Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dozens of Tech Bigwigs Friend Facebook Spambot

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ooh-baby-let's-meet-again-in-2d-life dept.

Facebook 81

jfruhlinger writes "If you've used Facebook or Twitter, you're almost certainly familiar with 'bimbots' — accounts that have profile pics of attractive women, but seem to exist only to send send spam links with varying degrees of subtlety. Henry Copeland, the founder of BlogAds, tracks the social network of one such Facebook bot, and finds that she's friends with a long list of influential tech and media folks. Copeland also tracks down the origin of the photo that accompanies the account."

cancel ×

81 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hot Bot (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401536)

But it's a hot bot just take a look at her profile picks. I mean if we don't support these first versions of sex robots then how are people going to get funding for the actual nondigital versions.

Re:Hot Bot (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401904)

how are people going to get funding for the actual nondigital versions.

What does having fingers or not have to do with it?

Re:Hot Bot (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402172)

Depends on what particular pleasures you want from it, I suppose.

Re:Hot Bot (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402366)

Fingers? Wow.

Okay. Sit down. I am little surprised we have to have this talk because you are on the Internet... but...

You see Johnny, when two people really like each other......

Re:Hot Bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402502)

woosh. he was referring to the use of "nondigital" as in lacking fingers, also referred to as "digits".

Re:Hot Bot (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402790)

Woosh on your woosh: both posts were in jest.

Unless of course your woosh was also a joke, then woosh on me.

Ah, to woosh with it all.

Re:Hot Bot (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402624)

You're promoting a bad precedent.

These bimbots look good, but all they do is try to get you to buy lots of stuff that has nothing to do with the reason you approached them in the first place.

If you're looking for quality sexbots, then you're going to have to pay full price. These bimbots will just tease and taunt you without really delivering anything worthwhile.

Come to think of it, that's one of the oldest tricks of the oldest profession: it's easier to talk the mark out of his money than to actually work for it.

Re:Hot Bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36403476)

For a second there, I thought you were talking about gold digging women.

Meh (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404908)

A profile pic of a moderately attractive woman? That's it?

Now for me to be lured in, there would have to be regular posts, with pics, about things like:

"Washed my car in a bikini top and Daisy Duke shorts today. Got all wet. Tee hee! ;-)"
"Took some pics on my sportbike while I was outside."
"Had this fruit freezy at lunch today. Tastes so good. See how much I enjoy it? Mmmmmm...."
"How do these new shoes look? Ignore the very short skirt, just look at the shoes."
"Decided to drop rose petals on my bed and pose in my underwear. Was bored."

Reminds me of the AIM days (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401542)

Who wasn't a friend of SmarterChild?

In other news... (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401556)

Executives are not very computer savvy. And this is a surprise because....

Re:In other news... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401754)

Executives are not very computer savvy. And this is a surprise because....

Well, TFA is Slashdotted, but TFS seems to indicate that these are tech bigwigs.

If the executives of your tech company aren't computer savvy ... then maybe the reason your business is in the shitter is because your executives don't understand what it is that you do because they're a bunch of MBAs who don't know your industry well enough.

I'm sorry, but if you're running a tech company, you have no excuse for not being computer savvy. I don't expect you to be able to code, but I don't expect you to be a friggin' n00b either.

Re:In other news... (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401876)

You can run a tech company and not be computer savvy, provided you have the ability to keep investors continue to leave their wallets open. This was true in the dot.com bubble, and still true today, although it takes a far glibber tongue to keep investors shelling out the cash than in the past where scraping "LINUX" on something meant a multi million dollar IPO.

Re:In other news... (1)

ronocdh (906309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402480)

You can run a tech company and not be computer savvy, provided you have the ability to keep investors continue to leave their wallets open.

Of course. I think what Parent was saying is that better than this philosophy you identify is to implement an ethos of doing the job well. As this case illustrates, that would have been a better approach to take than focusing on "keeping investors' wallets open." Funnily enough, doing the job well is often a better approach, no matter what your jaded perspective on American commercialism may be (which actually feeds into the corrupt mentality of faking goods to get money).

Re:In other news... (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402926)

Long term, doing the job well is the better approach. However, being in the industry so long, it is easy to get cynical, after bids/proposals for doing a job right get shoved off the table for ones that are cheaper, regardless of potential cost in safety, security, or long term sustainability.

I have consulted at a number of startups. The #1 thing that was the focus was keeping the investor wallets open. Everything else, up to and including making a solid product came second.

The old-school American ethos of doing the job well isn't extinct yet. It appears in a few places:

The first are small businesses funded by the investors themselves, with the investors having a passion (other than money) for the field. There, getting the job done right overweighs beating Q1's numbers in Q2. There are people who have made their fortune in various industries, and want a business that does what they like doing.

The second is in industries that want a good name for themselves. Alternative energy for example (there are some exceptions we all know). Alternative energy companies want a good reputation so people will start buying products and moving that direction.

The third are older industries that are not the fad of the day. Take the creaky mainframe industry for example. Because they don't have the advantage of buzzwords, they have to innovate to keep alive. And believe it or not, mainframes have advanced, especially in the reliability department. It can be argued that Facebook could have saved a lot of money by just having a few racks of mainframes and replicating DS8000 drive frames, where the redundancy is designed in from the hardware up, as opposed to large quantity of off the shelf x86 machines and the backend app providing the error tolerance.

Re:In other news... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403698)

The problem with that is when you first start out you can't afford mainframes. Then later you have folks who never have seen much less administered main frames.

Re:In other news... (4, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401906)

But of course what's more likely is that these facebook pages are not in any way personal pages. They will be maintained by some corporate minion who has a dozen other more important things to be doing for their boss, and who just accepts all friend requests. No-one seriously believes that they're "friends", even by facebook standards.

Chances are that these people, if they have a personal facebook page at all, keep it well under wraps.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36406806)

It's not hard to find most famous people's personal facebook pages. Just search for variations of their name, check all the accounts you come up with, and find the one that only has like 30 friends, several of whom they share a last name with.

Re:In other news... (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401958)

Well, TFA is Slashdotted, but TFS seems to indicate that these are tech bigwigs.

The TFA is now 404'd...

Now there is truly "nothing to see here, move along".

Re:In other news... (3, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402552)

The TFA is now 404'd...

Now there is truly "nothing to see here, move along".

I got "Internal Server Error", which is a 500 ... maybe if we keep trying, we can collect the whole set. :-P

I'm not so sure (2)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402548)

I'm not so sure, actually. Some of the absolute worst PHB's I've ever had the misfortune to work with, weren't MBA types, but former brilliant coders. They're the guys who thought they're still expert enough to take tech decisions by themselves, just because they once coded some clever calculations in FORTRAN and subscribe to some IT-for-managers ragazine. The fact that a lot still had the typical nerd personality of just having to be right about everything, and taking even the theoretical possibility of their ever being wrong as directly and insultingly questioning their intelligence, and you can see where this is going.

The MBA types, well [i]some[/i] of the MBA types, at least knew they know bugger-all and delegated to someone who does know.

I suspect that a good part of the reason is: Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org] . The ones who know the least, tend to overestimate how much they actually know. But there seems to be a dangerous middle, where someone has slipped back just enough to think again that they know everything there is to known, but also slipped back enough that the parts they don't know start actually meaning they take dumb decisions.

Re:In other news... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36405028)

I don't expect you to be able to code, but I don't expect you to be a friggin' n00b either.

In the tech industry if you can't write some kind of code, you are definitely a friggin' n00b.

Re:In other news... (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403554)

Hot women/Sex sells. :P

Duh (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401558)

Most influential Tech folks were nerds growing up, so why wouldn't they say yes if some hot girl friended them on Facebook.

Re:Duh (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402728)

Because if they're proper nerds, they understand that that "hot girl" is actually just another tubby, pockmarked, unkempt, pizza-sauce-stained, geeky dude like themselves.

Yeah, but (2)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403798)

Yeah, but also for a lot of people the number of "friends" they have on some list, is some kind of self-validation and status symbol.

To understand what I'm about to say, I must mention Dunbar's Number [wikipedia.org] , which mans basically for a given species, how many relationships you can juggle around in your head. For Homo Sapiens that's a little under 150. The most primitive tribes can work without any form of organization below that number, for example, by simple virtue of everyone being friends with everyone else in the tribe. When it grows above that number, the tribe eventually splits into two.

But basically that's it: 150. If you try to be pals with an 151'th person, someone else falls off the other end of that list. It's like a total amount of fuck you can give. You start giving a fuck about an 151'th person, you stop having a fuck to give about someone else ;)

And that includes RL pals, co-workers, relatives, ex-classmates one stays in contact with, guild-mates in WoW that one interacts enough with, etc.

The limit, btw, seems to be a function of brain size and complexity, and really a built in constant for each species. I know lots of nerds like to imagine they're some sort of mutant for which basic biology doesn't apply, and who know better than doctors what their metabolism needs or how their brain works or how many hours of sleep they really need, but they're usually proven wrong sooner or later, and usually in a nasty way. Just like those who think they can live on twinkies and energy drinks then discover they weren't mutants after all, same applies here: one may think he's the super-guy who can juggle 2000 relationships, but chances are that they're just as capped at 150 as everyone else.

But fine, let's say someone is really a complete mutant and can juggle... how much 200? 300? It's still far below the numbers of "friends" some people think they have just for having a name on a list.

What I'm getting at is that whether someone is "just another tubby, pockmarked, unkempt, pizza-sauce-stained, geeky dude like themselves" is fully irrelevant for the guy/gal with 21,537 friends on his list. He just doesn't even have the biological wiring to give a fuck either way about that many people. At that point, whether someone is actually a hot porn actress or a tubby basement-dweller is not even relevant any more. All that really matters is just that aggregate "21,537 friends" number to use as an e-peen meter.

And they'd probably accept the request for the 21,538'th friend even if it came with a text of "hi, I'm a spam bot written by a 50 year old virgin still living with his retired mom, do you want to be my friend?" Because, fuck, that's now 21,538 friends. Eat that, you losers with only 21,537 friends on your lists.

Re:Duh (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36405282)

And those tech nerds might also put the spambots on a Facebook friend list where the spambots can't see anything much, or even post anything much.

Facebook might not reliably enforce that for the long term , but most people don't care that much.

Bimbo?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401564)

I just thought that the river rocks in the picture would be ideal for an upcoming landscaping project I have in mind.

I know every single one of my friends (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401588)

I know every single one of my friends... but most of my account privacy settings allow "friends of friends" to see my stuff and comment on it.

I'm just plain careful what I post on Facebook that's all... most of my stuff is throwaway weird random stuff

Go ahead.... friend me "Thomas Dzubin"

Re:I know every single one of my friends (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401632)

I know every single one of my friends... but most of my account privacy settings allow "friends of friends" to see my stuff and comment on it.

I'm just plain careful what I post on Facebook that's all... most of my stuff is throwaway weird random stuff

Go ahead.... friend me "Thomas Dzubin"

and when I say "friend me", I mean... hot girl bots... "friend me"
not random Slashdot nerds. sigh... I already know enough of them.

Re:I know every single one of my friends (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401922)

What I do is use groups, and have defaults of who can see what.

I started this after I graduated college because virtually every employer I applied for demanded friend access to FB. So, they got it. They could read a couple sterile posts. The rest? No access.

So, if someone I don't know wants to friend me, I'll accept the request and put them in the "deny access to all" group, and move merrily along.

Of course, one never knows if FB may "update" privacy settings to screw this way of doing things up, so it doesn't hurt to defriend anyone you don't know and want to interact with eventually.

Re:I know every single one of my friends (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36406468)

I started this after I graduated college because virtually every employer I applied for demanded friend access to FB.

I find this utterly amazing. Can you say what career field this was happening to you in? And were they not savvy enough to know they weren't seeing your full profile?

Re:I know every single one of my friends (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36407880)

Computer science and IT.

At first, I didn't even have a FB profile. However, when interviewing, I was looked at like I was an alien, or one of those weird hermits who doesn't have a phone or electricity.

So I created a dummy FB account. Then started using it to reconnect with acquaintances. The same HR people who demanded friends with FB were doing so because it was the "in" thing as per their magazines. None of them ever mentioned that they were not seeing the full profile.

Funny thing is that the place that I work at now did none of that BS.

Re:I know every single one of my friends (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36407904)

Interesting -- thanks! I have a FB profile that's pretty minimal, and have assiduously avoided friending those above me in the hierarchy although I know other folks who do not. I work in higher education (not a prof, a lowly staff person) and would have been aghast at having been told I needed to as a condition of employment--and am surprised that HR people would use a vehicle that might give them access to information like familial status, religion, etc. that could get them sued.

Re:I know every single one of my friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402544)

I know every single one of my friends..

Me too. I think bimbot is a harsh word for cousins and old high-school crushes, no matter how much spam they send you.

Re:I know every single one of my friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36406922)

I know every single one of my friends..

Just 5 years ago this would have been met the response "Well yeah, duh".

Re:I know every single one of my friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36408170)

Anonymous Coward will not fall for this scam as Anonymous Coward is not on facebook.

Not suprising at all (4, Insightful)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401662)

she's friends with a long list of influential tech and media folks

If these people are influential or media folks as it says, then they probably have tons of requests all the time. They are "important" people that love to be heard. The more followers/friends/whatever they have the better. They aren't going to spend a lot of time sifting through the requests to see who's real or not.

Re:Not suprising at all (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401964)

In fairness, a significant part of their jobs as corporate executives is to be heard by as many people as possible. Not to mention that by virtue of their jobs they most likely meet hundreds, if not thousands of people every year. This whole thing is kind of ridiculous; they're public figures, their use cases for Facebook are different from the average person. Where I would recommend to most people that they personally know every person on their friends list, that advice doesn't make sense for people using Facebook the way these people are.

Re:Not suprising at all (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402222)

Question: Are they doing the friending/sifting/etc, or are their PA's/secretaries/admins doing it?

No joke... most CxO types would probably have their staff do that kind of scut-work for them.

Story link is to "blogads.com" (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401678)

The story link is to "blogads.com". So this story is probably a spam.

Re:Story link is to "blogads.com" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401902)

mod parent up

Re:Story link is to "blogads.com" (3, Insightful)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401950)

Actually, it's a blog post written by the founder of BlogAds, like the summary says. He's FB friends with a lot of these folks, which is why he noticed. It's not promoting BlogAds as a company.

Re:Story link is to "blogads.com" (2)

dim5 (844238) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402586)

So a guy who sells ads has an actual news story, but people aren't clicking the link, assuming it's an ad? Delicious. The boy who blogged wolf.

what a dumb request in the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36407694)

The guy asks for more information on the person pictured, yet he doesn't provide any way for contacting him. What... and idiot.

For those curious, the woman's abs aren't showing, and they're hot. Google for Nicole Carroll and you'll see the person who's picture was stolen.

How surprising (2, Insightful)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401722)

I'm pretty sure most of these bigwigs are not actually managing their own social network profile, and that the Public Relations drone or Image Consultant who runs it for them is under instructions to accept all friend requests.

They are more like fan pages than personal accounts.

Re:How surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402138)

Yeah the story might just as well be told the other way around: "Bimbots send friend requests to PR departments, thinking they're actual people". The fact that humanity has progressed to the point where two fake people can be "friends" with one another is kind of weird, but it makes sense given the circumstances.

Re:How surprising (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402924)

That doesn't matter, in fact it's a boon to whoever wrote the bimbots because then the account will have a lot more "friends" for the bimbot to extract exposed information from.

/.'ed (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401724)

/.'ed already. Anyone know who the "influential" execs are? Even better, got a picture of this babe? :-)

Full article (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401804)

Here is the article from Google's cache:

Are you also exposing your private parts to strangers on Facebook?
by henrycopeland
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

Think it’s only old men in trench coats and — ahem — congressmen who like to share intimate moments with attractive strangers?

Based on my own Facebook experience, I’ve seen at least 100 influential tech, media and politics folks — men and some women — accept friend requests from attractive women they don’t know. For as long as three years, these supposedly savvy folks have been having personal conversations and sharing photos online in front of strangers that few (if any) of them know personally. And they are, inadvertently, sharing lots of their friends’ private data with these strangers.

These people are in the tech, media and political digital elite. They should know better, right? They include professors at Harvard, Columbia, NYU, CEOs and execs at Internet companies, e-consulting firms, ad networks, and PR companies. They include senior journalists and editors at places like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker. Details below.

It’s possible that one or more of the winsome Facebook profiles who these e-savants have friended are robots — bimbots? — who exist only to spy on their influential friends’ private lives.

Who is the tech and media elite eagerly friending? Let’s start with the Facebook profile of one Nicole Bally.

Does anyone out there actually know Nicole Bally? Please write me ASAP if you do. Though Facebook says she’s got 697 friends, I suspect she doesn’t exist or, at least, isn’t operating on Facebook under her real name or photo. I left a message on Nicole Bally’s wall yesterday asking where she works, but haven’t heard anything back. Hello Nicole Bally, are you out there?

Nicole Bally’s list of Facebook friends includes people like Sean Parker, Arianna Huffington, Dana Milbank, Joichi Ito, Chad Hurley, Chris Anderson, Henry Blodget, James Fallows, Jeffrey Toobin, Camille Paglia, Curtis Sliwa, Jimmy Wales, John Dickerson, Loic Le Meur, Seth Godin, Amanda Congdon, Jim Kramer, Howard Kurtz, Steve Case, Pete Cashmore, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Tim Draper, Nouriel Roubini, Jim Breyer, Sarah Lacy, Vint Cerf, Wes Clark the list goes on and on. Here’s the full list.

You’ve almost got to worry if you’re NOT on the list of Nicole Bally’s friends.

Nicole Bally sent me a friend request a while back and I almost fell for it. Hey, 40 people who I know and trust are her friends. Apparently.

When I finally friended Nicole Bally back yesterday (to further this investigation!) I discovered that roughly 99% of the posts on her Facebook wall are simply people accepting her friend requests. Some guys muster up an eager “hey, let’s have lunch sometime!”

Do the tech and media elite actually look at Nicole Bally’s wall posts before accepting her friend request? Among her very few personal posts over the course of three years are several about mywebpost.com.

Mywebpost.com?

Nicole Bally’s photo albums feature just three generic images posted in March of 2008 shortly after she joined Facebook, one of Mark Zuckerberg and two stock-photo-like images from March 2008, one subtitled “A wonderful time with a wonderful friend” and the other “The most beautiful place in the world.”

I’ve done more hunting online, but can’t find anything solid about Nicole Bally. Surely if she works in media or advertising in NYC or San Francisco and knows so many famous-for-pixels people, she would show up on LinkedIn or someone’s Flickr photo album.

Do any of you know Nicole Bally? If not, why have so many of you friended her and why are you sharing your private lives with her?

When a colleague of mine looked around online for other instances of Nicole Bally’s profile photo, using the nifty photo identification service TinEye, he discovered that Nicole Bally’s Facebook profile photo looks like a cropped photo of Nicole Carroll, a fitness trainer.

Maybe Nicole Bally — some of her Facebook friends are weight lifters — is actually Nicole Carroll? Maybe the whole FB page is a subtle marketing ploy for a future, tech-celebrity-focused pivot for Crossfit Training, where Nicole Carroll works. Much more likely, Nicole Carroll is a hard-working, innocent person whose image has been stolen.

It would be a relief to know that Nicole Bally is a real person and not a stolen photo and a made-up name.

Except I’d still be left wondering why so many tech, politics and media people friended Nicole Bally without having ANY idea who she is or what she’s peddling.

Then there’s Celia Richards. Facebook keeps suggesting I may know Celia and should become her friend. After all, we know 24 people in common, many of them media insiders.

Again, some Googling turns up nothing solid about Celia. Given the e-fluential crowd she apparently hangs with, Celia seems like a digital playa. But she’s got no digital fingerprint outside the walls of Facebook.

Is Celia real or just a bimbot created to harvest personal info — wall posts, friendships, photos, demographic information — from her credulous yet influential friends and their friends?

I don’t know for sure. But some more sleuthing reveals that Celia’s profile pic is actually a photo of TV star Kristin Cavallari. Duh! Maybe that’s why I don’t recognize her as a friend.

Perhaps Celia really exists, but just prefers to pretend she looks like Kristin. (Contrary to Facebook’s terms, BTW.) I’ll know more if she ever accepts my friend request.

If these Facebook profiles are not bona fide, what’s the real game? Theories vary, from comic to creepy.

Dude you guys it is the government. They lure you in with seductive women (or men if you are female) and they try to get information out of you without interrogation but with chatting.

Or maybe we’ve just stumbled into an elaborate, long-festering online version of the famous foreover alone flashmob?

More prosaically, Harvard Kennedy School professor Steven Kelman writes:

My guess is that somebody is setting up Facebook accounts with nonexistent (or hired) attractive women, and sending out large numbers of friend requests to guys with the hope that many will accept the request. (For all I know, similar requests, with attractive guys, are being sent to women.) Once you accept their friend request, they gain access to a lot of information about you

We all know that companies in the past were very eager exploiting holes in FB’s architecture to scrape personal information.

Even after Facebook tightened up its privacy settings, it seems clear that people are blithely sharing way too much of their lives with people they haven’t fully vetted. And it seems likely that our conversations are being spied on, recorded and analyzed, either by folks from China or by corporate sleuths hiding behind seductive masks to track and influence conversations about their clients, customers and competitors.

Congresstwerp Andy Weiner put way too much online.

Don’t laugh. You may be sharing way too much with strangers too.

Re:Full article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402692)

Really, if you are a public figure you shouldn't have any signs of sexuality. Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

Re:Full article (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36405868)

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon [biblegateway.com] and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 [biblegateway.com] . In Genesis 1:28 [biblegateway.com] , God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 [biblegateway.com] says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

Re:Full article (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412254)

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon [biblegateway.com] and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 [biblegateway.com] . In Genesis 1:28 [biblegateway.com] , God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 [biblegateway.com] says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com] : "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Seriously, trying to use Genesis 2:25 to say that humans shouldn't be ashamed to be naked is like saying that lions and lambs should lay down to sleep together. According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

Re:Full article (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429230)

According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world [biblegateway.com] . Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus [biblegateway.com] and James [biblegateway.com] (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say [biblegateway.com] about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures [biblegateway.com] then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)

Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it is, perhaps, the ideal state once we have been perfected.

Re:/.'ed (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402032)

Even better, got a picture of this babe? :-)

Honestly, I was not impressed. Maybe she just isn't my type, but I found her to be slightly average looking. Nothing at all impressive or special about her.

Not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36404472)

Yeah, and did you see those sharp knees on her!?! Just hideous. You could lose an eye (or two) to those things.

Re:/.'ed (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402292)

Just go watch / friend http://nixiepixel.com/ [nixiepixel.com] while you're waiting. And maybe also http://watchtheguild.com/ [watchtheguild.com] while you're at it, though Felicia Day is not *quite* as nerdcore.

Re:/.'ed (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402352)

Re:/.'ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402654)

She's not a babe at all.

Research? (1)

Teufelsmuhle (849105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401772)

Clearly these folks were associating themselves with this "bimbot" in the name of research.

How in the world could they hope to address this problem without first fully understanding it?

not indicative of being fooled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401994)

"long list of influential tech and media folks."

By which, you mean people who use facebook for publicity and will likely friend anyone.

This is getting old (2)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402020)

When I see stuff like this I get instantly suspicious and for good reason. Most services that cater to single men wanting companionship are so flooded with fake profiles of hot girls, spam links, etc. that I begin to associate a hot girl with someone who just wants something from me, be it attention, money, or just to screw with me. Want this kind of thing to stop? Then don't take the bait. Don't give these attention whores and/or spammers what they want. Just pretend they don't exist and they'll go away and there will only be real women left. This probably won't happen because men in our society put women on such a high pedestal that it increases their 'theoretical stock value' above what is realistic, much like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. With so many men going after so few attractive women, we undervalue our 'stock' so we often do not end up with the kind of women that reflect our intrinsic value. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how our attitudes towards women affects our society at least at the socioeconomic level. Increasing divorce rates are one symptom. In conclusion, we collectively are responsible for the appearance of these bimbots, fake profiles, and why most Slashdotters will never find a girlfriend. Like advertisements, if we ignore them, they'll disappear.

Re:This is getting old (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402610)

Jimmy Soul, is that you?

Re:This is getting old (2)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402630)

Like advertisements, if we ignore them, they'll disappear.

Advertisements and spam will only go away if the cost to the originator damages his business case. Ignoring the problem is an attempt at symptomatic relief, and does nothing about the root cause of the problem.

Irony much? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402022)

Link in article is to: blog.web.blogads.com

Claims to publicity are great but... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402074)

It's all well and good that your high-profile execs just want that 'social publicity' and let their admins run it for them. Until their admins accept these spam-bot contacts and then wind up getting socially engineered into released important/sensitive/confidential information, like passwords.

Then what happens is you have Sony, you have Citi, and you have numerous other smaller gaffes that I don' t really need to enumerate here.

You want publicity, fine... but make it a one way road. Don't even give them the chance of spamming you. Some spam is LETHAL in the wrong hands.

maybe she/it exists to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402302)

harvest their weiner pics and blackmail them.

he almost fell for it! wtf? (2)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402810)

...sent me a friend request a while back and I almost fell for it. Hey, 40 people who I know and trust are her friends. Apparently.

Uh, right.

I get friend requests; if I don't know who they are, they get rejected. Why would I accept a FR from a complete stranger? If 40 of my friends know the person, I'd probably know them, or of them too.

Some people just need to take their brain out of Neutral; Drive preferably, but even Reverse would be better than nothing.

How do you know it's a spambot (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402982)

You know, a lot of celebrities accept all friend requests. It sort of doesn't matter, because they know not to put important info on their page. And isn't 697 a low number of friends for a spambot? You can have 5,000 friends.

This is news...? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403070)

That Famous People (or more likely their media relations people) are as susceptible to social engineering as the rest of us is news... how?

It's just the Backlash to Virtual Community (1)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403190)

Camille Paglia author of Backlash [wikipedia.org] , and Howard Rheingold author of The Virtual Community [wikipedia.org] are both on the first bimbot's list.

It boggles the mind.

Web of Trust says don't read TFA (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403252)

It's on a site with a "poor reputation".

Stupid Story (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403562)

Slow news day. I don't think 'friends' in Facebook terms means what the author supposes (or hopes). Personally I think Facebook should never have used and abused the word 'friend'. But 'acquaintance' is a bit unwieldy and still not accurate. 'Connection'? Anyway, 'friend' just doesn't work IMHO.

Nicole Carroll (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404208)

A quick search on the picture with Tineye.com returns the name Nicole Carroll, who posts about nutrition and dieting on crossfit.com:
http://journal.crossfit.com/2005/10/getting-off-the-crack-by-nicol.tpl [crossfit.com]

The original thumbnail is here:
http://journal.crossfit.com/images/thumbnails/nicole.baeef534.png [crossfit.com]

Friending people you don't know ... (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404224)

Why would someone do that?

Re:Friending people you don't know ... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36405394)

If you're talking about Facebook: to get information on/from them.

In the process of "friending" them you can choose to put them on a friends list where they can't see anything on you and your relationships that's not already on your public profile, while you can see everything they allow to their facebook friends - e.g. who their friends are, photos of them, wall posts etc.

That way you can do stuff like figure out who the person might be. There are people who put cartoon characters or random pics as their display photos, don't use their real names or their names are not that unique, and then they try to friend you, using this method often helps you figure out who they are without having to ask them first.

After that you can decide whether to unfriend them, or leave them on that list, or move them to a list with more access.

Dating Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36404778)

Upon visiting this page do you guys get loads of dating ads?

What I know is... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36408550)

... if I get a "friend" request ( or whatever the site names it), and it's an attractive female, i think a few things:

1. It's fake
2. It's some chick with some horrible mental problems to want to be friends with me.

Yep, only 2 things. So i just ignore it.

Seriously, why would i want to be friends with someone I don't know?

I don't like being friends with half the people I already know.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?