Protect Your Community from a Hoax

[Kathy]

Kathy submitted a new Article:

Protect Your Community from a Hoax

A Hoax in an online community?

Hoaxes are nothing new to human nature. Lying and cheating are part of the dark nature of mankind. When the internet exploded, the new media gave people an opportunity to take hoaxing to a new level.

From online communities with forums to myspace communities, blogs and email, hoax creators know no boundaries.

What is a hoax within an online community?

A hoax can be as nebulous as a seemingly safe link to a dangerous resource or as cruel as an ill community member who fakes their death. It can involve money and a request for donations or funds or not.

It can affect a large or small group.

No matter the kind of dishonestly, the "master" hoax is played out carefully, not in one post but in a length of time with posts, journals, emails and perhaps phone calls.

Recently a member registered as "Widow" in our medical community. Her posts started simply with little to raise suspicious red flags. As a medical community the facts are well known to the long-term members but new members may trip over details. A few details that aren't accurate is no biggie. Anyone being thrust into a major illness may not understand some of the lingo. However some of the story enlarged while other parts remained vague, even after supportive members questioned the member for diagnosis and staging of cancer. A kind member gifted her with an upgraded membership and she started a journal with eloquence and drama but vagueness of medical knowledge. Her journal
​

Protecting your community

Its important to be wise as an administrator of your community. Watch for members who's stories do not make sense. Or watch for members who post extravagant posts with too many details that do not add up over time. Or watch for members who post simple posts with vague comments that tend to be over the top.

Google their username. Google their email address. Google any of the keywords in their bio or posts that might help narrow your search.

Interesting enough, hoax creators tend to move from community to community with similar usernames and stories. While they may believe themselves to be brilliant, their lack of creativity is their downfall.

Her maladies increased: A heart attack during chemo therapy. An emergency surgery that made little sense. A coma.

Two members contacted me with the descrepancies and...​

Read more about this article here...

 

[Halin]

What a brilliant article! I hope people read it an take the warning seriously. I had similar cases, twice, on two different forums. Both had major impact on the community, and actually I am glad that I had the 'experience' from the first case to know how to deal with the second (far more severe case).

The second case included a member who spun her tale for more than a year. As described, it turned out harmless, but after the simple troubles of life/maladies and whatever she posted about didn't give her the attention she wanted on the forum (which was basically being cuddles by everyone on the forum) because someone else was actually having realy trouble and need of advice, the stories she told became more and more terrible - in the end leading up to a 'suicide attempt'.

I don't know when I first became suspicous, but upon digging and asking profea little bit it quickly became apparent that some medical details didn't add up, the timing was strange, .. and for some reason as soon as someone else had a problem she suddenly had the same problem.

In the end she even went so far as to create a second account and post as her 'lover' to give the story more punch. It seems she didn't know about IP adresses, because when there were two posts from the same IP address from her and 'lover', telling that he moved out and was now posting from a different I had the proof I needed to fully bring down the contructions of lies.

In retrospect the whole story is crystal clear, and someone hard to believe that we were fooled for so long. just remember, they start out subtly and draw you into their net - The only chance you have is, as Kathy said, to keep your eyes open and check details. As hard as it may sound, and even if you want to be compassionate, for the sake of your community, be sceptical and if there are discrepancies in someone's story, follow up on them.

 

[CDarklock]

Okay, bear with me on this, because it's an honest question.

Fundamentally, what you seem to be describing here is a variety of attention whore. They lie and misdirect and do all sorts of crap to try and get attention. Don't these people have - well, a problem? Granted, it's not the problem they say they have, but it's still a problem. Where exactly is the line between "you've uncovered a hoax and the perpetrator must be punished" and "you've uncovered a sickness and the victim should be pitied"?

What truly disturbs me about this is that a lot of the kinds of forums these people frequent are supposed to be support forums for the sick, and it looks like a lot of these people are indeed sick. They may not be the kind of sick you support, and there may be better places for them to go, but still... it looks like people are taking their frustration and outrage at being "taken in" and directing it into aggression against these people. Is that really healthy?

Let's say you have a mental health support forum, and someone is hoaxing you with continuing suicidal ideation and news of attempted suicides. You find out this person does this on lots of other forums, and never actually does attempt suicide. Irrespective of this, doesn't the person still have a mental health issue and need support?

 

[Sarah]

While I see your point, the protection of other members has to be considered. What if other members are meeting up with (the closest to realistic version of) this person in real life? What if members are taking up donation collections to help this member with their "tragedies?"

As admin you have access to a lot of evidence that your members don't. Not many of us probably sit here obsessively comparing IPs all day long, but if something already stinks and you're in a position to confirm/deny, it might help keep your other members from getting involved in big problems.

 

[pebbleworm]

Thanks.

 

[Halin]

Okay, bear with me on this, because it's an honest question.

Fundamentally, what you seem to be describing here is a variety of attention whore. They lie and misdirect and do all sorts of crap to try and get attention. Don't these people have - well, a problem? Granted, it's not the problem they say they have, but it's still a problem. Where exactly is the line between "you've uncovered a hoax and the perpetrator must be punished" and "you've uncovered a sickness and the victim should be pitied"?

What truly disturbs me about this is that a lot of the kinds of forums these people frequent are supposed to be support forums for the sick, and it looks like a lot of these people are indeed sick. They may not be the kind of sick you support, and there may be better places for them to go, but still... it looks like people are taking their frustration and outrage at being "taken in" and directing it into aggression against these people. Is that really healthy?

Let's say you have a mental health support forum, and someone is hoaxing you with continuing suicidal ideation and news of attempted suicides. You find out this person does this on lots of other forums, and never actually does attempt suicide. Irrespective of this, doesn't the person still have a mental health issue and need support?

I'd like to answer this in a little more detail.

Like Sarah said, there is more people to consicder than the one conducting the hoax. In our particular case for example one of the other members (who already was hovering at the edge) was driven into depression by her. A bunch of other members left because they just couldn't stand it anymore. And no, we are not a support group, we are just a writing group.

Plainly: One person, no matter what mental problems she might have, has no right to hurt others. And I as the admin have the responsibility to protect my members from them. How that is accomplished could be a matter for discussion.

Oh yes, I am pretty sure 'Hoax' is sick, but honestly I think that cutting her hoax did her a lot better than playing along with it. That would have been like buying an addict another bottle of liquor. As soon as I knew about it I knew I had to stop it - but collect enough evidence first to make sure that she can't wiggle out of the lies but really hits the wall.
Maybe it made her think a little and see her real problems, maybe not. Actually, I am sure that it didn't, because I *gasp* stayed in touch with her still some time afterwards, even after we had to ban her.

The ban only happened about a week after we first revealed the lies to our members. So yes, she had time to show her side of things, present her case - apologize and turn around. No, she did not use the opportunity. She only admitted those things we directly confronted her with, and then (not knowing that we knew far more than we originally let on to) tried to spin a new house of lies out of the parts of her story that we hadn't revealed as lies yet. After she did that three times we decided that it's a lost cause and banned her.

That week of discussion (even though almost all other activity on the board came to a halt during that time) was incredibly helpful to our members. They saw what happened, were part of the process and could work through their feelings, thoughts, and reactions. In the end there was no one who felt the ban was unjustified, and we came out of it as a much stronger group

 

[East Hill]

Irrespective of this, doesn't the person still have a mental health issue and need support?

Yes, to a certain extent. However, some of the hoaxes and scams which were uncovered and exposed involved gifts of money, which is fraud. Even if the person is ill mentally, that's when it becomes more than just someone crying out for help. At that point, I would venture to say that simply talking on a board would not be enough to help someone who has that much trouble in their psyche, but rather, it has become a matter for a professional intervention.

East Hill

 

[CDarklock]

What if other members are meeting up with (the closest to realistic version of) this person in real life? What if members are taking up donation collections to help this member with their "tragedies?"

What if they're not?

I mean, there are certainly cases where the practice crosses the line, but it seems like the problem there isn't the hoax but the line. It seems like the article might have mentioned where those lines are;

Plainly: One person, no matter what mental problems she might have, has no right to hurt others.

Again, this is a problem of crossing a line. When you have someone telling lies on your board AND defrauding or upsetting your members, yes, you have a problem.

But why are the lies even relevant? If I have a member upsetting my other members, I have a problem even if everything that member says is true. How exactly does the problem change when the member is lying? Certainly fraud almost requires the member to lie, or it isn't fraud - but the lie itself isn't the fraudulent part.

Precisely how much of this is an administrator's responsibility, anyway? If I'm going to send my money to someone on the internet, isn't it my job to make sure that person isn't making fraudulent claims? If I'm going to meet someone IRL, isn't it up to me to do it safely? When exactly do I have the right to expect that the forum administrator will stand up and say "hey, don't do that"?

 

[Sarah]

If I'm going to send my money to someone on the internet, isn't it my job to make sure that person isn't making fraudulent claims? If I'm going to meet someone IRL, isn't it up to me to do it safely?

Yes it is. But if you don't have access to evidence showing that person is a pathological liar and manipulator, and I do, should I keep my mouth shut?

 

[CDarklock]

Yes it is. But if you don't have access to evidence showing that person is a pathological liar and manipulator, and I do, should I keep my mouth shut?

That opens up a number of questions.

1. If you already know the person is a liar and manipulator, why haven't you already said something?

2. If you don't know but could find out with some effort, are you required to invest that effort because I'm planning something risky?

3. How much effort are you required to invest in finding out whether I'm planning something risky?

4. If nobody ever plans anything risky, should you still be investing that effort?

It just seems like this question is anything but simple.

 

[Kathy]

In my estimation (and I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV) it is similar to other issues that could be considered the requirement of the admin/owner of a forum.

We know that there are cases where the owner/admin of a forum/website was held liable for the content of posts where illegal activity was involved: From plotting a crime to slander/libel.

If we discover a member is not who they claim to be, spins lies for the purpose of leading others to send money or gifts, this could become the responsibility of the admin....according to the law.

But setting the possible legal issues aside (for the responsibility of the admin), I am suggesting it is prudent and ethical for a forum admin to handle their community carefully, attempting to protect them from possible theft or other manipulative behavior of scammers within the activities of the community.

My community thanks me for intervening and disabling the account of such members. They are already vulnerable as they go through chemo therapy and have hearts the size of Texas in their generosity. For me not to use the tools I have available to try to make sure they are not taken advantage of by unethical/evil people would be irresponsible for me.

 

[Sarah]

If you already know the person is a liar and manipulator, why haven't you already said something?

Forgive me, but you appear to contradict yourself.

We should feel sorry for the poor crazy people, but if we find out they're up to no good, we should have found out earlier and outed them earlier? What?

I have a pretty highly tuned BS detector, but I'm not psychic. There are hierarchies of liars: average liars, liars trying to get something, puppetmasters, and combinations thereof. Average liars might fly under my radar until I see them trying to achieve gains or lure people into the irl, at which point, yeah, I'll check them out.

 

[CDarklock]

Forgive me, but you appear to contradict yourself.

It's contradictory to suggest that you can tell the community someone is lying without turning that person into an object of ridicule and abuse?

I just don't really understand the problem. It seems like the article's all about finding and removing liars, when the real intent is apparently to find and remove criminals. Isn't this a confusion of cause and effect? They're not criminals because they lie, they lie because they're criminals. The logic doesn't flow in the other direction, and regardless of the unacceptable consequences if you don't remove a criminal, aren't there unacceptable consequences if you DO remove someone who fundamentally needs help?

Harper's Index reported in this month's issue that in 1953, 0.67% of the United States population were involuntarily incarcerated - 75% of them in mental institutions. Today, 0.68% are involuntarily incarcerated, but 97% of them are in prison. In essence, 96% of the people who would have been treated fifty years ago are simply imprisoned today. That doesn't seem so very different from the attitudes I see in this thread.

I suggest this represents a disturbing trend that ought to be resisted. But that's me.

 

[Sarah]

Ok, first of all, saying that you know someone happens to be a liar liar pants on fire != incarcerating them. Participating on a forum in ways that are dishonest and against the TOS are not civil liberties.

It's contradictory to suggest that you can tell the community someone is lying without turning that person into an object of ridicule and abuse?

No, if you saw the part that I quoted and was responding to, it is contradictory to first say that admins should handhold people that are trying to use their forums for personal gain/stirring up drama/whatever the motive out of pity for their unfortunate condition, and then turn around and blame the admins for not outing them x nanoseconds earlier than whenever they did.

 

[PalePhoenix]

Are you sure you're not talking about the fabulous ladies' monthly, Harper's Bazaar? Cue Samuel Clemens, because there's something a tad fishy about those stats, or at least their interpretation of them. Either way, they don't seem material to the discussion at hand.

Girl Meets Forum. Girl Lies to Forum, gets everyone into a whole tizz of pointless drama, and then Forum Tells Girl to Sod Off. Where in tarnation did 'free speech' come from? What does it have to do with the article at all?

Dear Diary,

Today my forum staff and I got bamboozled, and now we're all feeling really, really icky. Someone took advantage of our loving, supportive community, and now I really wanna put a glittery stake between her eyes. I hate being lied to and tricked. It's so mean. I'm going to gussy up my horror and personal offense and make it a lesson every gal (or cute guy, LOL) out there should know. And when I'm done, I think I'll make some strychnine brownies for that $#!@%, in my Magic Bake Oven.

Toodles!
Missy​

Aherm... While I will not discount the sound advice couched in so many convenient links to the "evidence," there is a thinly veiled subtext of paranoia and betrayal coursing through that account. It's most people's worst nightmare, to be honest, the idea that they can extend their care and emotions to someone who seems to be in need...only to get bitten on the butt because the usual flashing red lights failed to go off. Or they find they just ignored them.

I'm not here to split that hair. Most of us run--and happily participate in--online communities because we want that sense of connection to others who may share our interests, values, and beliefs. When this fails crashingly, it is mostly the same as in the offline world. I say "mostly" because there ARE major differences. We choose online venues because we can control more of our interface or persona, what other people see and know of us. Unfortunately, predators and emotionally imbalanced malcontents use them for the same exact reason.

Google is not a crystal ball. It can't tell you WHY this sort of person has chosen your community to deface and disrupt with his or her fabrications. When time, money, and micromanagement effort come into play, those warning bells are supposed to go off. When they do not, and you are the staff or member 'closest' to the situation--or simply the one most upset and disturbed by it--then you really have to wonder how much you might have wanted or needed such a heart-breaking tale to be true.

Howza 'bout we discuss THAT?

 

[Halin]

It seems like the article's all about finding and removing liars, when the real intent is apparently to find and remove criminals.

Not exactly. Of course, ciminals are high up on the list of people to be removed from the forums. But not all cases are that clear-cut. No one will get banned simply because of lying either. I don't mind if people tell only half the truth about their lives on a forum. After all, that's part of the reason those places exist in the internet - as places where you don't have to reveal every single bit about yourself.

But in between there is this vast gray area - and I think this article is a strong warning to admins not to ignore that gray area. Keep an eye on it and don't wait until it drift into the extremes. Where to draw the line is something each community have to decide for themselves. For myself, I draw it where the lies (or any bahaviour) becomes harmful to the forum and/or individual member.
Actually, the moment I realized what was happening to the community it could have been a reason to ban her, without the proof for the lies. Why I waited until we had that proof - those were reasons that went beyond that. (see below)

Google is not a crystal ball. It can't tell you WHY this sort of person has chosen your community to deface and disrupt with his or her fabrications. When time, money, and micromanagement effort come into play, those warning bells are supposed to go off. When they do not, and you are the staff or member 'closest' to the situation--or simply the one most upset and disturbed by it--then you really have to wonder how much you might have wanted or needed such a heart-breaking tale to be true.

Howza 'bout we discuss THAT?

That is actually a very good any interesting question. There are probably as many answers as there are foum admins/users out there.

As much as we try to keep them out of it, emotions are always involved - those of the members, the mods - and even the person who is causing the problem. I admit when first I started to feel suspicous and irritated by that person I even felt guilty about it. It's not always easy to decide whether you're paranoid or just have fine-tuned sensors.
Most of my co-admins and mods agreed that we had rather err on the side of compassion than rush forward and maybe hurt an innocent person. (Remember, this were suicide stories we are talking about. There is a whole long thread talking about that topic, including some advise about what to do best when something like that arises, so I won't go into that here.)

Baseline: Almost nothing is ever clear-cut and fact-based only. If they were, problems would hardly ever arise - or if they did, they would be recognized and dealt with immediately.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the internet we far too often are groping in the dark.

 

[Kathy]

Aherm... While I will not discount the sound advice couched in so many convenient links to the "evidence," there is a thinly veiled subtext of paranoia and betrayal coursing through that account.

Paranoia has nothing to do with my motivation to disable this member's account. With over 100,000 members, if I was paranoid, I would have gone running away long ago. Vulnerable women going through chemo therapy makes it my responsibility as an admin, not my paranoia, that motivate me. No warning bells were ignored.

When time, money, and micromanagement effort come into play, those warning bells are supposed to go off. When they do not, and you are the staff or member 'closest' to the situation--or simply the one most upset and disturbed by it--then you really have to wonder how much you might have wanted or needed such a heart-breaking tale to be true.

Howza 'bout we discuss THAT?

Sure we can discuss it if the admin is the micromanager and does not have a team of support. This type of admin would lend to an atmosphere of paranoia. I, however, have established an awesome staff who handle most issues, doing their due diligence before they notify me. No one at my website needed this member to come along and entertain us. We have actual satisfying work to do without having to deal with this kind of stuff.

 

[Libertate]

Hmmm... I recall a case where a site's members were ripped off just in such a manner.

I am aware that I am more paranoid as an occupational hazzard than average, but I think the article is beneficial.

I am content with a non-techie forum admin to "Google".

This falls into the 80/20 rule. 80% of such rip-off artists will be discovered by using simply "Google". The other 20% are slicker than slugs and need professionals.

 

[CDarklock]

Ok, first of all, saying that you know someone happens to be a liar liar pants on fire != incarcerating them.

You seem to be trying to connect the wrong dots.

In the past fifty years, there has been an overwhelming trend to treat the mentally ill the same way we treat criminals.

Some portion of the people who come to your board and spin false tales of malady and hardship are mentally ill and need help. It is neither fair nor productive to treat these people the same way you would treat criminals. I believe it is important to distinguish these people from the criminals, and treat them differently. The article does not even recognise this possibility, and I think that's a large oversight.

it is contradictory to first say that admins should handhold people

I didn't say that. I asked "don't these people need support". Whether you should be compelled to provide it is a separate question, and I don't presume to know the answer to it. It depends on your forum, and your members, and the precise nature of the "hoax" you're encountering.

The answer I've gotten to this question is "what if they're criminals", and that's a valid point. But if the people on your board are criminals, the problem isn't that they're lying, it's WHY they're lying.

and then turn around and blame the admins for not outing them x nanoseconds earlier than whenever they did.

I didn't say that either. I asked why, if you already know someone is lying, you would choose not to reveal that. That cuts directly to the heart of the matter; if you know someone is lying, then your decision not to reveal this is almost certainly a recognition that there is substantial non-criminal potential in a member's lying. And that's precisely what I'm on about.

 

[CDarklock]

Are you sure you're not talking about the fabulous ladies' monthly, Harper's Bazaar?

Yes, I'm very sure:

http://www.harpers.org/

Compare to:

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/

Girl Meets Forum. Girl Lies to Forum, gets everyone into a whole tizz of pointless drama, and then Forum Tells Girl to Sod Off. Where in tarnation did 'free speech' come from?

Free speech? WTF? I didn't say anything about free speech. I'm just saying that people lie in forums for several reasons, and the great majority of them are neither criminal nor detrimental.

you really have to wonder how much you might have wanted or needed such a heart-breaking tale to be true.

That's a great question.

I did some volunteer work at a mental institution in the early 1990s. It was surprising to me, when a new patient arrived, how things progressed. At first, the new patient would be distinctly obvious. Rapidly, however, he/she would gradually assimilate into the community... not just in terms of schedules and expectations and cooperation, but also in terms of SYMPTOMS and HISTORY.

When a patient was introduced to a group therapy session in which most of the existing members had been abused as children, it usually took only a few weeks before the patient suddenly recovered repressed memories of abuse. If the same patient was then moved to another group where abuse was not the norm, the patient would frequently recant his prior accounts. Amazingly, the "truth" would then prove to be that his background was a lot more like the people in his new group.

Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but it seems to me that if we let such a person select his own group - he would select that group because it represented the best audience for the background (true or fictional) he personally preferred to display.

It also seems like a criminal would do the exact same thing, but that the criminal would be more likely to tell the same story over and over. Criminals, like sociopaths, get attached to their modus operandi and dislike altering it.

So a forum would probably be chosen because it had members who formed a good audience. This is probably why the forums I frequent - which are usually full of vitriol and invective and broad-spectrum distrust of damn near everything - almost never end up with these people on them. And since a forum is largely self-selected, it could be productively argued that the forum is a good audience because it wants to be a good audience.

But I don't think they want to be a good audience. I think they're a good audience as a side effect of other positive things, like being supportive and accepting and trusting. And I think it's a disservice to claim that because they want to be supportive and accepting and trusting, they also want to be a good audience and are thus partially to blame for any victimisation they may suffer as a result. It simply doesn't seem fair.

I do, however, believe that the forum should recognise and understand that these things MAKE them a good audience - and therefore exercise a bit more vigilance. Much like a small and attractive woman might note that she seems a good target, and take additional measures to protect herself that other people might not find necessary. Forums which aren't exactly overflowing with rampant undirected testosterone rage might pay somewhat closer attention to claims of medical or financial problems, for example.