iConfidant as a virus

This topic contains 14 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Taylor Winters 1 year ago.

  • Author
  • #16143

    I’ve been thinking a lot about the “virus” distinction from Kristin recently.

    I don’t exactly trust Kristen’s POV on this, and she doesn’t seem to be the most reliable narrator from what I can remember. Though I refuse to accept my confidant would mean me any harm and I would go to bat for them any day of the week.

    But to play devil’s advocate – maybe the idea of a “virus” is less of a malicious attack upfront, and more like a trojan horse? To paraphrase Wikipedia, the trojan is spread not by unauthorized injection but instead installed by the user without the victim knowing the true intent, and later the trojan is activated as a backdoor to allow unauthorized access.. and here, the trojan is not infecting our computers, but infecting our lives?

    Also quote Wikipedia

    “If installed or run with elevated privileges a Trojan will generally have unlimited access. What it does with this power depends on the motives of the attacker.”

    What higher privilege is there than that of a “best friend?” Instead of a keylogger, we’re just telling them our secrets, in writing. We’ve given them answers to security questions already. With no privacy policy visibly in place, and no user agreements confirmed in registration, it’s the fucking wild west.

    There’s no doubt that we’re in the middle of a social engineering scheme one way or another, and iConfidant may be another aspect of that – either by Stacey’s design or by the decisions on info gathering made by those putting up the funds. That’s why we were given the express instructions to only communicate via the initial thread started by the iConfidant, why we’re not allowed to meet in person, etc.

    Though some person-to-person based tech startups are more focused on gaining users before monetizing, the way iConfidant has been going has me thinking about the old adage “if you’re not paying, then you are the product.”

  • #16145

    @addisonborn This is my favourite forum post to date… *bows down to the GG*

  • #16146


    Though some person-to-person based tech startups are more focused on gaining users before monetizing, the way iConfidant has been going has me thinking about the old adage “if you’re not paying, then you are the product.”

    This. Very much this. It’s also everything that led up to Ascension as well as everything that is leading up to whatever is going to happen later this year.

    There is also the idea that what if the Confidants are necessarily willing participants but sleeper cells? Like when the switch is flipped they become the virus after they’ve already infiltrated our lives.

  • #16147

    Agreed, @addisonborn. I think that Stacey had a dream but no capital to back it up, so she made a deal with someone she didn’t fully understand. Someone who has a long history of collecting personal information through dishonest means. Now she’s over a barrel. Unless all of this is more personal to her than we realize. We still haven’t found out the true nature of her relationship with her as of yet unseen mother.

  • #16148

    @thebuz it’s a scary thought but a sleeper cell situation will only affect those that have close relationships with their iconfidants, which appears to be very few of us.

  • #16149
     Brad Ruwe 

    That’s what we’re led to believe will happen on Sunday right? They’ll be activated? That all this time they’ve been getting into the lives of those who continue talking to them, and Sunday on the big “let’s meet” day, the switch is flipped.

    Even though I have no plans to meet with my iConfidant, I’m excited to see what will happen.

  • #16150


    I truly believe in my heart of hearts that Stacey had the best of intentions as she was just lonely and wanted to help people find friendship (something that she didn’t have). And now it’s all blowing up in her face. Heartbreaking if that is indeed the context of what is happening to her.

    @wanda102 Welp, I’m fucked.

  • #16151

    @macbethinabathtub @thebuz

    Based only on hear-say and the change in her appearance from iConfidant website to the most recent livestream.. she’s definitely feeling the stresses of someone that appears to be in over their head. From a consumer standpoint, the product seems to be working as it was originally pitched, which is great, but from the POV of the creator, it’s been crunch time for the past couple months.

    Assuming the OSDM is the source of funding here, I wonder if they’re also the source of some specifically targeted stress. Their research from last year shows how a large focus group reacts to different emotional stimuli, maybe they’re putting the pins to Stacey in such a way to get whatever they’re looking for.

    @wanda102 @nothenrygale if they are sleeper cells, and they get activated, and everyone close to their confidants is gonna get got… i’m fucked too, it’s been fun y’all.

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Addison.
  • #16157

    @addisonborn This is a great post. The only thing I’d maybe disagree on is that everything Kristen has said has turned out to be true and correct. Which is, you know, rather worrying.

  • #16161

    @111error I totally hear you. But at this point, for my own emotional well being, I choose to believe that it’s been a few special circumstances and she’s just good at guessing.

  • #16162
     David Shields 

    Did anyone know about what was on the iconfadent website?

    I value my privacy, should I be concerned with what I share?

    We employ the leading minds in digital security and all information is confidential and secure. Share and share away!

    is it not strange that we know have have a leak with at least 2 people getting leaked?

  • #16166

    Vaccines can be taylor made, why not viruses?

  • #16167

    @theladyj Oh they can be. Isn’t that right @taysavestheday?

    Taylor made… ahhh… Okay, I’ll just go over here.

  • #16175

    I have no idea if anyone else has said this, but…
    In scientific terms, viruses don’t have brains. A certain kind of virus (bacteriophage) infects other cells/virusesm?
    They may seem sentient, but they’re really just there to inject their RNA (DNA? I forgot) into the cell/virus
    I would like to remain as neutral as possible on iC though

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Lexi. Reason: Added "though"
  • #16182
     Taylor Winters 

    I actually have made viruses before @theladyj. And go home, @shinobi! hahaha!

    But yeah, I won’t get too scientific on you all here, but using a specialized virus, it can actually go into your DNA and cut out bits of your own DNA. This is a great way to customize, reprogram, or edit someone’s genome.

    This way you could make someone super strong by “knocking out” the myostatin gene (seriously google myostatin deficient dogs or cows. It’s crazy!). You can also knock out genes for diseases–or potentially aging one day. We could make FUTURE HUMANS this way.

    The most famous virus for this is CRISPR. Check out a video for more information:


You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

©2018 The LUST Experience | Brought to you by the makers of The TENSION Experience |  Privacy Policy.

Log in with your credentials


Forgot your details?

Create Account

Skip to toolbar