Catfishing:
Definition:
According to Urban Dictionary, Catfishing is the phenomenon of Internet predators that fabricate online identities and entire social circles to trick people into emotional/romantic relationships. Possible motivations: revenge, loneliness, curiosity, boredom, fraud etc.
online deception and how it differs from deception in the physical real. In “Digital Deception: Why, When, and How People Lie Online,” Jeffrey Hancock defines “digital deception” as “the intentional control of information in a technologically mediated message to create false belief in the receiver of the message” (3). He goes on to mention that the three characteristics of this type of deception are that it is deliberate, targeted, and uses some form of technology. Hancock also contends that there are two types of digital deception: identity-based and message-based. Identity-based digital deception is “deceit that flows from the false manipulation or display of a person or organization’s identity” (4). Message-based deception is “deception that takes place in the communication between two or more interlocutors or agents”
The Movie
In the 2010 documentary called Catfish, a man named Nev falls in love with a woman he meets on fb named Megan only to discover that she does not exist and was the online creation of a housewife named Angela.
Since the film debuted, this idea of “catfishing” online has spawned not only the MTV show where viewers are united with their online relationship partners only to discover they’ve been catfished, but the film has also yielded new discussions about how we represent ourselves online and how to avoid being deceived. Catfishing is also a step in the progression of the relationship between users and the Internet. In other words, as technology advances and people are ever more able to connect with each other in the online environment, issues of authenticity and identity in cyberspace evolve along with the technology
Opportunity theory:
Motives:
revenge, loneliness, curiosity, boredom, fraud, to gain sympathy, financial gains,
Time: Our current place in the timeline of social media use as “The Catfish Moment,” meaning that instances of catfishing could not have been possible prior to our current stage in the proliferation of social media.
Disinhibition effect:
J Suler’s theory of the “disinhibition effect.” This theory can be “summed up as people saying and doing things in cyberspace that they would not ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world”
Books and magazines:
The first, entitled Catching the Catfishers: Disarm the Online Pretenders, Predators, and Perpetrator Who are Out to Ruin Your Life, was written by Tyler Cohen Wood, an employee of the Department of Defense.
In Real Life: Love, Lies, and Identity in the Digital Age, has even closer connections to the catfishing phenomenon – it was written by Nev Schulman, the subject of the Catfish documentary and host of MTV’s Catfish: The TV Show.
Online articles
Puts the responsibility on the victim rather than focusing on people not acting like a catfish.
If you’re a catfish, your power comes from the ability to cut all ties, delete accounts, and stop communication and, in the few examples of catfishing for revenge, in humiliating or shaming the victim. Since the online persona the catfish has created is not a real human person (or verifiable body), the catfish’s power comes from being able to birth this person into existence and to kill it. The only activity that removes this power from the catfish and gives it to the catfished is crossing the border into the real-world.
One issue with the prevalence of the rhetoric of avoidance and the absence of the reverse rhetoric is that we are all characterized as potential victims. Because of this characterization, the victim will usually be blamed if duped by a catfish. The victim should have been more vigilant or more careful. The victim should have required verification or asked to Skype or run a background check. The culpability lies with the victim because catfish are an expected part of building online relationships. The avoidance rhetoric used in the popular discourse regarding catfishing places the blame on the catfish’s victim, similar to rhetoric involving sexual assault. Very frequently in discussions of sexual violence, there are sentiments such as, “Instead of teaching women not be victimized, we should be teaching men not to rape.” This sentiment is very similar to the popular discourse regarding becoming the victim of an Internet predator – we are told how to avoid the catfish, but we are rarely told not to become catfish
In her article “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention,” Sharon Marcus details women’s internalization of rape culture and how it leads to their acceptance of the inevitability of rape and the inevitability of being a victim without making any attempt to fight back against violence. This internalization of rape culture is very similar (in rhetorical movements, not in the level or psychological impact of violence) to Turkle’s ideas in her trio of texts regarding our relationship to technology that an increased internalization of and dependence on technology for creating and sustaining relationships leads to our increased propensity to treat humans as objects instead of as people. There are some rhetorical parallels here that culminate in passive acceptance of these violations.
For Marcus, a shift from rape avoidance to rape prevention starts with a paradigm shift in our understanding of women as subjects instead of as objects. If we can combat patriarchy and misogyny then we would be able to subvert the rape script. Otherwise, we must teach women to fight back against the rapist instead of relying on passive avoidance. To prevent the rapist or the catfish, it is not enough to advocate for individual vigilance, awareness, or protection; to change the attitude of the rapist or the catfish, we must change the culture in which they subsist.
Marcus advocates not only for a paradigm shift in thought and speech but also a paradigm shift in body. If women don’t want to be seen as rapeable, then they must become threatening forces that will be able to respond to the threat of rape with equal physical violence. If women were viewed as just as physically strong as men, then men would be less likely to subject themselves to the threat of physical harm by attempting rape. But, how could we frighten catfish to death? How could users scare these deceptive figures straight? Turkle advocates disconnecting – if we don’t let cyberspace alter our ways of thinking about ourselves and each other, then we would be less likely to be duped by a catfish. However, in line with Marcus’s thinking, it may be reasonable or necessary to subvert the narrative of online deception not by retreating or unplugging but by refusing to settle for the perceived comfort of online friendships and relationships as well as demanding that those we meet online verify their bodily reality before we make emotional investments in those relationships
By being bold, users would be following Marcus’s advice and refusing to remain passive, refusing to perpetuate the narrative of deception. If potential catfish were aware that their deceptions would no longer be passively accepted and that sites had zero tolerance policies toward that kind of deception, maybe catfish would think twice before creating a false identity. For Marcus, avoidance is a fool’s errand; instead, we should change our image as women – or in the case of catfish, as Internet users – from passive receivers of violence to fierce and aggressive subjects. While not a final solution, it may be our first stop on the road to reclaiming our bodies and our identities.
For example, in 2014, Michael Picciano sued dating site OKCupid after he was duped out of $70,000 by a catfish he met on the site. Picciano met a user named Bruce Thompson who, after only a few short interactions, requested that Picciano wire him money to help him start a business.
In 2013, Jodi Montbriand and Jill King fell victim to a similar scheme when they both fell victim to a catfish looking for money and promising companionship. Online, Montbriand met “Chad,” a US Marine, and began depositing money into his bank account after he told her he was romantically interested in her. King met “Neil,” also a US Marine, and also began depositing money into his bank account after he told her he was in love with her. It turns out that both Chad and Neil do not exist and were the fake online personas of a woman named Kim Savage who admitted to scamming the women out of money using the false identities. She faces two counts of theft. In the cases of Thompson and Savage, catfishing tactics and the promise of romance were used not necessarily as an escape or to hide personal deficits but for financial gain.
Despite the motive – and, clearly, the motives do vary based on goal and situation – one of the over-arching sentiments expressed by these catfish is the importance of the ability to control their audience, mostly because of the user-oriented environment of social media. If you want to extort money, promise love and/or companionship. If you want to hide and seek, the Internet is the place to be.