By mrkarthikkn
A fake online profile is easy to imagine. A stolen photograph. An invented name. A job title that does not belong to the person using it.
These are visible forms of deception, and they matter. But they do not fully explain why people become emotionally invested in someone they have never met, why warning signs can be difficult to accept, or why discovering a lie can leave a person questioning their own judgment.
The deeper problem begins when an online connection feels genuine.
A conversation becomes part of the morning routine. A message arrives at exactly the right moment. Someone remembers a detail you mentioned days earlier. Gradually, a stranger begins to occupy a familiar place in your life.
None of these experiences, on its own, proves that a relationship is deceptive. Genuine relationships can begin online, and meaningful connections do not require an immediate face-to-face meeting. The challenge is learning to distinguish authentic connection from behaviour designed to manufacture trust.
Deception does not always begin with money
When people discuss online fraud, the conversation often turns quickly to financial loss. Did the victim transfer money? Were gift cards purchased? Was a cryptocurrency investment involved?
Those questions are important, but they can overlook an earlier stage: the creation of trust.
In some deceptive relationships, money is not the first thing at stake. Attention, time, emotional energy and personal information may be involved long before a financial request appears.
A person may begin by sharing ordinary details about their life. Over time, the conversations become more intimate. Promises about the future create expectations. Expressions of affection make the relationship feel exclusive.
If financial exploitation eventually follows, the request may arrive in a context where the victim already feels emotionally committed.
This is one reason online deception can be difficult to recognize. The person is not evaluating an isolated message. They are interpreting it through the history of a relationship they believe they have built.
Why intelligent people can be deceived
There is a persistent misconception that people fall for online scams because they are careless, uninformed or unable to recognize obvious lies.
That explanation is too simple.
People make decisions within emotional contexts. Trust, hope, loneliness and the desire for companionship are ordinary human experiences. A manipulative person may deliberately exploit those needs.
Someone who is cautious about financial transactions may still struggle to question a person they believe cares about them. Someone who understands technology may still find it difficult to accept that an emotionally significant relationship is built on false information.
Intelligence does not eliminate emotional vulnerability. Nor does it make anyone immune to a sufficiently convincing deception.
When a relationship falls apart, victims may replay conversations and ask themselves why they did not recognize the warning signs sooner. That self-questioning can become an additional burden on top of the original betrayal.
Prevention matters, but blame is not a prevention strategy.
When affection becomes a method of influence
The distinction between affection and manipulation is not always visible in the words themselves.
Consider two people who say, “I miss you.”
In a healthy relationship, the statement can express affection without demanding anything in return. In a manipulative relationship, similar language might be used repeatedly to create guilt, discourage independent decisions or pressure someone into proving their commitment.
The words alone do not establish intent. Patterns and context matter.
Warning signs become more significant when affection is accompanied by pressure, secrecy, contradictions or a refusal to verify basic claims.
For example:
- A person repeatedly avoids reasonable identity verification while asking for greater trust.
- Their employment, background or personal history changes across conversations or platforms.
- They insist that a relationship must remain secret.
- They use guilt or emotional distress to discourage questions.
- They introduce urgent financial problems after building emotional closeness.
- They become hostile when asked to clarify inconsistencies.
One sign may have an innocent explanation. A repeated pattern deserves closer attention.
What fiction can help us examine
Janis Renay Schiffner’s Profiles in the Dark and Behind Broken Glass explore themes of digital identity, online deception, emotional attachment and the consequences of misplaced trust.
The stories raise an important question: what happens when the person we believe we know and the identity presented to us online no longer match?
This is a useful question because online relationships are built partly through information. We learn about another person through photographs, messages, personal stories and claims about their life. When those elements are manipulated, the resulting relationship can feel real even when important foundations are false.
I am honoured that my insight on online deception appears on the back cover of this book project. For me, the central issue is not simply whether a profile is fake. It is how deception can exploit the very things that make relationships meaningful: trust, vulnerability and the desire to connect.
Fiction can create space to consider these issues without assuming that every online relationship is dangerous or that every person who makes a mistake is acting with malicious intent.
Practical ways to protect yourself
Online safety does not require becoming suspicious of everyone. It requires making trust and verification work together.
Verify identity independently. Do not rely exclusively on information supplied by the person whose identity you are trying to verify. Use independent, reputable sources where appropriate.
Be careful with money. Do not send money, gift cards, cryptocurrency or sensitive financial information to someone whose identity and circumstances you cannot independently establish.
Protect personal information. Avoid sharing passwords, authentication codes, financial documents or information that could be used to access your accounts.
Keep your perspective. Talk to a trusted friend if a relationship is moving quickly or you feel pressured to make a consequential decision.
Notice how questions are handled. A person’s response to reasonable questions can be informative. Pressure, threats and repeated attempts to make you feel guilty deserve attention.
Pause when urgency appears. A request to act immediately can make it harder to think clearly. Give yourself time to assess the situation.
Trust should not require abandoning judgment
The goal is not to approach every new relationship as an investigation. Healthy relationships need openness, patience and mutual respect.
But trust should develop alongside consistent behaviour. It should not require ignoring contradictions, surrendering financial boundaries or accepting emotional pressure.
Online deception becomes especially damaging when a victim begins to believe that trusting someone was itself a personal failure.
It was not.
The responsibility for deliberate deception belongs to the person who chooses to deceive. Learning from the experience can help a victim regain confidence, but recovery should not depend on accepting blame for another person’s conduct.
The most useful question is not simply, “How could someone believe this?”
It is, “What methods made the deception convincing, and how can we recognize those methods earlier?”
That question moves the conversation away from shame and toward understanding, prevention and safer online relationships.
A final thought: Trust is valuable precisely because it allows people to connect. Protecting it means learning when to offer it, how to verify what matters and when to step back.
Explore Janis Renay Schiffner’s book project, Profiles in the Dark and Behind Broken Glass, on Amazon.