Scam for Target and Walmart Refrigerators and Ovens Hits Facebook
On Aug. 16, 2022, we received mail from our readers that asked if Facebook pages named Target Fans and Walmart Fans were legitimately giving away or donating hundreds of refrigerators and ovens. The truth was that these pages were nothing more than the first step of potentially dangerous survey scams. The scammers appeared to be based in Indonesia. The posts showed pictures of refrigerators and ovens (ranges) with the caption, "We are happy to announce that we will be donating 670 refrigerators and cookers which cannot be sold due to a few scratches and minor damage, all machines are in working order, so we will send them randomly to someone who writes 'DONE' before August 19th!"  A search of Facebook for the words Target Fans and the lowercase and special characters ??????? ???? showed dozens of pages that were hosting the survey scams. Target Fans ??????? ???? Survey scams like the one for the Target refrigerators giveaway are a specific kind of ruse. They promise big prizes up front, but then lead to a seemingly endless number of surveys with other tantalizing prizing promises, such as a $750 transfer via the mobile finance app, Cash App. Usually, the scammers who created the Facebook posts are hoping that users sign up for accounts on various websites that might land them small amounts of commission. Target At the same time, survey scams can also be quite dangerous, reported AARP.org: reported AARP.org Amid questions about the supposed subject, sham surveys solicit personal or financial information, such as a credit card number to pay a shipping fee for your prize  something a legit survey will not do. They might trick you into signing up for a free trial offer thats actually a costly subscription for a dietary supplement or other product. Clicking on the link might also launch malware that can scrape sensitive data from your device. Either way, the scammers get information they can use for identity theft or sell on to other bad actors. Some major retailers, including Amazon and Walmart, do offer gift cards as prizes for customers who complete online surveys about their shopping experience, but those companies say they will never ask participants to provide sensitive data. We strongly advise readers to never click any links in offers that seem too good to be true. Also, we recommend sharing our article with family members or friends who might be susceptible to falling for this kind of a Target or Walmart Facebook scam. In sum, no, Target and Walmart weren't giving away or donating refrigerators or ovens on Facebook on pages named Target Fans and Walmart Fans. Walmart Facebook Source: Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information. AARP, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html.
In September 2022, some social media users shared a quote erroneously attributed to actress Marilyn Monroe: "If you cant handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell dont deserve me at my best."  The quote has also been attributed to the "Some Like It Hot" star in a longer form: "I'm selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I'm out of control, and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best." longer form  As of this writing, we have been unable to locate the original source of the quote  but we found no evidence that it was said by Monroe. One source claimed in 2013 it was a line of dialogue from the 1953 noir film "Niagara," though we searched the screenplay at Scripts.com but didn't find any such dialogue there. We also viewed the portion of the movie Monroe is in, but Monroe's character Rose Loomis never makes the remark. screenplay According to Dictionary.com, the quote has been online for many years, since the 2000s, and hasn't always been attributed to Monroe. It has often been used in "before" and "after" or "best" and "worst" memes. Here's one example without attribution, posted by pop superstar Mariah Carey in 2018: Dictionary.com posted by  Falsely attributing pieces of faux internet wisdom to famous people is a common occurrence. Recently, we reported actor Morgan Freeman never made a remark widely credited to him. Another popular quote widely misattributed to Monroe read, "Well-behaved women seldom make history." never misattributed Although fascination with Monroe has remained fairly constant since her lifetime, there may be renewed interest in September 2022 because of the release of a controversial Netflix movie titled, "Blonde." The movie is based on a 2000 novel of the same name by Joyce Carol Oates. controversial novel 4 Marilyn Monroe Quotes Youre Taking The Wrong Way. Thought Catalog, 3 Mar. 2013, https://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-shock/2013/03/4-marilyn-monroe-quotes-youre-taking-the-wrong-way/. If You Cant Handle Me at My Worst Meme | Meaning & History. Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/if-you-cant-handle-me-at-my-worst/. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Lemire, Christy. Blonde Movie Review & Film Summary (2022) | Roger Ebert. Https://Www.Rogerebert.Com/, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blonde-movie-review-2022. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Niagara Movie Script. https://www.scripts.com/script.php?id=niagara_14741&p=14. Accessed 20 Sept. 2022. Showalter, Elaine. Joyce Carol Oatess Blonde Is the Definitive Study of American Celebrity. The New Yorker, 13 Apr. 2020. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/joyce-carol-oatess-blonde-is-the-definitive-study-of-american-celebrity. In July 2021, some Facebook users reported seeing new warning messages from site administrators about "harmful extremist content" or asking whether they felt someone they knew was "becoming an extremist."   The reports authentically captured a new Facebook-led pilot initiative that attempted to help site administrators identify users or content that breached Facebook's existing bans on "objectionable content." For that reason, we rate this claim  objectionable content According to reputable news outlets, the new messages were appearing for some users when they used the desktop or mobile version of Facebook. One notice took the form of a question, "Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?" while the other warned, "you may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently." news outlets Another alert read, according to CNN: "Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. [...] You can take action now to protect yourself and others." Reuters reported: Reuters reported Facebook said the small test, which is only on its main platform, was running in the United States as a pilot for a global approach to prevent radicalization on the site. 'This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk,' said a Facebook spokesperson in an emailed statement. "We are partnering with NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.' We reached out to the tech giant's communication team ourselves to discuss the notices, but we have not yet received a response. We will update this report, when, or if, that changes. All messages gave recipients the option to "get support" from one or more Facebook partners. A Facebook spokesperson told CNN they included Life After Hate, an advocacy group that helps people leave violent far-right movements. told CNN Life After Hate According to Reuters, the effort was part of Facebook's promise to counter extremist content after a user live-streamed himself opening fire at a New Zealand mosque  killing 51 people  in March 2019. March 2019 Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook, confirmed the factualness of CNN's article about the news messages with the below-displayed tweet. tweet   Ultimately, the new warnings were a response to critics who believe the tech giant could have done more to prevent users from circulating false claims during the 2020 election and planning violence like the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. users 2020 election Jan. 6 Capitol In March, for example, Avaaz, a nonprofit that seeks to curb misinformation, uncovered at least 267 pages or groups with connections to that it said spread violence-glorifying content  some of which remained active despite Facebook's efforts to block users from such material. Avaaz pages or groups such material Snopes has also identified such groups that have seemingly evaded the site's attempts to ban violent rhetoric, including a militia group in which users discussed plans to open fire on any one that starts rioting after the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Snopes attempts to ban militia group Jacob Blake [See here for exclusive Snopes analysis titled, "Violence Brewed in Facebook Groups Ahead of 'Stop The Steal' Protests"] here A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military.  This hit the Drudge report yesterday.  We are livid.  This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days.  That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins:   In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt.  That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011.  If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect.   The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect  with the 2013 budget.  Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work.  But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs.  Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place.  The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable.  In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted.  Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur.  Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown.  Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable.    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers.  Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion.  In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost that is inestimable.  Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce).  What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to  the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts  along with the requirement of 60-day notice  provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating  that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.")  projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year:  announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration  the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending.  In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.  We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.  After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.  The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.   We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry.  We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated:  27 October 2012    Munsil, Leigh.  "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester."   Politico.  23 October 2012.    Pender, Kathleen.  "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 October 2012.    Wright, Austin.  "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall."   Politico.  24 June 2012. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In her book, The Truths We Hold, California Sen. Kamala Harris asks How can you dream when you are drowning in student loan debt? in a section on the rising cost of living in America. On thecampaign trail, the Democratic presidential hopeful has called student loan debt one of the biggest challenges facing our country and our students. In the Senate, she helped re-introduce theDebt-Free College Act, a bill she says will help reverse the growing student debt crisis. Specifically, it would provide states incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education. The senator then made this eye-popping claim about how fast student loan debt has grown in anews releaseon March 6 announcing her support for the bill: College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion dollars, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt. Shetweeteda similar claim a few days later. But is student loan debt really growing that fast? And is it really second only to mortgage debt? We decided to crunch Harris numbers in this fact check. Our research To support the statement, a spokesman for Harris cited a Federal Reservetableshowing the nations cumulative student loan debt for each year from 2006 through 2018. He also cited articles fromThe Washington PostandMarketWatch. The Federal Reserve table shows student loan debt at the end of 2006 was $521 billion. By the end of 2018, the most recent period available, it had grown to $1.57 trillion  which matches with Harris claim that it now exceeds $1.5 trillion. But after calculating the numbers, we found an increase of 201 percent, an even faster rate than the 170 percent Harris referenced. Id say that her statement is mostly correct, said Mark Kantrowitz, a national financial aid expert. The one slight error: She actually underestimates the growth of student loan debt outstanding. Kantrowitz is publisher and vice president of research for SavingforCollege.com, a guide to college savings plans. The only way I get to 170 percent, he added, is if I compare the current debt outstanding to 2007 instead of 2006. That works out to be 170 percent. Hans Johnson, director of the Public Policy Institute of Californias Higher Education Center, also reviewed the data and found a 200 percent increase based on the most current Federal Reserve figures. SOURCE: Federal Reserve student loandata. Why is college debt growing so fast? More students going to college accounts for some of the growth of student loan debt, but only a small portion, Kantrowitz said. In 2006, there were 15.2 million college students. A decade later, that number had increased 11 percent to 16.9 million, he said, citing figures from the National Center for Education Statistics. Kantrowitz added that another factor is that federal grants have slowed as tuition has gone up. States often cut tuition assistance at the first signs of a financial crisis. The average student loan debt was nearly $30,000 for students graduating with a bachelors degree in 2018, Kantrowitz said. That is up from nearly $21,000 in 2006. College debt second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt We found this part of Harris statement is accurate. In 2014, PolitiFact Virginiareportedthat student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, citingdatafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. At the end of 2018, the nations overall credit card debt was $870 billion and mortgage balances stood at $9.1 trillion, according to thedata. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris said College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion dollars, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt. She actually understated how fast student loan debt is growing. The most recent Federal Reserve figures show its increased 201 percent since 2006. Harris was right about college debt topping $1.5 trillion, and being second only to mortgage debt. We rate her overall statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On 13 February 2017, the web site HeadlinenNews.comreportedthat Reginald VelJohnson (best known for his role as Carl Winslow on"Family Matters") had died of a heart attack: reported Reginald Vel Johnson, the actor best known as Family Matters Carl Winslow, has died after suffering a heart attack. He was 64. He was loved by the world and he will be missed profoundly, says Jenkins, 24. Our entire family thanks you for your thoughts and prayers. Rumors claim that Vel Johnson was flying from London to Los Angeles on Sunday, Feb. 12, when he went into cardiac arrest. According to the story, paramedics removed him from the flight and rushed him to a nearby hospital, where he was treated for a heart attack. The rumor was given traction by VelJohnson's appearance in a meme mocking the non-existent "Bowling Green Massacre": meme Bowling Green Massacre   VelJohnson personally debunked the claims on Twitter: Twitter literally trying to kill me! ??? https://t.co/OdRTRJVi7f https://t.co/OdRTRJVi7f  Reginald VelJohnson (@rveljohnson) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Even when I finally pass you can still contact me thru this clock. Photo credit: some weirdo lol pic.twitter.com/ktLhkH83VF pic.twitter.com/ktLhkH83VF  Reginald VelJohnson (@rveljohnson) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Although VelJohnson's Twitter account isnot verified, it was registered in 2009 and was not likely to be operating as a separate hoax. Even if it were a hoax Twitter account, however, the difficult-to-find "About" page on HeadlinenNews.com has the following disclaimer: About Headlinen News is a satire site. We use real people to make real funny stories. Chill folks, its all for fun. Claim:  A 2013 immigration reform bill provides young people with free cars to transport them to their jobs.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] BREAKING: Immigration bill now includes free cars (at tax payer expense) for young people to help them get to work! LIKE if you agree: The Senate should vote no on this Gang of 8 immigration bill! Call and let them know what you think! (888) 978-3134  Fox News reported that the riders made to the 2013 Immigration bill now in the Senate that Bernie Sanders has added a provision for free cars, motorcycles or scooters for "young people to use as transportation" to jobs.  This was reported by  Laura Ingraham on Fox and Friends on June 25, 2013.  Is there any truth to this report.  I can not find a copy of the 1,190 page 2013 immigration bill to read it my self Origins:  In April 2013, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ("a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes") was introduced to the U.S. Senate as S.744, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.  In June 2013 two Republican senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, drafted an amendment to that bill (commonly known as the Hoeven-Corker Amendment) in order to, in the words of Senator Corker, "mandate an unprecedented surge of security at the southern border, implement tough interior enforcement to curb de facto amnesty, and help prevent abuse of federal benefits": S.744 Hoeven-Corker Amendment "The Hoeven-Corker amendment takes big and important steps on the immigration issue that matters most: border security," Senator Lamar Alexander said. "It would double the number of agents on the southwest border, construct 700 miles of new or upgraded fencing and spend $3.2 billion on new security technology that was perfected in Iraq and Afghanistan." The Hoeven-Corker amendment would add 20,000 border patrol agents, enough to allow putting one agent every 1,000 feet along the U.S. southwest border. The border patrol agents, fencing and security technology plan would have to be in place before anyone under the immigration legislation's "Registered Provisional Immigrant" program would be allowed to apply for legal permanent residency, otherwise known as a green card. Democratic-affiliated Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been outspokenly critical of the potential economic effects of S.744, arguing that the bill would "allow college students from around the world to take jobs that young Americans would otherwise perform."  In response, he drafted a  Youth Jobs Plan that would "provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds who were hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession."  That job plan was incorporated into the Hoeven-Corker Amendment under a heading of "TITLE V  JOBS FOR YOUTH." Youth Jobs Plan TITLE V The claim that the immigration bill includes a provision granting "free cars, motorcycles or scooters for young people" stems from a very broad, speculative interpretation of one sentence in the jobs plan portion of the Hoeven-Corker Amendment which generally directs how the job plan funds should be used: IN GENERAL. The funds made available under this section shall be used  (A) to provide summer employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or child care, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities; and  (B) to provide year-round employment opportunities, which may be combined with other activities authorized under section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 17 2854), to low-income youth. As stated, the bill does not contain a specific provision to provide "free cars for young people to help them get to work."  It includes a clause allowing that youth job program funds may be used to "provide supportive services, such as transportation" to low-income youth taking part in summer employment opportunities.  Whether and how that provision would be applied in practice is purely speculative at this point and could vary widely from place to place, potentially ranging anywhere from arranging carpools and subsidizing bus fare to buying, leasing, or renting motor vehicles to be temporarily utilized in ferrying job program participants to work.  But the government isn't going to be buying up cars and turning ownership of them over to young people engaged in summer job programs.       Last updated:  26 June 2013 The Atlanta region has drawn millions of newcomers here in recent years with its warm weather (snowstorms notwithstanding), reasonably priced housing, and job opportunities in real estate, banking and the airline industry. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed talked about the economic might of the region during a recent speech before the Atlanta Press Club. One statistic he used to cite the size of metro Atlantas economy surprised us, so we decided to do some fact-checking. The annual gross domestic product of metro Atlanta, the mayor said, is bigger than 28 states in the union. Is it really that large? Mayoral spokesman Carlos Campos said Reed was using U.S. Commerce Department data as the basis for his claim. We looked at the data, and the most recent statistics we found show the mayors statement might be conservative. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the total market value of all of the goods and services produced within the boundaries of a specific area. Federal officials define the Atlanta metropolitan area as 28 counties that stretch as far north as Dawson, south to Meriwether, as far west as Haralson and as far east as Walton and Jasper counties. It includes Georgias four highest-populated counties: Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett. The Atlanta metropolitan area had nearly 5.3 million residents in 2010, the ninth-highest total in the nation. In addition to having a large labor force, metro Atlanta has two major transportation hubs that have helped its economy race ahead of other regions. One is Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, which ranks among the worlds busiest airports. The other is the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, which are considered to be among the fastest-growing ports in terms of the volume of items shipped there. Although the ports are not located in metro Atlanta, Reed and others note they are important to the regions economy. About 180,000 full-time and part-time jobs in the 28-county Atlanta region can be attributed to the ports, according to a 2012 University of Georgia study. The region has 11 Fortune 500 companies with Atlanta addresses, according to the Metro Atlanta Chamber. Only New York City and Houston have more Fortune 500 businesses, according to the chamber. So how large is this regions economy? In 2012, the Atlanta region had a GDP of nearly $295 billion, according to the Commerce Department. Reed used that same number in his remarks. Among metropolitan areas, Atlantas GDP is the 10th-highest nationally, which is about where it should be considering it has the ninth-largest population. In order, the metropolitan areas with the largest gross domestic products are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Washington, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. In terms of how Atlanta fares in comparison with other states, only 16 states had a higher GDP. In order, those states were California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, Maryland, Indiana and Minnesota. Metro Atlanta would also beat out the rest of the state. The region makes up about two-thirds of the states GDP, the Commerce Department data show. The Atlanta region does have a larger population than the rest of the state. PolitiFact Georgia looked at other categories of gross domestic product, and the Atlanta region fared as well, if not better, in those areas. For example, in 2012, only 12 states had a higher per capita GDP than metro Atlanta. The per capita gross domestic product for metro Atlanta was $46,970. University of Georgia economist Jeff Humphreys said hes not surprised metro Atlanta has a higher GDP than most states. Atlanta is a huge metro area, said Humphreys, the director of the universitys Selig Center for Economic Growth. The population would outrank a lot of states. Indeed, metro Atlanta has a larger population than 30 other states, U.S. census figures show. Humphreys said the Atlanta region has a highly developed economy through economic resources such as the airport that are serving people in other states, the country and the world at this point. To sum up, Reed claimed the Atlanta region had a higher GDP than 28 other states. Our research showed Atlanta slightly better than that in most categories. We rate the mayors statement True. On Feb. 3, 2021, a tweet by @ialhusseini appeared to share heartwarming news about nine parents who were deported during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The tweet claimed the adults had landed back in the U.S. the same day the tweet was posted and had been reunited with their children: tweet   However, the photograph used in this tweet was miscaptioned. It's true that nine parents who were deported from the U.S. were later reunited with their children, but that occurrence took place a year before the tweet shown above was posted. Pictured in the Feb. 3, 2021, tweet were David Xol and his son, Byron. The Associated Press had reported their story in a Jan. 23, 2020, article headlined "9 parents separated from families return to children in US," along with the photograph shown in the tweet.  The picture was credited to Ringo HW Chiu/AP, and its original caption read: "David Xol-Cholom, of Guatemala, hugs his son Byron at Los Angeles international airport as they reunite after being separated by the Trump administration." reported Both Xol and his son were featured in that AP story: LOS ANGELES (AP)  As his long-lost son walked toward him in an airport terminal, a sobbing David Xol stretched out his arms, fell to one knee, and embraced the boy for about three minutes, crying into his shoulder. He had not held the child since May 2018, when border agents pulled then-7-year-old Byron away inside a detention facility. They were separated under President Donald Trumps zero-tolerance policy  the father deported to Guatemala, the son placed in a series of government facilities before ending up with a host family in Texas. Xol was one of nine parents who won the exceedingly rare chance to return to the U.S. after being deported under family separation. They arrived Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport to be reunited with children they hadnt seen in a year and a half or longer under the order of a federal judge who found the U.S. government had unlawfully prevented them from seeking asylum. A video was also included with the AP story showing the moment that Xol and his son embraced for the first time in more than a year and a half: https://youtu.be/r_QFc8bIIww      The tweet from @ialhusseini received thousands of retweets and likes, with one viewing replying,  "Grateful for the Biden Administration for this beautiful pix." Others thanked both U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden. However, these families were reunited a year before Biden was sworn in as president. After taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden did move forward on plans to reunite children who were deported and separated from their parents under the Trump administration. On Feb. 2, 2021, The Associated Press reported that the wheels for those unifications were in motion: reported Alejandro Mayorkas, who was sworn in as Homeland Security secretary after his nomination was confirmed by the Senate, will lead a task force on family separation, focused largely on reuniting parents and children who remain apart. It is unclear exactly how many, but about 5,500 children have been identified in court documents as having been separated during Trump's presidency, including about 600 whose parents have yet to be found by a court-appointed committee. "We're going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration," Biden said. The review will address the possibility of legal status in the United States for separated families and providing mental health services. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to reunite families, has asked the administration for legal status in the United States for all of the thousands of families that have been separated, as well as financial compensation for those families and attorneys at government expense. In sum, a tweet from Feb. 3, 2021, reported a news story as if it had just taken place. However, although the story was true, it was a report from more than a year earlier. Twitter users shared the tweet and its accompanying picture as if it were new and current, and for this reason we have rated this story as being "Miscaptioned." Featured photograph caption (top): "A Honduran asylum seeker, recently released from federal detention with fellow migrants, holds the hand of her six-year-old daughter at a bus depot on June 11, 2019, in McAllen, Texas."