They want your ethics for $105
116 points
by zdw
2 months ago
| 12 comments
| ntietz.com
| HN
Etheryte
2 months ago
[-]
I've had similar experiences. I have a few browser extensions and other similar tidbits that I've built, and every now and then I get an email with an offer to sell it for a hundred bucks or so. Sell full scripting access to every user who installed something I made over the years? It makes me sad that that's the kind of world we're in, and sadder still knowing that surely there are people somewhere out there who do accept these bids.
reply
nox101
2 months ago
[-]
Makes me sad there are people making the offer.

It's pretty clear we're screwed as a civilization. As tech gets more powerful, the same people making these offers as well as the same people doing cyberlockers, etc will do the same with bio-tech, nano-tech and anything else then can extort others with. They'll infect you with virus to which only they have the antidote, etc....

reply
taberiand
2 months ago
[-]
At that price, Google, Microsoft et al should get ahead of the game and pay the developers the pittance to ensure stability of their plugin ecosystem
reply
simfree
2 months ago
[-]
"Google offered me a pittance to take over and then kill my extension" doesn't make for a good headline. They'd rather just nuke the malicious extension when they get notified of its sketchy behaviour.
reply
dataflow
2 months ago
[-]
What kinds of contracts do these come with? I imagine they also expect you to keep quiet about it?
reply
odo1242
2 months ago
[-]
Keep in mind, this is what happened to The Great Suspender lol
reply
arcanemachiner
2 months ago
[-]
I hope they got more than $105 to sell out their userbase.
reply
zahlman
2 months ago
[-]
>We'll send you $105 through the sketchiest way possible, PayPal, to make sure you feel like you're getting scammed, because you are!

What are the good ways to be sent approximately this sum of money nowadays?

reply
BenjiWiebe
2 months ago
[-]
The friends & family payment method in PayPal is risky to send money, cause there's no chargebacks or fraud prevention.

For receiving money, it would be great, for the same reasons.

reply
TRiG_Ireland
2 months ago
[-]
If I want to send money to someone I trust, I'd ask for their IBAN and do a bank transfer. Now, that cannot be reversed, so I really would have to trust them.

(Also, I'm assuming that both bank accounts are in SEPA countries, or at the very least countries which use IBAN, because in my life, that's likely to be true.)

reply
immibis
2 months ago
[-]
Note that although the transfer itself doesn't have a recall mechanism, the recipient's identity is accessible to judges and lawyers and police officers if you got scammed.
reply
BolexNOLA
2 months ago
[-]
As long as you don’t do PayPal friends & family and always do goods & services, you won’t get scammed.
reply
aembleton
2 months ago
[-]
Unless you're the one receiving the money in which case it's the other way round
reply
BolexNOLA
2 months ago
[-]
I’ve never had an issue on either dude of it tbh
reply
BolexNOLA
2 months ago
[-]
either side* what a bizarre typo ha
reply
baobun
2 months ago
[-]
Depending on context: Monero, Bitcoin Lightning, or your preferred ERC20 stablecoin.
reply
pxmpxm
2 months ago
[-]
/s?

Can't even tell

reply
hanniabu
2 months ago
[-]
Ethereum
reply
styyyaaa
2 months ago
[-]
Airwallex, Stripe, Wise,

Direct bank transfer (which above will support OR just a regular bank)

Requires trust yeah (except maybe the regular stripe credit card txn)

reply
ronsor
2 months ago
[-]
This is an especially sad offer since $105 is not a lot of money for a developer. These scammers need to revise their strategy.
reply
lmz
2 months ago
[-]
It's for one blog post so the audience is random blog owners, not developers. Prices for e.g. taking over an established browser extension would probably be higher.
reply
debugnik
2 months ago
[-]
I'd think so too, but a top comment mentions hundred dollar offers for the author's extensions. I guess some devs will take that over earning nothing from an extension.
reply
walrus01
2 months ago
[-]
I think that's really cute that the author of the article thinks that reporting something to the FTC might be something he could do, as if the originators of this aren't working in the overseas scam equivalent of a call center that's effectively beyond US legal reach. There is no "Ben".
reply
ErikAugust
2 months ago
[-]
Is there ROI for paying $105 for a single backlink on a blog?
reply
jabbany
2 months ago
[-]
There's a chance that they might stall you and never actually pay (or chargeback the invoice).

That way they'll get a free link for at least some amount of time, and if done at massive scales correctly, it could bump some site up the search results for long enough.

reply
cutemonster
2 months ago
[-]
Yes, and, I guess not, but what if Ben is in fact an AI bot and this doesn't cost them any time, and they're never going to pay,

just hoping that some people will forget to unpublish the links after non-payment, or they'll get some links for a while at least

reply
smelendez
2 months ago
[-]
Maybe for an SEO consultant charging thousands.

If the company is fake, it’s also possible they’ll pay you with a stolen credit card or hijacked PayPal account.

reply
necovek
2 months ago
[-]
I would definitely at least take a look at the "Received from" in SMTP envelope to confirm the physical location of the last real mail server hop (or all of the public ones).

That's great for confirming the physical location of the SMTP server connecting to your own server.

reply
card_zero
2 months ago
[-]
"Only publish things you'd publish otherwise" doesn't make any sense. If you had to be paid, you weren't really going to publish it. If you were really going to publish it anyway, you're deceiving the advertiser by making it seem like you require payment.
reply
Prbeek
2 months ago
[-]
I get such emails and offers everyday from SEO guys.
reply
p3rls
2 months ago
[-]
Yeah these are the most boring emails I get. At least the adops guys pretend to use my website before they hit send.
reply
happyopossum
2 months ago
[-]
Not taking issue with the overall point of the post - this is icky. Buuut, this:

>More generally, it's bad because it deceives readers into thinking this is an organic link.

This is a huge stretch. Somewhere on the order of 0% of the average blog readers would ever see the type of link used, let alone understand that “oh, that totally shoulda been a no-follow”.

Those aren’t for readers- they’re for robots.

reply
userbinator
2 months ago
[-]
I'd reply "maybe if you add 6 or more zeros to the price, I may consider it" and see what they say.
reply
fuzztester
2 months ago
[-]
reply
boguscoder
2 months ago
[-]
It could be more ridiculous, they could be in this “business” for those 4$ fees you ought to send them
reply
Glant
2 months ago
[-]
My interpretation is that they wanted the poster to create an invoice for the $105, plus an additional $4 to cover the fee PayPal charges on invoices. I assume this is so if the terms aren't followed, they can get a refund from PayPal. I don't think they were asking the poster to pay the fee.
reply
CarpaDorada
2 months ago
[-]
Just take the money and never follow up on it.
reply
jabbany
2 months ago
[-]
The article mentions having the OP send a PayPal invoice...

Pretty sure the other side is not gonna pay it unless you follow through (i.e. they could always charge it back and claim you never delivered the invoiced service, heck they might do that even if you put up the link!)

reply