The Great Plurk Spam Attack of 2008
So there I was, cruising through the timeline, trying to avoid clicking “Mark all as read” one more time. And what is there, big as you please, but a huge overripe hunk of (im)pure spam! This was not your garden variety, “Could you Digg this?” or “Take a look at my blog…” or “Could you look at so-an-so’s site?” (which are all acceptable parts of the game) but instead looked for all the world like every work-at-home scan-spam that I get in my Junk mailbox. This was spammy-spam.
I was more than a little appalled.
There were the expected protests. In fact, the spammer even directed some nasty comments at a good plurker and friend of mine that complained. That was way over the line for me. First, I muted the offensive piece of mystery meat. Then I stopped following the spammer. Then I unfriended the offending plurker. Maybe that way, it will count against them three times. They deserve all three.
Even if it wasn’t spam, and I’m fairly sure it was, it was incredibly stoopid and in extremely poor taste. I cannot imagine the kind of mindset that it would take to put a piece of crap like that on the timeline, even if it was legitimate. The more I think about it, if I ever see that person again, I will use my first block against them. Spam + stoopid + nasty should get you banned.
All of that said, be kind to the people that you have stopped following for things like “Pepsi or Coke” question-bombing for Karma. Go back once in a while and see if they have learned how to be responsible and not such pains in the keister. Sometimes, people learn. I have started following a few of them again, because they don’t do those things any more. That’s as it should be. People grow and change, and they stop doing silly things.
But real spammers? Be ruthless.
I’m KDFrawg on Plurk. Feel free to say hi, but never to spam Plurk.




June 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Thanks, KDFrawg, I certainly didn’t join Plurk to fight off spammers.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Yup, completely with you. Please PP me who this is so I can block this spammer if you don’t mind. Thanks.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
ditto’s Yoonie
June 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I know of the individual you speak of, and I was quite shocked to see the plurk as well. I might have, key word *might*, been inclined to forgive had she not attacked the first person that pointed it out. That plus the fact that her bio says she is in “social media”. Anyone who claims to be in social media, yet posts a phone number and pin to a home business pyramid scheme needs to be harshly rebuked so that he/she doesn’t make the same mistake again.
I’m certain she lost a lot of friends over it, and so she should have.
Education isn’t free. And Plurk isn’t for spam.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:22 am
it wasn’t just spammy spam, it was scammy spam. it was ugly and disgusting. it was the type of thing that no decent internet citizen would do. there is really no excuse.
the plurker in question had no other redeeming qualities, the balance of the plurks were universally banal. i don’t mind lunch plurks or dogwalking plurks but please, please, have some other things to say once in awhile. be funny. post a silly picture or a rockin’ video or make an interesting observation — SOMETHING. i’m very forgiving of banality, i need to be that way myself sometimes. but a few lunch-quality plurks and then a SCAM pitch? GTFO. seriously. go away.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:26 am
No link to the situation/post referenced = LAME
ob81
June 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
@ob81 -
If you didn’t see it, no harm no foul, and I don’t want to affect the decisions of those who didn’t see it. That would hardly be fair. If you want to chase it down, use the search function. Look at the comments here, look at those on line, then see how alone you are. < shrug > Dissing all of those people that know what they are talking about, when you don’t, = LAMER.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Although ob81 above could’ve worded his comment more appropriately, I have to agree - I was also disappointed that there wasn’t a link to the offending plurk as I would like to see the spam for myself. If you do not want to provide a link, can you provide a tip on what to search for in order to find the plurk in question?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
@Jill -
I feel a little like the judge in a child porn case trying to decide whether or not to release the porn itself to the general public. The spammer has some rights here, and one of those is not to have their identity published so that even more people can give them a bad time. If this person appears on your timeline, and if you really want to see the nasty material, you already have enough information to find it. Read the comments here, look at the comment on digg, and believe that the people who were there made good decisions.
Or, of course, don’t. If you really want the dirt, there are a lot of other people here that might make a different decision than I have, should you want to ask. You already missed the blood and the gore of the public ax-murder. I see no reason in killing somebody else so you can watch.
I’m sorry if that sounds harsh. We are not Plurk-friends so I cannot talk to you about it on Plurk, nor can the rest of the people who saw it join in our conversation. Maybe you know someone in the list of commenters. I don’t know. If you don’t feel wrong about friending me, please do so, and maybe we can arrange such a conversation. But it does not sound to me as if you are very impressed with me or my decisions, so that probably doesn’t work for you. If your are subscribed to this thread, maybe we can start such a conversation here.
KDFrawg (the Plurkiverse dewd)
June 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
KDF, While I agree with you about rights, I agree with OB81. If you are going to make an allegation of someone committing a wrong, you should at least provide the evidence. I am not saying what the person did was right, in fact, I even saw the post and chose to quit following the users time line. That is easily done without lambasting them or even letting them know they have been un-followed. (Makes life easier)
In my book, the posting of URLs for a site or a picture or song are all good. But my line is when it is a pure advertising site or a scam site. Those dont belong here and as a community we should be policing ourselves by blocking those scammers.
But for those of us who post links to interesting stories or useful items, keep going. And lastly, keep in mind, this is supposed to be fun. For me, it gives me a periodic break from writing and sometimes even gives me great ideas.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I don’t think I saw the exact plurk being examined here, but I’ve seen others matching its general description, and have always simply noted those in an intellectual “Wonder how much more of that we’ll see?” way and moved right on along to focus on more engaging things. Being a member of the karma cop brigade or the plurkish police force doesn’t particularly interest me, so that’s one thing. There are so many terrific voices, there–so many fascinating people to get to know, to learn from, and to experiment with–that I’d much rather invest my limited time in thinking about these more productive things, and nurturing these positive and thought provoking relationships than invest it in playing the monitor in any prescriptive way.
Here’s a place where I really appreciate how wisely the plurk interface is designed. It’s incredibly easy to follow only those voices and ideas that are of interest, and to ignore, silence, or otherwise filter out the rest. On the other hand, the public timeline keeps all of the open plurking readily available so that shifts and trends can be duly noted, and new connections made when that’s desirable. Plus, most decisions (not all) can be reversed: a plurk can be revised or deleted, a friendship status altered, a conversation muted or unmuted, an entire account erased.
Then, too, I do have a certain amount of faith in people. (Not naively so, though. Clearly, some *will* choose to spam, and some will choose to consume that with relish.) Still, there’s something self-correcting or self-balancing about this space. There’s a karmic interplay that has nothing to do with numbers, ratings, rankings, or the availability of icons. People find their levels, and grow as they go. Already, we see that the karma anxiety that marks early entrance often gives way to a deeper appreciation for the emergence of it all very quickly, indeed. “Oh, no! I lost a fraction of a point!” becomes “Just relax and enjoy the ebb and flow” with fairly stunning rapidity. Where that doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen, and that’s okay, too.
Plurk is young. It will be fascinating to follow its development. Do you remember all of those “evolution of a flame war” and “discussion list personality types” guides and analyses of past virtual communication eras? Well, here we go again, mapping out this new but not totally unfamiliar, for all of that, territory. We’ll fence and fraction, categorize and theorize, and undoubtedly learn some truly valuable things from all of that along the way, but it’s very early on, yet. There’s still a whole lot of unmapped territory, and that’s hugely appealing to me.
Would I post the apparently offensive or offending plurk? No, I don’t think so. When we’re after examining larger patterns, it seems to me that there’s little to be gained from naming names. Guess if I strongly objected to something, or had a question about it, I’d respond right in that plurk. Might lead to good conversation. Otherwise, the thing can always be discussed with one’s more receptive plurkish and bloggish buddies. Sometimes, rhetoric *is* a blood sport, but why get personal when nothing really good can come of it?
June 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
@kafkaz -
Wow, that was a lot of words! I think I’ve just been body-slammed by an academic! LOL! I am not the plurkish police, and don’t want to be. I am a reporter that happened to be on the scene, and reported the story. From you words, I can’t tell if you are pro- or anti- spam, just that somehow you were more offended by my post than by the spam. < shrug > You may certainly have that reaction.
I do not subscribe to the “everything is good” mentality that you are (I think) advocating in this comment. But you are certainly welcome to have that worldview if you like. I have enjoyed my conversations with you, generally because you are contrary to whatever position I take and that makes me think, which is good. I do wonder, though, after having read your comment a couple of times, if you have any solid opinion about the matter at hand. I am but a simple-minded fellow, and could not discern one.
KDFrawg (the Plurkiverse dewd)
June 28th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with the first portion of your last sentence, and will leave it at that.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
@kafkaz - Wow, you wrote all that just to call me stoopid? I suppose I should be honored!
June 28th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I’m amazed at this amount of debate over spam. I’ll admit, I saw the offending post, actually went back and looked three times before deciding to remove the person, the first time I’ve removed anyone from my list.
The fact it was spam bothered me. We don’t need spam here on Plurk, I can go so many other places if I want to get see that. Here on Plurk, maybe I’ve grown used to it being a closer community.
Of course, maybe that’s the other part. Plurk is a close community. We don’t all have the same friends, but we expect friends to be Friends…not spammers. And this person had convinced a lot of people they were there to be friends like the rest of us.
There are ways that they could have even gained some business. I’ve yet to see someone post a link that no one goes to see and comment on. I’ve definitely noticed an increase in visitors on my site, and I’m sure others have as well, and likely an increase in business. We have marketers acting on Plurk, Diggers, Sphinners, SEOers, I can’t think of a field of people who make their living online who don’t hang out on Plurk…but all of them are careful to stay within the bounds of propriety.
It’s very likely I still wouldn’t have removed the offender though, would have walked away and given them a second chance except for the fact that they decided to Block the first person who called them out for their behavior and then acted shocked that anyone would think they spam.
Do I think the offender will spam again? I honestly hope not, and doubt they’ll try again on Plurk at least. But I doubt they have learned anything about listening to those who speak the truth, and not reacting with anger when someone is honest. Those are qualities I value in a friend, and why this person is no longer on my list.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
@Teeg - Great, well-reasoned, comment. That should be a blog post all by itself. Thanks for taking the time to do this!
June 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Actually, no, Mr. Frawg. What I did was visit your blog, read it, and respond. What you did was accuse me of abusing you, somehow. That really surprised me. I do like debate, as you know, but my whole point was that things evolve as they will, we don’t control them as much as we sometimes tend to think we can, and so there’s no really good reason that I can see to hurt someone when there’s little to be gained, and only the hurt to show for it.
If that’s a body slam, then I’m apparently a much tougher chick than I ever imagined.
Still, I shouldn’t have shot back. I let my hurt feelings do the talking for me, there.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
@kafkaz - Your Plurkish Police remark was most unkind, as was much of that rant. Then, I sort of thought that your statement “I wholeheartedly agree with the first portion of your last sentence, and will leave it at that” which pointed at my phrase “I am but a simple-minded fellow,” followed by your immediate unfriending of me was indicative of less than kind treatment, as well. You may play the victim if you wish. I do not feel victimized, just poorly treated.