TikTok Exploits a “Target-Rich Environment” for Drug Scams According to DCA Report

TikTok may be the perfect crucible in which to exploit the frailties of negative body image and then breed scammers who con millions from people looking to obtain drugs for weight-loss. According to a report released today by Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA), a joint investigation with the Coalition for a Safer Web found at least sixty operators, several posing as pharmacies or medical professionals, fraudulently offering to ship the antidiabetic drugs Ozempic or Mounjaro or the weight-loss drug Wegovy.

From report “Ozempic Scams on TikTok: The only thing likely to get lighter is your wallet.”

“The moment is tailor-made for scammers to take advantage of American consumers,” says DCA executive director Tom Galvin in its press release. “An estimated one in six people say they take Ozempic or other weight loss drugs and just as many are considering it. That’s a target-rich environment for criminals and other bad actors. It’s alarming that TikTok allows these scammers to operate so freely.”

Big Tech critic Tristan Harris has compared the Chinese version of TikTok to “spinach” and the version used by the rest of the world to “opium” because the safeguards deployed on the former do not exist on the latter. Harris did not literally mean drug pushing with that analogy and was instead referring to the addictive nature of the platform. But it is little surprise that the TikTok algorithm is used to detect users’ interest in weight loss and then bombard them with promises to deliver name-brand drugs without a prescription.

DCA Report Lays Out the Anatomy of the Scam

First, there’s the offer of a month’s supply, usually for about $200-$400. Next the seller insists upon using cryptocurrency or payment apps like Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal and to process transactions as “friends and family” to circumvent refund mechanisms. In some instances, the scammer will inform the customer of a “holdup in customs,” which can be expedited by a one-time payment. And finally, the customer is asked for a screenshot as proof of payment, which then provides the scammer with information that can be used to directly trigger fraudulent transactions. As the report states:

A day after making a payment to these scammers, one of the investigator’s credit cards was compromised. Nearly $2,600 was charged to Hertz Rental Car. In addition, the investigator received a Zelle fraud alert within hours of a purchase.

Naturally, these pharma-cons move around the platform by creating and shedding multiple accounts and identities to evade what little scrutiny TikTok employs to crack down on these activities. This is, of course, familiar territory. In 2011, Google paid a half-billion-dollar fine to the DOJ for ad revenues it received from rogue pharmacies in Canada. In that case, for better or worse, the pharmacies and drugs were often real, but the transactions were illegal. In the TikTok examples, with so many red flag indicators of a scam, one might think that few consumers would fall for these “offers,” but perhaps the intent to misuse a diabetes drug in the first place (a potentially fatal decision) indicates a willful blindness that is every con artist’s dream. The DCA report states:

It can be said that it’s better for Americans to be duped out of their money than to receive drugs – whether Ozempic, opioids, or steroids – that can threaten their health or even their life. But it’s a sad commentary when the “lesser of two evils” is the choice offered to American consumers.

Regardless of consumer awareness, this new report is yet another example of the failed policy of laissez faire when it comes to social media platforms. If the forced sale of TikTok wrests control of the platform from the Chinese Communist Party, that will bring the new owner into the reach of U.S. law, but what U.S. lawmakers then do to protect American citizens is another matter.

Photo by: SIVStockStudio

Site-blocking: can the U.S. finally get it done?

site-blocking

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has prefaced a renewed interest in site-blocking legislation to combat piracy. Will things be different this time?

When the internet industry killed the antipiracy bills SOPA and PIPA in January 2012, I was a newbie blogger but guessed at the time that those parties had totally blown their wad on that campaign. First, there was the boy-who-cried-wolf limitation suggesting that Google & Co. had deployed too much hyperbole to ever again sound the “death of the internet” alarm. Next, the general belief that “the internet” is inherently a force for good was a notion that waned perceptibly after 2012 and then fell off the cliff circa 2016. Today, neither the general public, the government, nor the press fawns over the “white knights” of Silicon Valley as they did when those bills were scuttled.

None of that addresses the fact that the “Stop SOPA” campaign was a tidal wave of disinformation, but it would be naive to think that facts would win today any more than they did twelve years ago. When new site-blocking proposals begin to make headlines, and the network of tech-funded groups howl BEWARE SOPA 2!!, it will be interesting to see whether the same, or similar, false talking points are effective in an environment that is more skeptical of Big Tech in general.

What is site-blocking and why do It?

Site-blocking today would probably work much as it was intended back in 2011. A complainant would have the burden to prove to a court that a platform is principally engaged in illegal activity (e.g., media piracy) and is operating outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement. With sufficient evidence, the complaining party(ies) would obtain an injunction to deny the platform access to the U.S. market. The basic mechanisms are not much more complicated than that, though we can expect the same network of “digital rights” groups to sharpen the rhetorical pitchforks and again stoke allegations that this process will “break” the internet or that it violates the speech right.

Of course, neither claim is true. Site-blocking is employed as a remedy throughout the democratic world where the internet still functions, and speech rights are not infringed (at least not because of site-blocking). There is no more a speech implication to blocking a criminal web platform from access to the U.S. than there would be by interdicting a cargo ship full of counterfeit electronics. On that subject, the need for site-blocking legislation today is more urgent than it was in 2011, and not just for movies and music.

Although the MPA et al. will naturally focus on sites illegally hosting and/or streaming pirated entertainment, establishing a broader rationale for site-blocking—i.e., getting past unfounded ideological opposition—will serve other business and private interests. Online predators of every type have continued to adapt since 2012; evidence shows that media piracy is integrated with a broad spectrum of cybercrime; and the U.S. lags behind the EU et al. in adopting this basic mechanism of protection.

For instance, small-business owners making creative products sold on eCommerce platforms lack the resources to combat, or the margins to absorb, the pace of counterfeiting by foreign actors. Advancements in small-batch production methods and drop-shipping offer new flexibility for counterfeiters to flood the U.S. market with cheap knockoffs, harming both legitimate producers and consumers. Meanwhile, media pirate sites are delivery platforms for malware used for cyber extortion (including sextortion), identity theft, and direct theft of private and sensitive material from personal and business networks.

So, although the MPA will likely be the most prominent advocate of site-blocking legislation, there are many disparate parties—from small-business owners to advocates fighting online sexual abuse—who may see the value in the U.S. finally adopting a remedy the EU et al. have had in place for a decade or more.

An Interesting Moment

In 2011, it was easy to spread the message that site-blocking was only about “Hollywood” protecting its wealth to the detriment of speech on the internet. It wasn’t true then, of course, but it will be interesting to see whether some form of the same rhetoric will gain traction in the coming years. Specifically, a whole generation has grown to young adulthood since then—kids who never heard the proverbial boy cry wolf the first time. Notably, Torrentfreak reports that GenZ exhibits a high rate of pirate site access, citing familiar rationales that streaming subscriptions are too expensive and/or that interest in one title militates against subscribing to the necessary channel.

But what will really be interesting to watch over the next few months will be GenZ’s susceptibility (or not) to the “Save TikTok” campaign already underway. On April 24, President Biden signed a solidly bipartisan law stating that TikTok will be banned in the U.S. unless, within nine months, owner Bytedance sells the platform and, thereby, severs all ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Bytedance, in addition to vowing it will fight the law in U.S. courts, has already launched a PR campaign, including social media messages that will tap into the same emotional triggers used during the “Stop SOPA” campaign.

As Google & Co. did in 2011/12, Bytedance will use its addictive interface to promote the message that its business interests are synonymous with their users’ rights, only this time, the rhetoric isn’t coming from Big Tech filtered through the Electronic Frontier Foundation—it’s a psyop of the CCP. The efficacy of the “Save TikTok” campaign will be telling, not only about the viability of site-blocking legislation, but about the hoped-for savvy that “digital natives” might reveal about navigating the perils of cyberspace.

In 2011, it was frightening to watch the platforms use the insidious power of the platforms to advocate the policy interests of the platforms. Now, that same playbook is being run by a foreign adversary targeting 170 million 18-29-year-olds, and it is an anxious moment, to say the least, waiting to see how they respond. Regardless, the underlying rationale for site-blocking is sound, and I hope that both copyright and non-copyright interests see it as a necessary protection of American enterprise and security.

Photo by: tommoh29

Book bans deserve opposition, but not debate.

book bans

The Authors Guild, of which I am a member, has filed an amicus brief asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm a lower court ruling that Iowa’s book ban law is unconstitutional. And of course it is. The subject barely warrants legal examination because it is impossible to draft a content-focused general book ban law that does not violate the First Amendment. And while there is reason to expect that ruling to be upheld on appeal, this cautious optimism does little to resolve the question as to why book ban efforts are more energized than they were 10-20 years ago.

Based on the titles highlighted in the AG brief, it is fair to assume that once again, conservative extremists have their righteous undies in a bunch over the inherent “evil” of sex. Iowa legislators join those in Texas, Florida, Arkansas et al. in the view that both fiction and nonfiction works that in any way confront, describe, or allude to sex, or sexual identity, are so dangerous to American youth (even teenagers who are having sex) that they must be removed from distribution.

Fear of sex is nothing new for the religious right, of course, but the current increase in book banning efforts appears to be animated by a reaction against wider social acceptance of a broader spectrum of sexual identity—i.e., a moralizing backlash against openly gay, nonbinary, and transgender persons. The sweep also includes reactions against subject matter dealing with race, and if (God forbid) any book addresses both race and sex, the earth will shake. As such, the novels of Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison make everybody’s list.

In public statements, politicians advocating book bans will portray these laws as necessary to protect children from age-inappropriate sexual content, but there is no truth to this implication, either in practice or law. Not only is there no evidence that teachers are reading Bukowski to third graders, but laws like Iowa’s are sweeping, content-focused bans for all libraries serving all students regardless of age. As old as the recurring theme of sex in book bans is the axiom that book banners, by their very nature, are illiterate. There is no more sense in arguing constitutional principles with these people than there is in talking cosmology with a gibbon.

Sure, one could explain for the umpteenth time that the five freedoms of the First Amendment very intentionally proscribe all rationales for state censorship. But for whose ears do we repeat this? Do the legislators endorsing these statutes know even a fraction of the history behind the Bill of Rights? Can they so much as theorize why the Constitution rejected the underlying frameworks of England’s censorious laws? Can they trace any portion of the narrative from the 14th century Lollards, through Henry VIII, Milton and Aeropagetica, royal patents entangled with the politics of the Church, the Puritan adventure to North America, and the next 160 years of history to get to the Constitutional Convention?

I ask because the constitutional framers (some who were total horndogs, BTW) knew that history from reading books! As such, the First Amendment, in 45 words, neatly encompasses centuries of lessons learned about successful and failed states to form a critical building block in the Plan for a nation unlike any that existed before or since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. In short, no book banning allowed—not even for allegedly “protecting the kids” from sex, an effort which, like book banning itself, has a history of spectacular failure.

Consider this detail:  the AG brief notes that among the prohibited books is “Laurie Halse Anderson’s Speak, which has helped countless teens work through the trauma of sexual assault.” By what twisted logic does banning such a book “protect” anybody from anything? Legislators with any real moral judgment should be focused on the “countless victims” of sexual assault, not the books that might help them heal. But again, you can’t explain such things to gibbons. This is what happens when alleged principles are unmoored from education—e.g., when one censors books without reading them. Any position taken to extreme will inevitably cross the boundary where the advocate contradicts his own core values, proposing unworkable, unconstitutional laws that can only be sustained by hypocrisy.

And I get it. I sympathize with the emotion. After all, it would be short work to argue that religious exercise has been the cause of more violence and depravity throughout history than all the smuttiest literature ever written. Yet, despite the mountain of evidence one might compile to support that thesis, the First Amendment is clear:  religious exercise may neither be prohibited nor compelled. And so it is with speech. It’s called democracy.

Photo by: mpalis