Was the Beautiful People 'Shrek virus' story a cruel hoax and attack on the ugly?


Yesterday, the media was falling over itself to cover a story about the Beautiful People dating website. We didn’t cover it because we felt it reeked of bullshit. For once, we might have been right.

The site only allows people who have been approved by its members to be featured, thereby ensuring that all the beautiful people can look at/get off with themselves in one great big ringfenced circle-jerk of sickening vanity.

The site’s owners claimed they’d been hit by a virus, called Shrek, which allowed, shock horror, ugly people to get access and post their profiles. 30,000 of them to be precise, which seems a rather large number to have flocked to a site that is so niche and exclusive. But still, it made for good, cheap copy and the site’s name has been plastered all over everywhere for the past 24 hours.

But Graham Cluey of virus-fighters Sophos also smells bullshit, and has pointed out that Beautiful People have not submitted the Shrek virus to any computer security firms for analysis. Beautiful People have responded by saying “Beautiful People had to refund over £61,000 to people who paid for premium services who were then rejected.”

Cluey isn’t impressed. He now says: “If Beautiful People forward the Shrek virus to an anti-virus firm for analysis Ill give 500 quid to Children in Need.” Let’s see what happens next, eh avid readers?



  • tin
    A virus that changes how a custom-written website works? Named Shrek and can tell who's ugly and allow them to post? Massive big stinky pile of BS, no question. Cluey might as well spend his £500 down the pub tonight.
  • Contagion W.
    great post, very informative. I wonder why the opposite experts of this sector do not notice this. You must proceed your writing. I'm sure, you have a huge readers' base already!
  • network s.
    Thank you, I've just been looking for info approximately this topic for a while and yours is the best I have discovered till now. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you certain in regards to the source?

What do you think?

Your comment