Spoofed posts not funny anymore February 16, 2003 12:48 PM Subscribe
it also appears smaller on my browser.
posted by angry modem at 12:59 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by angry modem at 12:59 PM on February 16, 2003
Meh.
This has been going on for a long time. It's a dumb joke that few people have managed to pull off, and fewer actually make funny. Don't get your panties in a twist over it.
posted by Su at 1:12 PM on February 16, 2003
This has been going on for a long time. It's a dumb joke that few people have managed to pull off, and fewer actually make funny. Don't get your panties in a twist over it.
posted by Su at 1:12 PM on February 16, 2003
It's be nice if he'd gotten the "posted by..." the right colour. The only thing worse than a dumb joke is a dumb joke done badly. This is a textbook case of the latter.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:15 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:15 PM on February 16, 2003
It's be nice if he'd gotten the "posted by..." the right colour
You used to be able to. I think that's the method Matt's given us to see this stuff.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:25 PM on February 16, 2003
You used to be able to. I think that's the method Matt's given us to see this stuff.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:25 PM on February 16, 2003
a dumb joke done badly
well, I think the question is, is it a dumb joke done badly, or is it a way of tweaking the system using deliberately misleading coding at the expense of other members? I honestly haven't noticed it except when it has been called out, but it should be at some level bad form or "against the rules" to create fake posts by another user... don't you think?
posted by jessamyn at 1:27 PM on February 16, 2003
well, I think the question is, is it a dumb joke done badly, or is it a way of tweaking the system using deliberately misleading coding at the expense of other members? I honestly haven't noticed it except when it has been called out, but it should be at some level bad form or "against the rules" to create fake posts by another user... don't you think?
posted by jessamyn at 1:27 PM on February 16, 2003
Me, I'd kick him. It's not like he hasn't been warned. I don't see the practical difference between this and getting multiple accounts, except if anything this is worse because it can be used to make someone else look bad.
But I'm not in charge. I'm a little trigger happy. In this self-policing community, I would like to be the renegade cop, out for justice in a city built on corruption. You want my badge? Take it!
posted by Hildago at 2:07 PM on February 16, 2003
But I'm not in charge. I'm a little trigger happy. In this self-policing community, I would like to be the renegade cop, out for justice in a city built on corruption. You want my badge? Take it!
posted by Hildago at 2:07 PM on February 16, 2003
You want my badge? Take it!
Nah, I don't need it. I'll just hold a piece of paper with my name over your badge, and everyone will think I've got it.
posted by fvw at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2003
Nah, I don't need it. I'll just hold a piece of paper with my name over your badge, and everyone will think I've got it.
posted by fvw at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2003
I think this is much worse than multiple accounts, with that you're not doing any identity theft. I also don't think everyone should assume this trick is obvious just because it's obvious to some. In chimera the font is pretty much a completely different size, but obviously some people are being tricked by it.
posted by rhyax at 2:30 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by rhyax at 2:30 PM on February 16, 2003
In (my version of) IE there is no difference in size, only a minor difference in color. It took me a few seconds to find the difference even when I knew it was there. Under normal circumstances I would never give that much scrutiny to the byline of a given post.
posted by Hildago at 3:10 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by Hildago at 3:10 PM on February 16, 2003
In Mozilla 1.2.1/XP, the only difference is a very subtle variation in the colour of the timestamp text (and it is virtually indistinguishable from the "visited link" colour), which I would not notice in the normal course of things. Given that monitors vary so much in the way they display, it is conceivable that many or even most users would not notice unless the comment was particularly out of context, while others see something completely different.
Much as I hate to see hard rules established, the potential for chaos with this is high should a user or users decide to take it beyond the joke stage and it should not be allowed (unless it is really funny :-)) Keep in mind that many members and readers would not even know the difference if they saw the discrepancy in where the link goes to.
posted by dg at 3:33 PM on February 16, 2003
Much as I hate to see hard rules established, the potential for chaos with this is high should a user or users decide to take it beyond the joke stage and it should not be allowed (unless it is really funny :-)) Keep in mind that many members and readers would not even know the difference if they saw the discrepancy in where the link goes to.
posted by dg at 3:33 PM on February 16, 2003
Jessamyn: On the whole, I agree with you. It is bad form, though in regards to rules, I don't recall Matt's opinion of it. However, I also it easy to expose if the question ever comes up. You go to the user page of the person in question and click through to "their" comment in the thread(Rizvi has never made any comments; bad choice), and see where the browser drops you. It should be at the top of their appropriate text. If not, something's up. If you like sorting through masses of text, you can just view the source, although this would be easier if the code wrapped each individual comment in a DIV, or somesuch. Right now, you have to scan for the anchor tags.
So that leaves the matter of it coming up in the first place. But how is this any different from hearsay in "real life"? If there's a comment supposedly made by a person, and you think it's suspicious, because of tone, or whatever, you'd check on the facts or ask them. If it's in character, then you probably accept it until such time as they or someone else calls it into question. Frankly, it's much easier to check on this sort of thing here.
This isn't a complete argument, but the 300th Simpsons is coming on soon, and I need to go stake out the TV.
posted by Su at 3:40 PM on February 16, 2003
So that leaves the matter of it coming up in the first place. But how is this any different from hearsay in "real life"? If there's a comment supposedly made by a person, and you think it's suspicious, because of tone, or whatever, you'd check on the facts or ask them. If it's in character, then you probably accept it until such time as they or someone else calls it into question. Frankly, it's much easier to check on this sort of thing here.
This isn't a complete argument, but the 300th Simpsons is coming on soon, and I need to go stake out the TV.
posted by Su at 3:40 PM on February 16, 2003
As to the previous prank, I didn't notice that MeTa thread until now -- seeing as how clavdivs accepted the explanation in the thread, I guess no one thought to email me (I've emailed clavdivs, though, just to be sure). I would contact rizvi to apologize also, but he has no email listed, and in fact, has never participated in Metafilter (I thought this would make the spoof obvious enough, but apparently it wasn't). This particular trick was previously discussed here. The color difference (which we do not have control of), at least, should be a dead giveaway.
Once could be considered funny, but what's the point behind this?
I was calling myself a dork, because I was taking issue with a technical point in a biography. Generally, anything which mars the 'other side' is a bad idea, which is why we get into so many debates about image posting, post styling, and this -- it was a lapse in judgement, and not my first. I don't buy the argument that someone could use this successfully for nefarious purposes, though; it's easy enough to spot if you know what to look for (visually, no source viewing required), known to quite a few Metatalk readers, and it's impossible to hide who is doing the spoofing.
Me, I'd kick him.
ouch.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:41 PM on February 16, 2003
Once could be considered funny, but what's the point behind this?
I was calling myself a dork, because I was taking issue with a technical point in a biography. Generally, anything which mars the 'other side' is a bad idea, which is why we get into so many debates about image posting, post styling, and this -- it was a lapse in judgement, and not my first. I don't buy the argument that someone could use this successfully for nefarious purposes, though; it's easy enough to spot if you know what to look for (visually, no source viewing required), known to quite a few Metatalk readers, and it's impossible to hide who is doing the spoofing.
Me, I'd kick him.
ouch.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:41 PM on February 16, 2003
I didnt notice the color difference but i did notice that there were 3 comments when only two were noted in the comment count.
posted by Recockulous at 5:13 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by Recockulous at 5:13 PM on February 16, 2003
The color difference (which we do not have control of), at least, should be a dead giveaway.
That's what you think...
Me, I would have warned and then booted you.
posted by zerofoks at 5:14 PM on February 16, 2003
That's what you think...
Me, I would have warned and then booted you.
posted by zerofoks at 5:14 PM on February 16, 2003
I don't buy the argument that someone could use this successfully for nefarious purposes, though
This and this takes a joke beyond the joke stage, though. While these comments do not seem to be done with any sinister purpose, the huge variety in the way that web browsers display the same information means that it is not as obvious to everyone as it is to you (and it is not always obvious until you know it is there, either). Users should not be required to check the background of every comment made and should be able to take them as read. Maybe whatever it is that makes the fake posts a different colour should make them a more different colour to make sure? Or is it possible to have the server automagically change the string "posted by ...." to "[posting user] is a fuckwit and tried to attribute a fake comment to [user]" when included within a comment?
Once again, what was a very rarely used and then only in obvious circumstances, in-joke has been turned into a potential minefield of misunderstanding and confusion by idiots.
posted by dg at 5:33 PM on February 16, 2003
This and this takes a joke beyond the joke stage, though. While these comments do not seem to be done with any sinister purpose, the huge variety in the way that web browsers display the same information means that it is not as obvious to everyone as it is to you (and it is not always obvious until you know it is there, either). Users should not be required to check the background of every comment made and should be able to take them as read. Maybe whatever it is that makes the fake posts a different colour should make them a more different colour to make sure? Or is it possible to have the server automagically change the string "posted by ...." to "[posting user] is a fuckwit and tried to attribute a fake comment to [user]" when included within a comment?
Once again, what was a very rarely used and then only in obvious circumstances, in-joke has been turned into a potential minefield of misunderstanding and confusion by idiots.
posted by dg at 5:33 PM on February 16, 2003
I think not. No one ever got away with something like this for more than a matter of hours in one day. If you can't be sure--View Source is always there and if you miss it, someone will catch it in under eight hours. No one is ever going to get away with doing this from malice and be here the next day--it's a no brainer. Everybody gets their panties in a twist over everything. Must we make a mountain out of every little pimple? This like duct tape for the mind.
posted by y2karl at 6:04 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by y2karl at 6:04 PM on February 16, 2003
er, applesauce.
snowblower can be substituted for lawnmower for a small additonal fee
posted by quonsar at 6:43 PM on February 16, 2003
snowblower can be substituted for lawnmower for a small additonal fee
posted by quonsar at 6:43 PM on February 16, 2003
Users should not be required to check the background of every comment made and should be able to take them as read. Maybe whatever it is that makes the fake posts a different colour should make them a more different colour to make sure?
You're approaching that from the wrong direction. There is nothing that singles out fake posts and makes them a different color. They never were the right color*, because Matt has disallowed use of the SPAN tag(and, I believe the style attribute), and so we can't actually make the fake posts identical to a real one. Without some fancy logic in the commenting system that looks for particular phrases and bits of code in particular orders, this just ain't gonna happen.
As for checking background, no, you shouldn't have to do this for all of them. Please reference my previous comment. You seem to be operating under the assumption that a posting here is something akin to speaking directly to that person, and that's wrong. There is a middleman, which effectively makes everything you read on this site hearsay, and you should not assume that everybody's password is so good that no one can figure it out and make fake posts under their name. As in real life, however, the issue only comes up when the fake is obvious, or pointed out. Do you automatically believe everything someone tells you someone else said?
Matt has done just about all that is possible to prevent this, or at least make it difficult/annoying. A rule against it isn't going to be much more of a deterrent than say, telling people to avoid in-line images or quit with the vibrating pancake bunny overlord references. I don't see doing this to be something meriting a threat of expulsion, and it's not like people need to be told it's in bad taste to present false information, so the rule isn't going to do much to stop someone who gets the idea in their head, anyway.
* This post looked wrong, besides the goof including the timezone in the link , because "posted by" was enclosed in a SMALL tag, rather than a SPAN with class of "smallcopy" .
posted by Su at 6:46 PM on February 16, 2003
You're approaching that from the wrong direction. There is nothing that singles out fake posts and makes them a different color. They never were the right color*, because Matt has disallowed use of the SPAN tag(and, I believe the style attribute), and so we can't actually make the fake posts identical to a real one. Without some fancy logic in the commenting system that looks for particular phrases and bits of code in particular orders, this just ain't gonna happen.
As for checking background, no, you shouldn't have to do this for all of them. Please reference my previous comment. You seem to be operating under the assumption that a posting here is something akin to speaking directly to that person, and that's wrong. There is a middleman, which effectively makes everything you read on this site hearsay, and you should not assume that everybody's password is so good that no one can figure it out and make fake posts under their name. As in real life, however, the issue only comes up when the fake is obvious, or pointed out. Do you automatically believe everything someone tells you someone else said?
Matt has done just about all that is possible to prevent this, or at least make it difficult/annoying. A rule against it isn't going to be much more of a deterrent than say, telling people to avoid in-line images or quit with the vibrating pancake bunny overlord references. I don't see doing this to be something meriting a threat of expulsion, and it's not like people need to be told it's in bad taste to present false information, so the rule isn't going to do much to stop someone who gets the idea in their head, anyway.
* This post looked wrong, besides the goof including the timezone in the link , because "posted by" was enclosed in a SMALL tag, rather than a SPAN with class of "smallcopy" .
posted by Su at 6:46 PM on February 16, 2003
I think not. No one ever got away with something like this for more than a matter of hours in one day.
How would you know if someone ever got away with it?
posted by Hildago at 7:28 PM on February 16, 2003
How would you know if someone ever got away with it?
posted by Hildago at 7:28 PM on February 16, 2003
I guess I did not explain myself properly - the difference in appearance between "real" and "fake" posts ranges from being subtle and easily lost in amongst other links on the page with the same colour (maybe some browsers are different, but this is the case with both IE6 and Mozilla 1.2.1), to being invisible to those, for example, on PDAs or similar devices. I feel that it is unreasonable that users have to mouse-over the timestamp on every link to check that it is genuine, but perhaps I am being too anal.
This is not an issue of whether I believe what someone says or not, it is an issue of whether I believe they said it. I do not see it as unreasonable to assume that the person making a comment is that user. Every user is responsible for the security of their 'account" and if they are slack and someone else is able to post as them, it is their responsibility. If another member is posing as them and making comments in their name, that is different. It is easy for the tech-savvy to assume the same level of skill in all others, but that is far from correct.
Saying that "View Source is always there and if you miss it, someone will catch it in under eight hours" is very naive, in my opinion. In a matter of days, we have seen this go from a user making a throwaway comment as a joke to two other users making serious comments posing as other users. That is my concern - the whole slippery slope thing. To say that they would be found out in under eight hours drastically underestimates the amount of bitching that can happen in this place in eight hours.
The only saving grace that we have is that it is impossible to hide who did the deed, but that does not always stop members from going berserk just for the sake of it, does it sarge?
[/rant]
posted by dg at 7:37 PM on February 16, 2003
This is not an issue of whether I believe what someone says or not, it is an issue of whether I believe they said it. I do not see it as unreasonable to assume that the person making a comment is that user. Every user is responsible for the security of their 'account" and if they are slack and someone else is able to post as them, it is their responsibility. If another member is posing as them and making comments in their name, that is different. It is easy for the tech-savvy to assume the same level of skill in all others, but that is far from correct.
Saying that "View Source is always there and if you miss it, someone will catch it in under eight hours" is very naive, in my opinion. In a matter of days, we have seen this go from a user making a throwaway comment as a joke to two other users making serious comments posing as other users. That is my concern - the whole slippery slope thing. To say that they would be found out in under eight hours drastically underestimates the amount of bitching that can happen in this place in eight hours.
The only saving grace that we have is that it is impossible to hide who did the deed, but that does not always stop members from going berserk just for the sake of it, does it sarge?
[/rant]
posted by dg at 7:37 PM on February 16, 2003
You seem to be operating under the assumption that a posting here is something akin to speaking directly to that person, and that's wrong. There is a middleman, which effectively makes everything you read on this site hearsay, and you should not assume that everybody's password is so good that no one can figure it out and make fake posts under their name.
Right, right, right... but how does this excuse identity theft, however crude? You're saying that because we can never be absolutely sure about who we're talking to online, that abuses of the system should just be overlooked?
I can't agree with that. It's not like it's a plague or anything, but it undermines to some degree the mutual confidence that makes online communities work.
Matt has done just about all that is possible to prevent this, or at least make it difficult/annoying.
Indicating, perhaps, that he doesn't like it.
I don't see doing this to be something meriting a threat of expulsion, and it's not like people need to be told it's in bad taste to present false information, so the rule isn't going to do much to stop someone who gets the idea in their head, anyway.
Who said rules? I said get rid of them. If people know it's wrong and do it anyway, that makes it worse, not better. The reason you don't kick people who use images and such is that that's just a matter of esthetics, very different from trying to trick the users and misrepresent somebody else.
Haven't there been people who've been deleted before for giving false info? Maybe I'm making that up.
Anyway, if Matt doesn't have a problem with it, then it's a moot point, but to me it's a pretty nasty thing to do.
posted by Hildago at 7:57 PM on February 16, 2003
Right, right, right... but how does this excuse identity theft, however crude? You're saying that because we can never be absolutely sure about who we're talking to online, that abuses of the system should just be overlooked?
I can't agree with that. It's not like it's a plague or anything, but it undermines to some degree the mutual confidence that makes online communities work.
Matt has done just about all that is possible to prevent this, or at least make it difficult/annoying.
Indicating, perhaps, that he doesn't like it.
I don't see doing this to be something meriting a threat of expulsion, and it's not like people need to be told it's in bad taste to present false information, so the rule isn't going to do much to stop someone who gets the idea in their head, anyway.
Who said rules? I said get rid of them. If people know it's wrong and do it anyway, that makes it worse, not better. The reason you don't kick people who use images and such is that that's just a matter of esthetics, very different from trying to trick the users and misrepresent somebody else.
Haven't there been people who've been deleted before for giving false info? Maybe I'm making that up.
Anyway, if Matt doesn't have a problem with it, then it's a moot point, but to me it's a pretty nasty thing to do.
posted by Hildago at 7:57 PM on February 16, 2003
[egg on face] Umm, it seems that I have been mistaken here - the links that I placed here are not fake comments after all. I have no idea how the timestamps on the exact links that yhbc pointed to here are showing as visited links, making them the same colour as the fake posts, but they are. Doesn't change my opinion, but takes all the weight out of my argument. Please carry on as if I hadn't spoken. [/egg on face] *slinks out of the room with head down*
posted by dg at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by dg at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2003
This and this takes a joke beyond the joke stage, though.
I don't get it. What was the joke? Is there a prank I'm missing?
posted by dgaicun at 8:14 PM on February 16, 2003
I don't get it. What was the joke? Is there a prank I'm missing?
posted by dgaicun at 8:14 PM on February 16, 2003
It's not that funny
posted by dumb joke at 8:16 PM PST on February 16
See? Not all that funny. And fairly obvious.
posted by hama7 at 8:25 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by dumb joke at 8:16 PM PST on February 16
See? Not all that funny. And fairly obvious.
posted by hama7 at 8:25 PM on February 16, 2003
DG:
Every user is responsible for the security of their 'account" and if they are slack and someone else is able to post as them, it is their responsibility. If another member is posing as them and making comments in their name, that is different.
So, this isn't a technical issue, as has already been explained; it's social. Just as everyone is responsible for their security, you're responsible for your gullibility. If you refuse to see that you are not guaranteed real any security that I wrote this, then you can't be helped. I'm not espousing paranoia, just telling you that you should be applying the same sorts of social filters you do when somebody comes to you with some juicy gossip: "Would [PERSON] actually have said that?" It's no different. MetaFilter is the middleman, and as you can see, it can be tricked into lying, and there's only so much that can be done about it.
Hildago:
Right, right, right... but how does this excuse identity theft, however crude?
It doesn't. I was pointing out that some people appear to be operating under the same sort of assumptions that got them suckered by Kaycee. If you don't see me type it, then you have to adjust your level of acceptance. Not by a huge amount, but enough as has already been demonstrated by the posts in which people have said, "That comment/post doesn't sound like [USER]," and that's the same sort of way I see this working. If the person doing the fakeout goes way off, then they'll get clocked. If they stay true to character for the user they're impersonating, then so what unless the victim brings it up?
I'm not suggesting that abuses of the system should be overlooked, rather that it's a case of something that really doesn't happen all that often, has a great big probability of failure plus several telltales*, and that making a Rule for it, will only call attention to its possibility. It's nothing so bizarre that it requires its own rule, anyway. There's an overall Don't Be An Asshole rule that covers it quite nicely.
Matt has done just about all that is possible to prevent this, or at least make it difficult/annoying.
--Indicating, perhaps, that he doesn't like it.
I'm sure he doesn't. What I meant was that there is very little more he can do to prevent this. He can disallow all markup other than links, so that everybody's text is absolutely the same, but the effect can still be created half-ass with line breaks, and someone will still fall for that. No, we accept the fact it's rare, and that when it does happen, it will very likely be notice quickly, and dealt with. Unless something's changed very recently, Matt tends to stay on the side of giving users freedom.
Who said rules?
Not directed at you. DG implied.
* Hama: You forgot to close a tag, and your text size is too small.
posted by Su at 8:27 PM on February 16, 2003
Every user is responsible for the security of their 'account" and if they are slack and someone else is able to post as them, it is their responsibility. If another member is posing as them and making comments in their name, that is different.
So, this isn't a technical issue, as has already been explained; it's social. Just as everyone is responsible for their security, you're responsible for your gullibility. If you refuse to see that you are not guaranteed real any security that I wrote this, then you can't be helped. I'm not espousing paranoia, just telling you that you should be applying the same sorts of social filters you do when somebody comes to you with some juicy gossip: "Would [PERSON] actually have said that?" It's no different. MetaFilter is the middleman, and as you can see, it can be tricked into lying, and there's only so much that can be done about it.
Hildago:
Right, right, right... but how does this excuse identity theft, however crude?
It doesn't. I was pointing out that some people appear to be operating under the same sort of assumptions that got them suckered by Kaycee. If you don't see me type it, then you have to adjust your level of acceptance. Not by a huge amount, but enough as has already been demonstrated by the posts in which people have said, "That comment/post doesn't sound like [USER]," and that's the same sort of way I see this working. If the person doing the fakeout goes way off, then they'll get clocked. If they stay true to character for the user they're impersonating, then so what unless the victim brings it up?
I'm not suggesting that abuses of the system should be overlooked, rather that it's a case of something that really doesn't happen all that often, has a great big probability of failure plus several telltales*, and that making a Rule for it, will only call attention to its possibility. It's nothing so bizarre that it requires its own rule, anyway. There's an overall Don't Be An Asshole rule that covers it quite nicely.
Matt has done just about all that is possible to prevent this, or at least make it difficult/annoying.
--Indicating, perhaps, that he doesn't like it.
I'm sure he doesn't. What I meant was that there is very little more he can do to prevent this. He can disallow all markup other than links, so that everybody's text is absolutely the same, but the effect can still be created half-ass with line breaks, and someone will still fall for that. No, we accept the fact it's rare, and that when it does happen, it will very likely be notice quickly, and dealt with. Unless something's changed very recently, Matt tends to stay on the side of giving users freedom.
Who said rules?
Not directed at you. DG implied.
* Hama: You forgot to close a tag, and your text size is too small.
posted by Su at 8:27 PM on February 16, 2003
And quonsar is like French Toast for the spell check.
posted by y2karl at 9:52 PM on February 16, 2003
posted by y2karl at 9:52 PM on February 16, 2003
It was quite neat the one time - but verging on trouble-making when repeated imho. The casual reader will not notice and so it is effectively falsifying someone's opinions.
posted by nthdegx at 5:13 AM on February 17, 2003
posted by nthdegx at 5:13 AM on February 17, 2003
Heh, I just finished my first cup of coffee for the day and I want you all to know how good it feels. No, this has nothing to do with this thread. Just sharing the joy.
posted by Shane at 6:48 AM on February 17, 2003
posted by Shane at 6:48 AM on February 17, 2003
This and this takes a joke beyond the joke stage, though.
dg linked to a comment by wanderingham and another one by yhbc in the thread "inkblot, revealed", why? Did someone use the fake name technique there, b/c I don't see it?
posted by dgaicun at 1:53 PM on February 17, 2003
dg linked to a comment by wanderingham and another one by yhbc in the thread "inkblot, revealed", why? Did someone use the fake name technique there, b/c I don't see it?
posted by dgaicun at 1:53 PM on February 17, 2003
dgaicun - look up :-)
Now who's creating a "minefield of misunderstanding"? :P
posted by dgaicun at 4:20 PM on February 17, 2003
Now who's creating a "minefield of misunderstanding"? :P
posted by dgaicun at 4:20 PM on February 17, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by fvw at 12:50 PM on February 16, 2003