Looks like they are using Ai to manipulate images to get verification stamp.Its pointless on here now and they wonder why people wont subscribeThey may have very well used real documentation to certify, but are just using fake (or not of themselves) photos for their profile/gallery photo(s). Disingenuous? yes. Against any site rule? no.I agree your profile photo should be of you or something innocuous like a cartoon character, but that would be impossible to maintain. The easier solution that I've recommended for years is read only unless certified and paid. (and now I'm limiting it to paid. I use say one or the other, but now believe it should be both). I would still allow an exception for longtime members that have shown they are legitimate and provide engage and useful information.John aka cobeachbum
Who have you recommended that solution to, and what was the outcome?
Looks like they are using Ai to manipulate images to get verification stamp.Its pointless on here now and they wonder why people wont subscribeThey may have very well used real documentation to certify, but are just using fake (or not of themselves) photos for their profile/gallery photo(s). Disingenuous? yes. Against any site rule? no.I agree your profile photo should be of you or something innocuous like a cartoon character, but that would be impossible to maintain. The easier solution that I've recommended for years is read only unless certified and paid. (and now I'm limiting it to paid. I use say one or the other, but now believe it should be both). I would still allow an exception for longtime members that have shown they are legitimate and provide engage and useful information.John aka cobeachbumWho have you recommended that solution to, and what was the outcome?
TT2, and dead silence.
John aka cobeachbum
Looks like they are using Ai to manipulate images to get verification stamp.Its pointless on here now and they wonder why people wont subscribeThey may have very well used real documentation to certify, but are just using fake (or not of themselves) photos for their profile/gallery photo(s). Disingenuous? yes. Against any site rule? no.I agree your profile photo should be of you or something innocuous like a cartoon character, but that would be impossible to maintain. The easier solution that I've recommended for years is read only unless certified and paid. (and now I'm limiting it to paid. I use say one or the other, but now believe it should be both). I would still allow an exception for longtime members that have shown they are legitimate and provide engage and useful information.John aka cobeachbumWho have you recommended that solution to, and what was the outcome?TT2, and dead silence.John aka cobeachbum
Doesn't surprise me and that's why the only way we are going to improve things is if we start behaving as if this is a community and taking positive action as members of the community, for the good of the community.
This thread, whilst it might be quite cathartic for people to flag fakes doesn't actually achieve that much. How many people are going to trawl through here to check if a user has been flagged before engaging in conversation with them?
When I encountered a fake in the chatroom that was using a porn model's images and pretending that they were their own, I contacted every user that had liked their profile, and/or profile image, or friended them, and made them aware that the images were fake.
Furthermore I politely asked them to remove any likes and unfriend them, so as not to encourage the behaviour.
It was only a matter of days before the fake profile was gone
What that does is it raises awareness amongst those naive users that expect everyone to be who they say they are. Trouble is it takes a bit more effort and community spirit than just adding another item to this thread
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!