crap flooding the market now, and...oh no, this isn't from a show or a movie. It doesn't tell me anything about a certain time period or culture or artist or type of production or the heroic things people do to realize their dreams or anything, it's just, like, somebody's modern, general idea about that stuff. Oh well, it's pretty, but now I have zero questions about it and I don't really care. I'm going back to watching actual tokusatsu movies because there are already tons of great ones from real life and I don't need anyone to simulate them for me, I can already experience the wonder and admiration they inspire for real." It just matters to me how a piece of art was made and when and where and by who, and I don't think that's crazy or backwards of me. There's more to art than just the question of whether something is a pretty picture or not, and moreover I think that if "pretty picture" is the only thing that really concerns you then that is actually OK, but you should just admit that and comfortably recuse yourself from any debates around what art is or is not.

[georgegraphys]

@grbambi63's theory really made me peek into Daimler's 2018, 2019, and 2023 annual report to see the difference between Zetsche's management to Kallenius' management.

Zetsche's objective:

Kallenius had a similar objective on that too but I won't include it for today because we're not talking about the similarity but... the one thing Kallenius had that Zetsche didn't.

2019 & 2023's Kallenius-term annual report objectives:

Lower cost base. Reduction of (...) costs.

This isn't just some move that Kallenius added just because he loved saving some pennies but it might be due to the chaos that happens in his first year as a CEO. I am going to highlight two major events here.

1) Diesel Emission Scandal

In the beginning of 2018 (Zetsche's term), Daimler was accused of having shit devices on their control software for their US products but they denied this allegations. Then it was reported that the US authorities were investigating them for diesel emission cheating scandals.

In June 2019, Daimler had to recall 60,000 Mercedes diesel powered cars in Germany, the model affected is the Mercedes-Benz GLK 220 SUV produced between 2012 and 2015, the car is fitted with software aimed at distorting emissions tests. And during the same year, Daimler was fined 870 million euros in Germany for "negligent violation of supervisory duties" in relation to not fully complying with emissions regulations. In 2020, they had to pay $2.2B in settlement.

The scandal got serious actually as "The Daimler boss is also putting the german federal government in trouble. It has its back against the wall internationally because of the fraud committed by its flagship industry. US President Donald Trump has targeted Daimler in the trade dispute and threatened that he no longer wants to see Mercedes cars on Fifth Avenue in New York" source

This crisis ironically started at Zetsche's management but the peak of the case was handled during Kallenius' early stage of leadership 💀💀💀 (I FELT BAD FOR HIM NGL LMAOOO)

2) COVID 19

Do you think Kallenius' trials decrease after his first year? No. COVID-19 happens. They still profit as they are THEE Mercedes but sales were slow at one point. Kallenius and other executives had to take pay cuts due to COVID and even before, COVID he also had to struggle with Daimler's stocks dropping drastically while having to deal with the lawsuit and satisfying the investors. He also said this: (source)

Looking at how they have interesting differences as CEO. Kallenius is definitely all about cost efficient and maybe this was due to the crisis he felt in 2021 and as a preparation for Daimler's future ventures in focusing more about EQs

Update: Yeah this confirms that he had a pretty rough start to his management year in 2019 due to diesel scandal (source)

And bold of you to think that Zetsche retired from Mercedes with a bang. No he didn't. (source)

AND THE BEEF THICKENS as some board member reportedly are against his rise to be the chairman of the supervisory board (source)

Just a personal thought from me, but what if the reason Kallenius was pissed at LH in 2021 is caused by all these financial wrecks Mercedes are in during these years? They were hit again and again. To add that, Kallenius is very adamant on his cost efficient and cost reduction objectives after these hardships. And at that time, just after 2020, LH demands a raise. A raise from a company who is literally in the trenches fighting for a surplus and good result from all the legal battles they're in and COVID that caused the board members and employees to get paid cuts. Maybe this was what pissed Kallenius off? Because at that time, Mercedes wasn't doing so well and suddenly, LH asked for pay raise to a guy who is very set and clear about saving every pennies 😭😭 That must've pissed the hell out of him. I'm not saying Lewis is wrong but kinda 💀💀 to think that the butterfly effect from that moment of their contract negotiation in 2021 to what is happening rn in 2024 💀💀.

If that is true then Zetsche is the catalyst for the butterfly effect happening rn:

Zetsche diesel scandal>Him retiring>Kallenius' rise to position>Mercedes financial flopification due to dieselgate and covid>LH demanding more salary>Cost efficient and suffering Kallenius, with his hands full on Zetsche's mess, getting pissed at LH>LH and Mercedes fallout>Kallenius using George as a piece in the contract negotiation>Toto Wolff power decrease in Kallenius' era>George to Mercedes>Another contract negotiation problems>Ambassadorial promise getting yeetus deletus-ed>LH pissed>Ferrari move early>George steps forward as team leader

If this is real. If the butterfly effect is real, then it's crazy.