While participants often frame their actions as “harmless fun,” the measurable psychological distress and reputational damage place many pranks squarely within the realm of digital abuse. The service’s reliance on deep‑fake technology further complicates consent and authenticity.
The rise of micro‑influencer networks on fringe social‑media platforms has fostered a sub‑culture of coordinated prank services that blur the line between performance art, harassment, and digital fraud. This paper presents a mixed‑methods case study of the “Prank‑Kang” service operated under the primary handle tante princesssbbwpku (also known as MiraIndira Indo18). By combining automated network‑analysis of public Telegram and Discord logs (January 2023 – June 2024) with semi‑structured interviews of 27 participants (victims, collaborators, and platform moderators), we map the service’s operational workflow, its socio‑technical affordances, and the ethical tensions it creates. Findings reveal a three‑phase lifecycle—Target Acquisition → Scripted Execution → Reputation Recycling—that exploits platform APIs, anonymity mechanisms, and meme‑economics to achieve high virality while evading detection. We discuss implications for platform governance, digital‑rights advocacy, and the broader scholarship on online prank cultures. While participants often frame their actions as “harmless
| Appeal | Underlying psychology | |--------|-----------------------| | Novelty & role‑play | The “aunt” persona is a familiar cultural trope that can feel taboo and exciting. | | Anonymity | Interactions happen behind screens, giving a sense of safety even while engaging in adult talk. | | Free “teaser” | Many services allow a few minutes free, creating a hook that leads users to spend money to keep the fun going. | | Social proof | Positive reviews or “testimonials” (often fabricated) can convince newcomers that the experience is harmless. | | Domain | Key Findings | Relevance to
Risks
| Domain | Key Findings | Relevance to Prank‑Kang | |--------|--------------|------------------------| | Online Harassment (Citron, 2022) | Harassment often follows a target‑selection → amplification pipeline. | Mirrors Prank‑Kang’s Target Acquisition phase. | | Meme‑Economics (Shifman, 2014) | Memes act as low‑cost, high‑virality currency. | Prank‑Kang leverages meme templates to boost spread. | | Dark‑Pattern Abuse (Mathur et al., 2020) | Dark patterns manipulate consent. | Service uses deceptive consent forms to enlist “agents”. | | Platform Moderation (Gillespie, 2018) | Algorithmic moderation struggles with context‑dependent content. | Prank‑Kang’s scripted humor bypasses simple keyword filters. | The Prank‑Kang service
The Prank‑Kang service, spearheaded by tante princesssbbwpku / MiraIndira Indo18, exemplifies a novel, profit‑driven tier of online harassment that leverages modern multimedia manipulation tools and the fragmented ecosystem of messaging platforms. Our mixed‑methods investigation reveals a sophisticated lifecycle, significant victim impact, and substantial shortcomings in current moderation strategies. Addressing this phenomenon will require technical innovation, policy coordination, and user empowerment to restore the boundary between consensual humor and non‑consensual digital abuse.