Website Sells Fake Facebook Girlfriends
gma.yahoo.com
gma.yahoo.com
It makes me wonder what similar ideas are out there. For the majority of people, social capital is the most valuable kind of capital there is. Facebook itself is kind of a social hack, and there's a lot more value there. Plus, this is one of the best things to happen to nerdy high school kids. It's like the "I have a girlfriend but she's in canada" on the next level.
If you find this business to be repugnant, who do we blame? These enterprising brazilians for starting the website? Or ourselves for being so influenced by relationship status and physical appearance? The human brain is based on simple rules and you can't blame someone for capitalizing on that.
Yes I can. I don't really care about it in this particular case (although the whole concept just makes me sad), but I could give plenty of examples of exploiting human nature that are reprehensible and deserving of blame. That something is easy does not make it ethical.
I reiterate your statement; exploiting that vulnerability IS to blame and should not be applauded.
To me, pretending to have a girlfriend seems as deceitful as dying your hair. Now, I've never done either so I can't say for certain.
Furthermore, if your perception of someone changes because they're in a relationship, then maybe you should be exploited. You'll then realize you should valuate a person based on who they are, not their relationship status - and maybe you'll be better off. Or maybe I'm trying too hard to rationalize this behavior lol
To most people, it isn't. If you going to "social hack", better know what to expect.
Of course this is horrible, but it's funny how people don't think fake breasts, makeup or photoshop on personal pictures are also horrible. In those cases they are just tools, right?
Hypocrisy is the name of this age.
When a woman surgically enhances her breasts, she has bigger breasts, so she's not lying. She would be if, when asked, she would tell people that they are natural.
It becomes a matter of semantics. Certainly human nature can be used in positive ways. There are techniques you can use to hack on your own brain. For example, if you want to become more conscientious and involved in improving society, signing petitions and donating to charities is a way that you can trick your brain into making you do so. Merely writing down statements and signing your name to them can actually cause you to change your beliefs.
But I don't know if "exploit" is the best word for that.
How do you think they will look at you when the truth comes out? I expect the negatives will outweigh any transient positives by a considerable margin.
You will get caught by friends and relatives. And you may laugh and explain what you're doing, but even as you explain people are going to think "What a loser!"
Which is kind of the reason for making a principled stand: They are human, they aren't going to go away anytime soon, they want to be respected or even loved, and extreme shallowness makes it impossible for me to do that. If I didn't have at least a remaining iota of goodwill towards them, I'd exploit them instead of bitching at them.
Nobody cares about your love and admiration unless you're somebody whose interest they think they should seek. That's why you're complaining about not having proper, willing targets for your affection -- desirable people have the problem of having their attention excessively demanded. The way you signal that you have something interesting is by displaying evidence of demand, not by standing up and reciting principles.
At all other times, women have every advantage in the world and no imposed limitations to speak of.
People who care a lot about fake gimmicks like these (clothes, friends, status, power) are usually shallow, self-centered and insecure; the exact opposite of the people a self-confident and secure person would want to hang out with. It's the same thing when dating; there are a lot of semi-dishonest tricks guys can use to appear more attractive to a lot of girls. But the girls that fall for these tricks are rarely very interesting on a more personal level.
It's a mechanism that's cool to be aware of, but not something that any secure person would actually endorse. Unless you _need_ to interact with people like these in a professional setting or something.
Could you elaborate on that or provide links, books, anything that worked for you? I agree with your view and I don't see this ever changing for me, yet I would still like to make these experiences for myself to be honest.
Influence: the psychology of persuasion, by Robert Cialdini
http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Busine...
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/00...
One I HAVE read, and I strongly recommend is How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influenc...
Also, I've read many people mention a lot about Neuro-Linguistic Programming. I'm usually skeptical of this stuff, but I want to read about it.
I did read "The Game" by Neil Strauss... while it is not something I want to do, it is really intriguing, and he advocates NLP a lot in that book.
And while I'm nerdish/socially awkward, I have a long-term relationship with my girlfriend so I don't "need" to go picking up girls :) .
I look forward to the original poster's list :)
If you do a search online, you'll find lots of stories and comments of how it's helped people or even changed their life.
The most significant thing I've been doing has really been to get out in the world and meet as many people as possible, along the way seeing these social games first-hand. This has involved living in a different country for a year and going to almost every party or social event that presented itself. Initially it was to overcome depression/social anxiety, meet girls and make new friends, but after a few years it's turned into more of an interest in people and getting new experiences. After a while you have been in so many social situations that you stop worrying about what image you present, and see more of the personalities, motivations and insecurities behind most people's facades.
I don't know how old you are (I'm 26 now) but I'd guess some form of social travelling (backpacking, maybe studying abroad) and saying yes to as many invitations as possible would be a good starting point. Also actively trying to become a better person - more fit, more friendly, less able to get manipulated or taken advantage of, more knowledgable, more secure. There's probably some confirmation bias on my end here, there are probably multiple was to get these experiences. I _do_ recommend "The Game" since it's a very fascinating account. Hope that helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification
It also depends on the society or country (ask Indians about it).
Defying/misclasifiying yourself in social hierarchies can end up very badly for the one doing it, but they can be succesfully hacked (like you mention, brands prey on that).
Edit: not only humans, other animals have social hierarchies as well.
Many people never graduated high school in that sense.
Right, assuming your primary concern is convincing douchebags to like you, you'll be golden.
Seriously? What ever happened to.. I don't know.. honor and integrity?
While not all are guilty, it does appear somewhat hypocritical that a presumably similar group, would grumble about the ills of Wall St. execs, and yet simultaneously employ analogous reasoning, just splashed with a little erudite cologne.
"Be creative, think outside the box", chanted COO Jeff Skilling whilst driving Enron to bold new heights. Results are all that matter right? 'Fuck the environment, or society or those pesky things of the past. What did you call them again? Morals? Oh how adorably cute and quaint.'
What's it called when the effects of your actions are not easily measurable and are lost in a web of causality? Who cares... it's not like we're hurting anyone elses feelings directly.
But I digress, and ranting somewhat, but please go ahead and rationalize it away (you'll feel better):
(a) 'What nonsense, you're just over-extrapolating, those things are in no way connected.'
(b) 'Ooh tell us how you really feel'
(c) 'meh'
(d) ...?
Besides, social interactions need some amount of deception; makeup is deception (and fake breasts, and hair dye, etc.)
Why pretending to have a girlfriend when you don't should be considered worse than makeup?
Sure, I can empathize with that, no-one is perfect, not our heroes and certainly not myself.
Ashamedly at one point, I seriously contemplated buying Twitter followers, as a quick boost to perceived social status. I was already rationalizing 'Oh it's just marketing' before deciding against it.
It appears to be a slippery slope though, from which making up major parts of our life story, does seems rather far removed, from a flashy tie, or a dash of makeup.
Could we not turn our gaze from heroes, instead towards ideals, knowing full well that we will never fully be able live up to them, but with the daily challenge to see how far we get?
There's no "cool" rating. It's interesting, it's a social hack, ergo it gets ranked well.
Enron on other hand had a large negative impact on society. Killing the environment also bring a large negative impact on society. Wall St. execs that cheats people out of their homes, steal farms from farmers, and put people homeless on the street clearly brings to mind the concepts of dishonor and a lack of integrity.
Comparing deception directed at peoples superfluous obsession with relationship status and physical appearance, and deception that are made in an effort to earn money on the bones and lives of others are dishonest thinking. Its like comparing a DDOS attack against a corrupt police station, with terrorist attacks. They two things has nothing in common, and neither does Enron and deception regarding relationship status or physical appearance.
So why do we take for granted that someone can lie about his job skills but not about his personal life?
If people are so retarded to appreciate you more when they see you with a beautiful woman (instead of I don't know, judge you by your character perhaps?), then you have every right to give them what they expect.
The irony of that statement just kills me.
As for CV's, happily I've never needed one, and am certainly not an HR manager, but I'd be most surprised to find "90% of people" merrily go around inventing full-on fictitious companies they've worked for.
For example:
While I accept your point that some may color their CV's... falling short, by embellishing one's previous role at a prior company, is simply not in the same ballpark as inventing a completely fake person that you're dating.
And for the record, the existence of gray in the world, does not give one a free pass, to simply proceed straight to black.
One guy that worked in the backroom sorting correspondence in the company I work for claimed he was "Manager" on his LinkedIn profile.
And all the programmers I work with claim they "led" the projects they were in.
I've yet to see somebody invent a company, but many cite their own freelance "companies" and their roles as CEOs.
I do agree that there shouldn't be a free pass to proceeding straight to black.
That says more about the company you keep than anything else.
It says that they’re ordinary folks who would like to be perceived a little better than their current status. I guess your acquaintances are all super successful people who have nothing to lie about regarding their professional life. It must be so boring for you addressing mere mortals like us, with flaws and everything.
Tangentially, Michael Sandel's "What money can't buy" is a good book about the morals of markets:
You could even bolster your online popularity by hiring
some good-lookgin "friends" for your facebook page - for
99 cents per friend per monthPeople that use it.
The site (namorofake.com.br) now says their fake gf profiles are all real women. They've also got a selection of types ranging from Ficante (Hook-up), Ex-Namorada (Ex girlfriend), Namorada (Girlfriend) and Namorada Virtual (Virtual Girlfriend). The difference between the latter two is the virtual gf lasts longer and leaves more comments.
Translated from the site/Portuguese...
"Because of the large amount of simultaneous hires our profiles are all occupied at the moment. (Now all of our profiles are from real women and not fake profiles.)"
On their Depoimentos (Testimonies) page, one guy says...
"I had a lot of success. The reaction of my friends was unbelievable, it was (just) three comments that made my Facebook take off hahahaha. I even had some girls from my college adding me, I think it was because of this (site). In a few days I'm going to hire another "ficante" to make me look even more important. Thanks guys..."
i.e. Now that I know this, I'm just going to assume that all my FB friends who are in a long distance relationship with a Brazilian girl are in a fake relationship.
If the market is here and if they pay $20 per month per annimated fake profile, the problem is now to find a way to emulate fakes profiles to seems real. It would be like playing to the Sim, but being paid.
But to the kids, they simply want to avoid parents and relatives to ask them again and again "why did you not find a boy/girl?" "You are not child, you need a partner." "Look at the one (who was a neighbor or someone's parents also living in the same place or whatever), he/she is better than you and has not been single any more." "...". So many questions like these. They will never lose passion to ask you such question till you move ass away home.
But these days, boys still lament how hard to stop single life and to find a Goddess, Goddess these days refer to the one you have no chance to make her be your girlfriend. I think fake girlfriend should be a good idea to some people. Some boys will say that cause girlfriends are expensive, they cost you lot of money as well as energy. Having a fake girlfriend You could feel not lonely while don't really need to spend too much.
But I wonder what purpose in the evolutionary side of things does the company play? Are they doing like some species that help others mate through their own mechanisms? Or am I just too tired from programming all day and writing endless babble?
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/12091...
There is a mind blowing Norwegian documentary on the nature versus nurture debate the HN community should watch. The show touches on a lot of taboos, which might be too controversial for some people. The first episode is about gender equality. The interviewer investigates why/how there are less women in engineering and less man in nursing in a country listed having the highest level of equality. Other episodes are about parents influence, sexual preference, violence, sexual desire/commitment and race.
According to wikipedia a producer has made the series available online with English subtitles. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwash...
It's also on youtube (ignore the terrible comments as usual) http://youtu.be/KQ2xrnyH2wQ
But it's not necessarily the case that this is due to others thinking you're in a relationship.
I suspect at least a large part of the effect you describe (which seems to be pretty well-known) is because people tend to be more relaxed and confident when they're "out of play"—the pressure's off—and ironically that tends to make them more attractive....
But why bother? "Social proof" is a well studied effect in psychology. Having a girlfriend increases your attractiveness to some other women; saying "We're the leader in X" increases sales; adding canned laughter to sitcoms fools people into thinking they're funny.
On a slightly more serious note, this is, in itself, not really sexist in your typical "Internet at large" sexisism. Don't get me wrong, there is some very serious and deep seated (seeded?) woman hating that occurs on the Internet, but this isn't it. This goes way beyond the Internet, and into ancient mores that carry across time and culture, which are definitely sexist, but not the kind of sexist you find in Halo 4.
More like the kind of sexist you find when you wander Amsterdam's red light district. Old-school misogyny.
Man I wish I could monetize on my sexuality because I think I have plenty to give to any needy ladies. Sadly, the backwards 21st century social construct constricts me into repressive gender-roles where I have to solicit sexual services instead of being receptive to all outstanding sexual advances that are demanded of me out there. I only hope feminism could advance further to erase this injustice for gender equality for all.
If it's wrong, it's on the same level as selling fake reviews for apps or hotels.
I don't think it will backfire for people using it, but it could backfire for Facebook.
Because fundamentally, this is spam.
If you claim that this is misogynistic, you are claiming that women hate themselves.
Okay, so this is somehow "objectifying" women. I might buy that argument. But what does it say about a society where men who are obviously more successful with women do better, both with other women and with their peers?
I think that discrediting this as misogny is missing half of the story. Society, both men and women, are 100% complicit in the mechanisms that make this service a good idea. Pinning it on only the men is dishonest.
Is that just too depressing?
Rip photos from unsuspecting innocent FB profile, create a new one, post on fiverr, profit!
At the very least it's copyright infringement, although I'm not sure it's criminal copyright infringement.
So he's _REALLY_ embarrassed because someone online pulled a pretty hardcore prank on him. Yet he still continues to act as though she was a real person even after he found out about it?
Because if that is true, it makes it seem to the rest of the sports world that he's just trying to garner sympathy to win the Heisman. That kind of makes him even more scummier: the fact that even though he knows that he got pranked, he continues to perpetuate the lie.
Edit: for more context about it, read this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130...
So it definitely isn't cut and dry, and I'm leaning towards extreme naivety on Te'o's part at this point (and possibly some embellishment to cover up embarrassment), although it definitely is a bizarre story either way.
The best case scenario for his credibility is that he was fooled, felt like an idiot and kept lying to prevent everyone from finding out.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20010624115154/http://forums.anan...)
(http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=275172)
Fakery on the Internet is fascinating and very very common. People fake having cancer; people fake their own situation; people fake their friends. The movie Catfish is a nice exploration of one person's fakery. (It would have been easy to say "OMG SHE'S MENTAL LOL" but it's a surprisingly gentle confrontation and you end up somewhat sympathetic to her.)
Here are some other notable fakes:
SEXTORTION AT EISENHOWER HIGH
(http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-...)
> Last year, an awkward high school senior in Wisconsin went online, passed himself off as a flirtatious female student, and conned dozens of his male classmates into e-mailing him sexually explicit images of themselves. What he did next will likely send him to jail for a very long time
DAVE ON WHEELS
(http://betabeat.com/2012/10/meet-hunter-dunn-the-young-man-w...)
> Followers of “Dave” on sites like Twitter and The Chive thought they were reading posts from a deaf young man suffering from cerebral palsy who had worked tirelessly to overcome his obstacles, all the while maintaining a positive outlook and relatably wry sense of humor.
KAYCEE NICOLE / DEBBIE SWENSON
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/may/28/internetnew...)
> For two years, a young American girl recounted her brave struggle against leukaemia in a daily online diary. This month she died. Thousands of web-users sent condolences. But [...]
(http://web.archive.org/web/20050115092141/http://www.rootnod...)
(http://www.metafilter.com/7878/The-Kaycee-Nicole-Swensen-Faq)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaycee_Nicole_Swenson)
THE LYING DISEASE - in which a cancer patient is befriended by another cancer patient, who is faking cancer. (Happens three times.)
(http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-lying-disease/Content...)
WARRIOR ELI - a ten year hoax
(http://gawker.com/5914621/the-long-fake-life-of-js-dirr-a-de...)
Every time you give either time and/or money, you absolutely always could possibly get scammed so the only way you can deal with this is asking yourself if you for yourself and your own sake care and want to do something or if you will just quietly follow whatever story is being told and not let it mess with you.
If what you say is true and some forum posts could indeed "do lots of damage" then it is all the more necessary that people wake up and understand that they shouldn't just blindly trust people on the web, just as much as they don't blindly trust strangers on the street.
Be allowing (almost) everyone the same power to falsify information, this company is reducing the power of today's fraudsters to lie convincingly. (Now, people won't trust unreliable sources so easily.)
Could this be a good thing?
If you have real friends and family in your Facebook why the hell would you want a fake girlfriend?
They will grab some random photo from the internet and create a fake profile...and your friends will ask you about the new girlfriend and you will have to lie to everyone about it and you can only take it so far.
Soon (very soon) people will find out and you will look, well, pretty damn pathetic.
Sometimes technology is depressing.
(http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html)
A bit of tweaking - some learning and some Markov chains - and you'd have something reasonably solid for that narrow gap.
Obviously there are trivially easy ways to trip up bots, if you suspect they are bots.