 |
|
|
|||||
As job-seekers look for work in a challenging environment, an increasing number are falling victim to job scams that promise good pay for completing easy online tasks, according to the Federal Trade Commission.The scams start innocuously, often with a tailor-made text or WhatsApp message, and the scammers take time to build trust with the victim before cashing in on the relationship.“Most of the people who end up losing money to a scammer are behaving pretty rationally,” said Kati Daffan, assistant director of the Federal Trade Commission’s division of marketing practices. “Scammers are sophisticated, and they keep changing their tactics.”Reported losses to job scams increased more than threefold from 2020 to 2023. In the first half of 2024, they topped $220 million, according to the FTC. Gamified job scams, or task scams, represented a significant portion of that growth. About 20,000 people reported experiencing gamified scams in the first part of 2024, compared to 5,000 in all of 2023.Daffan said that that the number is certainly an underestimate, because many people don’t report their experiences of job scams to law enforcement or government trackers.“Only 4.8% of people complain,” she said.Here’s what to know: How the scams work The scam typically begins with an unexpected text or WhatsApp message from a “recruiter” offering online work, according to the FTC. The mystery texter will say you can “make good money” by “product boosting” or doing “optimization tasks” for an online platform or in an app, which might involve liking videos or rating product images.This “job” promises to earn you money from “commissions” per click. Once you complete the tasks, you’ll see an increasing tally of “earnings” on the platform or in the app. These earnings are fake.Eventually, the app or platform will ask you to deposit your own money, typically in crypto, to complete more tasks and withdraw your (non-existent) earnings. But if you do make the deposit, you lose your real money, and you never receive the illusory pay. Who gets targeted Eva Velasquez, CEO of the Identity Theft Resource Center, said these types of scammers typically prey on job-seekers who are new to the job market, people who have been out of the job market for some time (such as homemakers re-entering the workforce, whose children are grown), and immigrants, who may be less familiar with the employment landscape or who face language barriers.“Often the job will have an easy interview or no interview, promise to let you work from home, and let you start right away,” Velasquez said. “Sometimes they’ll start with praise, and the person will feel their skills are recognized. ‘Oh, you think I’m great? Tell me more.'”Velasquez emphasized the vulnerability of people looking for work, especially given ongoing economic uncertainty, who may choose to accept a role even if it initially feels shady.“Sometimes the ask is to leave phony reviews for products,” she said. “The scammers are probably selling those reviews illegally, but a job-seeker might look at a line and say, ‘I’ll cross that line. I’ve got to eat.'” Tips for spotting a task-based scam Ignore any generic and unexpected texts or WhatsApp messages about jobs, no matter how specific or complimentary the messages. Never pay to get paid, or to get a job. That requirement is a red flag that the position is a scam. Don’t trust employers who says they’ll pay you to rate or like things online, without an above-board process for using the actual products or services you’re rating. The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism. Cora Lewis, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
A federal judge will consider on Thursday whether to prevent President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. American Civil Liberties Union lawyers are set to ask U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante at a hearing in Concord, New Hampshire, to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by implementation of Trump’s directive. Granting class status would empower Laplante, if he is inclined to do so, to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president’s policy nationally. The ACLU and others filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump’s directive. The suit was filed on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s executive order would take effect on July 27. Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court’s ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits. The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump’s directive likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The amendment states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The Justice Department has argued that Trump’s order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump’s order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January. Trump’s order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it. The justices ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of the three injunctions that had blocked Trump’s order from being enforced anywhere in the country against anyone after finding judges lack the authority to issue so-called “universal injunctions” that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump’s agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Immigrant rights advocates launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who in a related case also concluded in February that Trump’s order was likely unconstitutional. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled that Trump’s order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it. In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby’s parents. Laplante agreed at the time that an injunction was warranted, saying that “the denial of citizenship to the plaintiffs’ members’ children would render the children either undocumented noncitizens or stateless entirely.” But Laplante limited the scope of his order to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him. ACLU lawyers are now urging Laplante to go further by certifying a nationwide class of babies and their parents who would be affected by Trump’s order, saying that absent a court order thousands of families nationally would be unprotected. Trump’s administration counters that the three noncitizens parents and expectant parents seeking to serve as lead plaintiffs have immigration statuses that are too different to be able to pursue a single class action together and that an injunction at this time would “short circuit” the usual lengthier process required for them to obtain relief. Nate Raymond, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
In recent years, people have welcomed AI into their lives with open arms: as personal assistants, friends, therapists, even lovers. But one concern with having a chatbot in your pocket is that it can be hard to ignore. Reddit support groups are springing up for those struggling with chatbot addiction. 404 Media interviewed one self-confessed addict who had been staying up well into the night, compulsively talking to chatbots on Character.AI. The more I chatted with the bot, it felt as if I was talking to an actual friend of mine, the 18-year-old told journalist Ella Chakarian. Most people will probably just look at you and say, How could you get addicted to a literal chatbot? Now addicts are trying to break the cycle. Forums such as r/Character_AI_Recovery, which has more than 900 members, and r/ChatbotAddiction are serving as support groups for those struggling. While I have deleted the app, I keep going back to the website its practically reflex to me now, clicking back into my character ai tab. I hate it, one post on r/Character_AI_Recovery read. Nobody else knows about this addiction I have except myself because its humiliating. Another wrote: “I’m on my probably hundredth attempt of quitting. Others use the group to share their wins and hold themselves accountable. Ive been clean for a week! one posted. Another wrote: Been off three days now and everythings going well, but I have this feeling that I wont be able to get away from character ai. Character.ai says its striving to strike a balance between keeping its platform both engaging and safe, especially for teens, noting that this challenge is shared across the AI industry. A company spokesperson told Fast Company, Engaging with characters on our site should be interactive and entertaining, but its important for our users to remember that characters are not real people, adding that every chat includes disclaimers to that effect. To support younger users, Character.ai offers a suite of safety tools, including filtered content, time-use notifications, and Parental Insights, the latter of which gives guardians visibility into how teens use the platform. The company says users younger than 18 interact with a separate version of its language model designed to reduce exposure to sensitive material. We added a number of technical protections to detect and prevent conversations about self-harm, the spokesperson said, noting that in some cases this includes directing users to suicide prevention resources. While some have successfully weaned themselves off the chatbots, the likelihood of relapse remains high. Some platforms even encourage it, sending follow-up emails promoting different chatbots or offering incentives like a free months subscription to reengage users. I hated it whenever I’d see an email from the bot that had sent you a message, one former addict wrote. Or the emails telling me that a bot misses me. Just why? Isn’t this parasocial enough to them?
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||