As some of you have probably noticed, there are a number of chain letters circulating on dA.
So, for the benefit of the kiddies, I'd like to dissect one and show some red flags to look for.
For an example, here's the last one I saw as of the time of writing:
"As of May the twenty first, deviantART will be deleting ALL dA accounts. Not the plz accounts though. But just all name-wasted accounts, or accounts that we think are fake, or that are useless. We are doing this to prevent something that could possibly may happen in the future. If we find this message on you're deviantID, journal, etc. We will know that you are not a fake."
Let's go piece by piece, shall we?
"As of May the twenty first, deviantART will be deleting ALL dA accounts..." That's a bit alarming, isn't it? But why would they do such a thing? They don't really explain why later on, either. That's a red flag. Another thing to note is that there is no year along with the date, which is extremely informal and not at all professional. We'll come back to the "unprofessional" thing; for now, consider that another red flag.
"Not the plz accounts though." This contradicts the previous sentence, now doesn't it? One of the two statements must be false. That's a red flag. Something else to pay attention to is the fact that this is not a sentence. Remember that dA is a company that would have paid somebody to write this memo. Would they let something of quality this poor get out to the public? Put a red flag here, too.
The last thing I would like to point out is that "plz" accounts are obsolete, take up server space, and do not generate page views or income. Why wouldn't they be the very first thing to go? This is not explained later, so put a red flag here too.
"But just all name-wasted accounts, or accounts that we think are fake, or that are useless." This is also not a sentence. See the above and put a red flag here. In addition to not being a sentence, the terminology here is not well defined. What is a "name-wasted" account? What makes an account "useless"? Put a red flag for this, too. Remember that the people who work for dA are professionals and would likely behave as such.
"We are doing this to prevent something that could possibly may happen in the future." "Could possibly may happen?" Do I need to say more? Again, red flag - professionals are supposed to proofread. Also, this is not an explanation for what's going to happen. Generally, legitimate companies will post a link to a page explaining what's going on in greater detail if they don't explain it in the memo. +1 red flag
"If we find this message on you're deviantID, journal, etc. We will know that you are not a fake." And why is this easier than just looking at the user's history? It makes no sense at all. Add 1 red flag
That's a grand total of 10 red flags within the message itself.
In addition to that, look at one final thing: the means of distribution. Why would dA spread this message from journal-to-journal rather than a mass notification? In the end, that's the most damning evidence of all.
Hopefully you've found this helpful ^^