Connect with us

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

BBC uncovers the Ugandan scammers abusing dogs to elicit donations from animal lovers

Published

on

A dog with rust-coloured fur lies at the side of a road. He looks peaceful, but as the TikTok video pans from his face to the rest of his body, severe injuries to his hind legs appear.

The dog is not resting. He is panting, presumably in pain.

Text on the 15-second clip tells viewers that this dog "got into an accident" and asks them "to save his life" by donating through an online link.

In the three weeks after the video was first posted on 8 January last year, this dog was featured in hundreds of other fundraising campaigns, by at least a dozen accounts.

A social media user from the UK named the dog Russet, which reflected the colour of his coat. Thousands of dollars were raised for his treatment. But he never got better.

BBC Africa Eye has discovered that this dog in Uganda was a prop in a scam that solicits donations for animals in distress, part of a hidden industry profiting from cruelty.

It is impossible to conclusively establish what caused Russet's injuries, but BBC World Service journalists managed to piece together parts of his story, which suggest he endured prolonged suffering, regardless of the cause.

The story connects a town in Uganda with animal lovers thousands of miles away. They are coaxed into parting with their money through emotional images, lies and the exploitation of Western stereotypes of Africa such as endemic poverty and widespread indifference towards animal welfare.

But it is dogs like Russet who pay the biggest price.

He was filmed in Mityana, a trading centre around 70km (43 miles) from Uganda's capital, Kampala.

The town has become infamous among online animal rescue activists around the world for one thing – sham dog rescue shelters.

Ugandan scammers have realised just how popular dogs are in Europe, North America and Australia, and how easily social media's obsession with dogs can be converted into cash.

"There are young men in the [Ugandan] countryside who are always looking for anything to do on the internet," Bart Kakooza, chairman of the Uganda Society for the Protection and Care of Animals, tells the BBC.

"On the other side, in the Western world, people are very passionate about animals. These young men realised they can make money if they can get a dog."

It is impossible to say how many social media accounts operate from Mityana. But collectively, they have flooded Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and YouTube with videos of pitiful-looking animals – mostly dogs and cats, but even rabbits – with commentary pleading for donations to shelter, feed and treat them.

A typical video involves a person showing some dogs in a makeshift structure coupled with messages like "our dogs are hungry" or "it's another day without food at the shelter" and "please help us".

The clips often exploit what content creators think will resonate with viewers' existing perceptions of Africa, depicting it as a place where food is scare and young dog lovers must fight against the odds to protect animals from societal hostility and neglect.

Data analysis by BBC Africa Eye suggests these videos have been effective in converting views into donations.

In the past five years, our research showed that more than $730,000 (£540,000) has been raised for animal shelters in Uganda by hundreds of fundraisers posted on the donation platform GoFundMe.

Nearly 40% of all the fundraisers analysed by the BBC were connected to Mityana.

In the town, the business of sham dog shelters is an open secret. Several residents tell the BBC it is easy to spot the con artists.

"When you see a young man driving a Subaru [a status symbol car in the area], you just know he is a scammer," says one.

Another says: "The scammers are the most respected here in Mityana".

But very few residents are willing to speak openly about specific shelter operations as they fear retaliation. The BBC decides to send an undercover team to Mityana.

The journalists pose as newcomers wanting to enter the business of online dog-shelter content.

They discover that some establishments in the area are rented out to multiple content creators.

The shelters charge an entrance fee to film with the owner's dogs. The videos are then posted on the scammer's social media accounts and affiliated online fundraisers, usually a GoFundMe or PayPal link.

This means the same physical shelter and the same dogs are used by several different accounts to solicit money.

The BBC team gains access to one of these shelters, run by a young man who introduces himself as Charles Lubajja.

At the shelter, the journalists find about 15 dogs kept in the same cage, lying in their own waste. Many appear severely underweight and lethargic.

Lubajja tells the undercover reporters that the shelter primarily exists to make money from social media viewers abroad under false pretences. He gives some advice on how to increase revenues, and shares some of the tricks, including:

"Once you receive the GoFundMe money, you use it to buy a car or build a house," Lubajja says while being secretly filmed.

"Once you get a white donor, don't treat them as a brother. You have to squeeze them [take their money]. Drain them."

But as fake operations like Lubajja's spread across the internet, a growing number of donors came to realise they had been deceived. Initiatives then sprang up to stop the scammers.

Campaigners' tactics include raising awareness among potential contributors, and naming and shaming the accounts believed to be the worst offenders.

Online activists also say that more than just neglect is taking place in Mityana's shelters, including deliberately harming the animals.

A campaign which gained ground due to its aggressive style is We Won't Be Scammed, which has an Instagram account with around 20,000 followers.

In the undercover filming, Lubajja himself mentions the campaign and describes it as the scammers' "biggest problem".

What Lubajja probably did not know is that the account is run by a 49-year-old woman who lives some 10,000km away in Yorkshire, in the north of England.

Nicola Baird, the founder of We Won't Be Scammed, is on the warpath.

"The scammers, I just have hatred for them," she tells the BBC. "They are the epitome of evil."

As with others in her network of 20 activists, Baird was once a victim. She sent money to a man in Mityana who said his dog needed surgery after a traffic accident.

When she received photos and videos of the dog's alleged surgery, Baird started to suspect something was wrong. Veterinary doctors she shared the images with confirmed that they looked more like abuse than veterinary care. "That's when I thought: 'Oh my goodness, I've enabled this abuse.'

"And that's when it became a real passion to stop the abuse because I felt like they were abusing [my dog] Sebi – they're abusing part of my family."

This experience shaped Baird's belief that animal injuries shown in social media videos – including burns, cuts and even missing limbs – have been deliberately inflicted, a view shared by other online activist groups monitoring accounts linked to Mityana.

Lubajja confirms to the undercover team that there have been instances where scammers have injured dogs on purpose.

"When they ran out of content, some people started cutting the dogs and asked for money," he says.

But he adds the escalation backfired when some donors started seeing through the abuse and warning others.

"[Scammers] no longer cut the dogs [because] they lost money when the white people realised."

Baird acknowledges that scammers' tactics have changed due to increased scrutiny, but maintains dogs are still being deliberately hurt and remain in danger.

"All that pain is just for a few donations," she says. "No animal should have to live like this."

We Won't Be Scammed and other online activists think that Russet, the dog who was filmed at the side of the road and featured in dozens of fundraising videos, had his legs deliberately broken.

During the undercover filming, Lubajja is shown a video o

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9l74wvd7o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Facing a seismic by-election, the people of Makerfield tell us what matters to them

Published

on

In a handful of former mining towns and villages in north-west England, there is a lot of frustration with the state of the UK.

It is common to hear people say "Britain is broken", "we are forgotten", and calls for "change".

This is the Makerfield constituency, where locals are being heard louder than ever before in the most consequential by-election in decades.

A constituency that made up 0.1% of voters at the last general election is not only picking a new MP on 18 June.

Voters here are also potentially choosing the next prime minister.

That is because Labour's candidate, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, has said that if elected, he would seek to enter any Labour leadership contest to replace Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street.

First, Burnham must defeat his main rival in Makerfield, local plumber Robert Kenyon, who is standing for Reform UK, an insurgent party that is also aiming to win power in Westminster.

Britain is "broken", Reform UK claims, while Burnham says the country has been on "the wrong path for 40 years".

But in the dozens of conversations I had with voters, residents, business owners and political campaigners in Makerfield, the mood was more nuanced than the rhetoric suggests.

So what exactly do they want to change – and what are the candidates promising to deliver?

At Rose's Cafe, in Ashton-in-Makerfield, the largest town in the constituency, regulars are munching on their breakfast barms.

In 2023, Yasmin Ratcliffe jumped at the chance to open the cafe here, rather than where she lives, in nearby Leigh.

With the local council spending £6.6m on regenerating the town, Ratcliffe feels it is a good time to expand her business.

"I feel like it's a much better town in Ashton," she tells me. "It's a lot busier than we thought, so the team's growing."

On some indicators Makerfield seems to be doing well, with wages above the national average and high levels of home ownership.

The Greater Manchester region in which Makerfield sits has also been growing, generating a genuine buzz around Manchester as a city. A boom in developments, service industry start-ups and university graduates, among other factors, has driven economic growth.

While Manchester's lure has pulled in many entrepreneurs, Chris Ratcliffe saw potential in Ashton.

In 2019, having worked as an engineer near Manchester for 10 years, he founded Langen, a motorcycle manufacturer, in the town. The company's first line of 100 motorbikes sold out.

"There's an element of me that wants to prove a point that we can do it here," he says.

But Manchester's rising tide has not lifted all boats in Makerfield.

In some ways, the constituency is divided between the better-off neighbourhoods of Ashton, Orrell, and Winstanley in the west, and the more deprived areas of Platt Bridge, Abram and Hindley in the east.

In these latter areas, perceptions of "broken Britain" are easier to find. The problems residents complain about feel more acute and intractable.

Take the notorious illegal dump that has been piling up in the village of Bickershaw since late 2024. Despite several complaints, a fire at the site last summer, and a criminal investigation, the towering mountain of waste remains.

Even at a distance – about a quarter of a mile away – the acrid smell torments my nostrils.

Nicha Rowson, who lives near the tip with her husband and two children, has had to put up with it for almost two years now.

"The rats were a big thing," she says, sitting below what is left of her kitchen ceiling, which was largely removed to deal with the infestation.

It is yet to be fixed – and her neighbours are going through similar ordeals with rats.

She feels the seemingly immovable mess is a symbol of a country that is not working and where "human beings aren't a priority".

I found a similarly damning assessment in Platt Bridge, where residents have suffered severe flooding twice in a decade.

In 2015, Dawn Royds was assured it was a one-off – "an act of God". She believed that until New Year's Day last year, when she woke to blue flashing lights.

"The kids had been playing with some toys the night before and they were just floating about," she says. "That was what got me."

A minister was dispatched to survey the devastation. And since 2024, the government says it has invested £2.65bn in flood defences nationwide – in 2026-27, £329,000 has been allocated to Platt Bridge and nearby areas.

Yet, Dawn is convinced it will happen again. For her, it is one example of why "Britain isn't Great Britain anymore".

More evidence of this attitude can be seen in polls and research. In a report last year, More in Common said "broken" was the most common word Britons used to describe the country.

That has been true of focus groups the think tank organised in Makerfield, too. "They said Britain isn't working," says Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common. "That the status quo isn't working."

The paradox, Tryl adds, is that people have very high trust in their neighbours and often describe their local area as "good".

Tryl says although it is clear Britain is "creaking at the top", his research on public opinion suggests the foundations of community still appear to be strong.

Even so, Reform UK tells me the "Britain is broken slogan has just cut through across the country".

"It's not something that we need to keep pushing to instil in people's minds," a Reform UK source adds. "Most people just know that Britain is broken."

Instead, the party's candidate, Kenyon, is focusing on hyper-local issues such as opposing new housing developments on green-belt land, pitching himself as a "normal" local lad.

Out on doorsteps, Reform UK is trying to contrast this with what it describes as Burnham using Makerfield as "a stepping stone" to No 10. This is echoed on Ashton High Street by Lewis Ash, who tells me: "I don't want it to be a stepping stone for Andy Burnham."

In the same shopping precinct, Daniel Jones says he is sceptical of every candidate's intentions, saying they have "all [have] got their own agenda… to advance their career".

On the campaign trail, Burnham has been having three simultaneous conversations – one with locals, one with the Labour MPs who could help make him prime minister, and one with the nation as a whole.

The Labour veteran is trying to keep it local in Makerfield, preferring to talk about his ideas to ease the cost of living and linking them to his record as mayor of Greater Manchester – pointing to cheaper bus fares.

Having claimed to have knocked on every door in the constituency several times, as Reform UK has, team Burnham's approach is to send their candidate to speak to undecided voters personally, often about local issues.

His team says he is embracing difficult conversations with voters who are looking for change in a constituency that has elected Labour MPs for 120 years under previous boundaries – but where Reform UK won every ward in May's local elections.

Although I saw mostly Reform UK and Burnham signs and posters adorning the streets I walked, other parties are vying for votes as well.

The Green candidate Sarah Wakefield says she wants to offer more "hope" and "better solutions" to voters in Makerfield.

A former mayor of Wigan, Conservative candidate Michael Winstanley is positioning himself as a community champion, while Jake Austin, who is standing for the Liberal Democrats, claims his party has the best plans for reducing household living costs.

Local campaigners believe the by-election is on a knife edge, not least thanks to Restore Britain, a relatively new party led by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe.

In the few constituency opinion polls there have been, which should be treated with caution, Restore sits in third-place and has been buoyed to an extent by support on X from the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.

"People are fed up," says one Restore door-knocker, among a group of six activists wearing matching party-branded caps and T-

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg4dywykjeo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Social media on trial: Four important cases to watch

Published

on

When social media started to take over the internet 20 years ago, it was widely hailed as a game-changing technology that would connect people across divides and make information more accessible.

Today, companies like Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, Google, owner of Youtube, and Snapchat, along with relatively newer platforms like TikTok, Discord and social gaming platform Roblox, are facing thousands of lawsuits in the US over claims that they have instead harmed users, children in particular.

Taken together, the outcome of the lawsuits, whether they ultimately settle out of court or end up with jury verdicts against companies, could change the way social platforms operate forever.

"It's created a stage that not only legal observers are watching, but regulators and lawmakers are watching closely as well," Eric Talley, a lawyer and professor at Columbia Law School, said.

Talley noted that the way this growing wave of lawsuits against platforms is feeding into broader public perception is likely to influence political elections for the next several years, impacting new and revised laws and regulations.

Many of the cases are going through courts in California, where all of the major social platforms are headquartered. Known as the "California effect", legal and policy changes enacted in the state tend to lead to nationwide changes.

"There's no denying anymore that there is an issue with child safety on the platforms," Alexis Shore Ingber, a communications law expert and a professor at Syracuse University, said. "We are seeing an inflection point. These cases are significant."

Already this year, Meta and YouTube notched an unprecedented loss in a case brought by a young woman who claimed she was addicted as a child to social media, contributing to her mental and emotional health struggles. The companies were ordered by a jury to pay her a combined $6m (£4.5m) in damages. Both firms said they disagreed with the verdict and intended to appeal.

Meta also lost a bigger case in New Mexico, brought by that state's attorney general accusing the company of essentially misleading the public that its platforms were safe for children despite known issues with young people being sexually exploited on them. Meta said it also plans to appeal against this verdict.

During the years these cases were brought and resolved, Meta has released changes to its platforms aimed at making them safer for young users.

But broader change to the platforms, how they are designed and function and even accessed, is likely to take years more, and more court rulings against them.

Between this year and next, Meta and the other major social platforms are poised to fight their way through more trials where juries could consider a host of claims by young users, their parents, school districts, and state attorneys who allege an array of ill effects from the way social media platforms are designed and operate.

Even a billionaire is prepared to take Meta to trial over its hosting of advertisements that scam people out of money.

The BBC looked through scores of cases in the US to find the handful of lawsuits against social media and social gaming companies that are on track for trial in the next year or so and could have a significant impact on the platforms' businesses and operations.

According to Adam J. Schwartz, a lawyer who also founded an online document review tool, the following lawsuits "are the bellwether cases that will set the tone and tenor for shaping the law in the future".

This sprawling multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California includes allegations from more than 1,000 school districts across the US.

Broadly, the schools accuse Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok of being intentionally designed to be addictive, which has allegedly harmed children mentally and emotionally through their excessive use of platforms.

The schools claim that dealing with the ill effects of social media has cost them money and resources, and that the platforms should be deemed a "public nuisance" and held liable for impacting children's well-being.

Although a jury trial for certain of the school districts' claims is now set to begin in February, as the platforms recently settled with a school district that was to be the first trial, all of the cases could take a couple more years to resolve completely.

Should court outcomes go against the platforms, everything from the way platforms display user engagement to who they allow on the platforms could change.

A spokesman for YouTube said: "The allegations in these complaints are simply not true."

A spokeswoman for Snapchat said: "We fundamentally disagree with the allegations – we do not target schools."

Meta declined to comment and TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorneys for California and Colorado led a group of 29 states in filing in 2023 a lawsuit against Meta and Instagram. It is set to go to trial in August.

While it is also before the same judge as the MDL in California, the states are accusing Meta alone of violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a federal law known as COPPA. The law was intended to protect children under 13 years old from being targeted by businesses operating online but was enacted in 2000.

Meta has already provided more than 2 million documents in the case, according to court records.

Should the states prevail in their claims, it is demanding that Meta better prevent users under 13 years old from using its platforms and remove data it has previously collected from underage users, along with a host of other changes.

Meta uses such data to do things like ad targeting and train its artificial intelligence (AI) models and tools.

A spokesman for the company declined to comment.

This case against Roblox and Discord was brought by a 13-year-old boy in state court in San Mateo, California. The boy claims he was recently groomed and solicited through both platforms by an adult sexual predator who was subsequently arrested for his crimes against more than two dozen children.

The lawsuit argues both platforms were defectively designed and engaged in false marketing about safety for young users and so should be held liable for the harm young John Doe came to.

Roblox, which is a gaming-focused platform with many social media features, and Discord tried to get the case into arbitration, which is a private legal process outside the court system. The court refused, but the case is currently on hold pending the companies' appeal against that decision.

Should Roblox and Discord lose their appeals, the case could go to trial later this year. A court verdict against the platforms may bring changes to age-gating and the ability of strangers to interact with young users through platform messages and chat spaces.

A spokeswoman for Discord declined to comment. A representative for Roblox did not respond to a request for comment.

Not all of the cases against social media platforms heading towards trial have to do with harms against children.

Dr Andrew Forrest, an Australian billionaire, sued Meta in California in 2022 over the company's alleged failure to combat scam advertisements tricking Australians into fake investments that allegedly proliferated on Facebook using his name and likeness.

With claims including misuse of his image and unjust enrichment, because Meta makes money from ads on its platform no matter their goal or outcome, Forrest's lawsuit could be one of the most significant.

He is asking the court to find that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act cannot be used as a defence by Meta in the case. Meta is arguing that it is protected from Forrest's claims by Section 230.

Enacted in 1996, Section 230, as it's usually referred, essentially gives legal immunity to platforms for anything that occurs on them.

If the court ultimately sides with Forrest, it could upend decades of defences by online platforms.

A spokesman for Meta declined to comme

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q39l447l4o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Knicks fans go wild as New York team makes biggest comeback in NBA Finals history

Published

on

A star-studded crowd saw the New York Knicks record the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history on Wednesday night, beating the San Antonio Spurs by one point in the last 1.2 seconds of the game, after trailing by 29 points.

It was game four of the feverish best-of-seven NBA Finals – the first finals the Knicks have hosted in 27 years.

The final score of 107-106 means the Knicks now enjoy a 3-1 lead and are just one win away from a famous series victory.

Famous and not so famous fans erupted in chants of "O-G! O-G!" for player OG Anunoby, who scored the winning three points. Taylor Swift, Timothee Chalamet and director Spike Lee were all watching in the Madison Square Garden stadium.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani posted on X in all caps, "SPEECHLESS", while Swift, who was wearing a T-shirt that said "Stevie Knicks" – a play on the name of the team and the Fleetwood Mac frontwoman – jumped for joy as she left the court, stopping to be twirled by one of the Knicks City Dancers.

Knicks coach Mike Brown OG Anunoby's move "has to be the most iconic shot in the history of New York basketball," Brown said. "It was just unbelievable."

This season has represented a stunning reversal of fortune for the Knicks who haven't been in the finals since 1999, when they lost to the Spurs. New Yorkers have been out in the streets celebrating each win.

"The city is electric," a fan told the BBC earlier in the week. New York has been decorated in a Knicks theme from the top of the Empire State Building to the paws of the marble lions outside the New York Public Library's Fifth Avenue branch.

"I can't say I've ever seen anything like this before because in 1999 I was 4 years old. I'm just trying to soak it all in," Resident Sol, 31, told the BBC earlier this week, saying he couldn't be more excited.

After Wednesday's result, the team need to win just one more game to win the national championship for the first time since 1973. Their first chance will come on Saturday night, when they will play Game five in San Antonio.

But comebacks can work both ways – San Antonio may be the new underdogs, but they could still win, if they take the next three matches.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr47lyzr4q9o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.