Recently, I’ve been watching YouTube videos on channels like Scammer Payback and Scambaiter. The idea is that a person pretends to fall for a scam, then uses the opportunity to hack into the scammer’s computer or even just make the scammer angry and waste their time.

Refund scams

One common type of scam goes like this: a potential victim receives an email saying they were charged money for some sort of IT support or antivirus that they didn’t buy. When they call the number to cancel the purchase, they reach the scammer. They convince the victim that they need access to the victim’s computer, directing them to download AnyDesk or other remote desktop software. Next, they have the victim log into their bank account so they can (supposedly) be refunded their money. They tell the victim to write down their account balance to be able to confirm they received it (since there won’t be a real transaction but the balance is going to change).

Now the scammer pulls a little magic trick. Most modern web browsers have a “developer tools” feature which allows the user to see and edit the HTML of a web page. Any changes to the HTML take place only on the user’s own computer and as soon as the page is refreshed the original HTML will replace it. The purpose for this is to allow web developers to test things on a page they’re working on, but it can also be used to temporarily change text on a page in order to trick someone.

And here is where the scam comes in. Not only does the scammer edit the account balance, they edit it to make it look like the victim was refunded way too much (like $20,000 instead of $200). They will claim things like “the bank will freeze your account if you tell them what happened” or “the bank will take the money and make you pay 40% tax on top of that.” The scammer also often claims they themselves will lose their job if the situation isn’t resolved quickly. The victim is directed to purchase Google Play gift cards and send the scammer the card numbers.

So for example, YouTuber Kitboga has a fake Google Play store site set up that scammers can see (through their remote access). Acting confused, he will redeem the (fake) gift cards, adding the (fake) money to his own (fake) Google Play account, ostensibly thinking this will send the money to the scammers. This makes scammers extremely upset. These YouTube channels can waste hours upon hours of scammers’ time, make them think they’re about to close the deal, then yank it away from them.

In other cases, YouTubers use the open connection to hack into the scammers’ computer or even their entire network. This provides a number of opportunities. Sometimes the hacker will simply delete all the files on the hard drive, other times they will use the information to identify scammers or their accounts and report their fraudulent behavior.

What’s the point?

Individual scam baiting channels approach scams in different ways, but generally have the same few goals. First, they want to disrupt the scam by wasting time and causing damage to scammers’ systems. Second, they want to identify scammers and victims in order to halt or even reverse scam transactions. Third, they want to raise awareness about how scams work to prevent people from falling for them. And finally, they want to entertain their viewers.

It is this last point that is most interesting to me. Entertainment value is necessary to attract viewers which are necessary to earn revenue. Entertainment value may be a large reason for messing with scammers to make them angry, in particular. There is something inherently interesting to humans about another human experiencing strong emotions, and we think it’s funny when bad things happen to people. This is also the main idea behind prank videos, which have been both popular and much maligned. I read a comment on a scam baiting video comparing it to prank videos, except you don’t feel bad for the person being “pranked” because the prank is preventing them from stealing someone’s money.

Indeed, commenters often express how funny it is when the scammers get mad, as well as sentiments like “don’t feel bad for them, they steal money from people’s grandparents”. This is definitely the unanimous view of the channels and their audiences. I have never seen anyone express sympathy for the scammer.

You know, there’s nothing more fulfilling than randomly getting a phone call on a Wednesday afternoon, talking to some scammers, accessing their computers, destroying their system, downloading all of their files, and then removing twenty thousand files off their system, hearing them cry, hearing them whine and yell at each other. All in a day’s work. A little scammer tears for everyone, cheers. (Pierogi)

I myself watch these videos for their entertainment value. I do think it’s funny when the scammers get mad and I don’t feel bad for them. That being said, treating a group of people badly because we’ve decided they’re “evil” is a red flag to me. This cognitive dissonance is what led me to think about this situation more deeply.

In many illegal enterprises, front-line workers may not have much of a choice about what they’re doing. It could be their only way to survive or care for their family, akin to the idea of stealing a loaf of bread to keep a child from starving. This is widely (but not universally) considered morally permissible, at least when considering it as a hypothetical. I am inclined to agree.

However, I have to make sense of this in light of my broader beliefs about free will and responsibility. I don’t think anyone really has a choice about what they do, and I don’t believe in good people or bad people.

In fact, we were merely speculating on the possibility of scammers being “innocent people caught in a bad situation”. As it turns out, while this may be the case sometimes, it does not appear to be the case often. When scammers’ identities have been revealed, they are sometimes seen flaunting their ill-gotten wealth. Additionally, scammers often express disdain or hatred towards Americans in particular but also anyone else who isn’t their own nationality (videos I’ve seen have featured scammers located in India, Nigeria, and Jamaica).

It is significant that I said earlier that scammers do not appear to be innocent people. Bear in mind where this information is coming from. Scam baiting YouTubers have an incentive to portray scammers in as villainous a light as possible. As an aside, I think this is an important point because I believe that what these YouTubers are presenting is accurate, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise. I’m using their videos to base my argument on. By calling attention to my biased source, I want people who agree with me to think seriously about the question, “how could I be wrong about this?” By considering how we could be wrong, we can find out how we are wrong, because everyone is wrong about something and we should always want to find out when we are wrong. If you ever think you can’t be wrong about something, you’re not being imaginative enough.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think it’s strangely more difficult for me to reconcile my opinions knowing that scammers willingly (or even eagerly) behave badly. For many people I think this would simply confirm the idea in their mind that the scammers are just bad people, but I really don’t believe in bad people.

This is where logic and emotion come into play. From a logical standpoint my first priority would be stopping scams, followed by attempting to rehabilitate the scammers (which may not be possible). This would be the best possible outcome for the scammers and for society. I fully endorse making scammers angry as a way to disrupt and discourage scamming; their frustration is valid, but their emotional state is not as important as preventing fraud. From my own emotional standpoint, I have a fundamental problem with deriving joy from someone else’s suffering.

But as I said earlier, laughing at another person’s misfortune is virtually universal.

It’s schadenfreude

Logically (again) I think schadenfreude tends to have negative consequences, since it can lead people to cause or disregard suffering. It’s generally antisocial, with the possible exception of sometimes strengthening in-group bonds (which is sort of prosocial) or encouraging justice-oriented behavior. It presumably has some sort of evolutionary purposes, which may or may not be consistent with our present day goals. This is a general problem I run into when experiencing certain emotions like envy or aggression. I understand that these are natural human things that evolved for a reason and everyone experiences, but I still don’t like them and don’t think they’re helpful.

I said schadenfreude tends to have negative consequences, but it doesn’t always have negative consequences. For one, there is plenty of harmless humor at others’ expense, but also I think this particular case of upsetting scammers could be an example of positive consequences. Remember that the highest goals of these YouTube videos are to stop scams and spread awareness, and that is only possible if the videos are entertaining. I said before that entertainment value is necessary, but I want to underscore how fundamentally important it is. While people can waste scammers’ time or hack into their network without making a video about it, it’s unlikely for anyone to be able to devote the time and resources required unless they are being compensated. This is speculation on my part, but I do not imagine there are many private individuals who spend a large amount of their time messing with scammers. Ad revenue and sponsorships depend on views, and spreading awareness virtually is views.

Does that sound like a rationalization? It might be. However I am neither trying to justify my views nor change them, just understand them better. I am happy to continue laughing at scammers being angered to tears, and I don’t have a problem with that. What is interesting to me is the apparent contradiction I feel with my broader views. Unfortunately, as with many things, the answer seems to be that it’s nuanced and it just depends. Those of us who seek hard and fast rules in this world are often disappointed.

I am, of course, not the first person to ponder this question. However, the concern for many others seems to regard whether schadenfreude is morally justified (see e.g. Portmann 2014). This is not really a concern for me since I don’t believe in any universal/objective morality, and the argument usually relies on some degree of retributive justice. Other research has investigated the prevalence of and associations with schadenfreude (see e.g. Yee & Lee 2022). In particular, it is associated with “dark triad” (or “dark tetrad”) traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (and sometimes sadism).

Like many human tendencies, it seems to be something that everyone experiences to some degree and a handful of people are extreme examples. There isn’t a specific threshold at which something becomes harmful (or even pathological). It requires individual discernment, but anything relating to personality is exceedingly complex.

What’s the take away from all this?

I don’t think people really need to be careful when and who they laugh at (beyond ordinary politeness). I do think people should stop seeing others as good or bad, but that was already my stance. What I got from the scammer issue is that tension within one’s worldview is to be expected and doesn’t always indicate there’s a problem. In this case I would say that it indicates that there might be a problem. Additionally, I would always encourage people to question whether their behavior is in line with their values and goals. It is almost never going to be entirely in line, which is normal, but that delta provides a direction to work in.

References

Portmann, J. (2014). Morality and schadenfreude. In W. W. van Dijk & J. W. Ouwerkerk (Eds.), Schadenfreude: Understanding Pleasure at the Misfortune of Others. Cambridge University Press.

Yee, J. W., & Lee, S. L. (2022). The Dark Triad Traits, Humor Styles, and Schadenfreude: Others’ Misery as the Devil’s Laughing Stocks. Japanese Psychological Research, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12403