Comment by tgsovlerkhgsel

6 hours ago

Not just the networks (although preferably also the networks) but also the publishers.

If a newspaper took money to advertise blatant, obvious scams, I assume a judge would consider them at least partially responsible for restitution, if not an accessory to the crime. Looking away really hard (and delegating the task of looking away really hard) shouldn't get you out of this.

Hold the publisher responsible, they can then hold the platform responsible, thus creating a market for platforms that actually fight scams. Right now, there is limited incentive to fight scams, as the scams still drive revenue. If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it.

3 comments

tgsovlerkhgsel

Reply
BLKNSLVR  4 hours ago

Given the colour of the text, I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with this:

> If you take money for it, you should be responsible for it.

If they don't want to take responsibility then they should guarantee that the responsible party have provided valid credentials that can result in their being held responsible.

That would clear up the quagmire that is internet advertising pretty darn quick.

  • abustamam  1 hour ago

    I am working on a hobby project to help me manage my Toastmasters clubs and Id love to get it into more hands because its genuinely helpful but more hands means more maintenance and opération costs. I asked Claude if I could charge for it and it basically said that as long as its a hobby project Im safe but once I start charging, then the Toastmasters organization could sue me or issue a cease and desist for using their IP to make money without permission, which makes sense. It did advise me to talk to a lawyer which I haven't done, but assuming it's right, then financial incentives causing other parties "harm" (for some definition of the word) are illegal.

    In other words, I think the law wants what you and OP said to be true, but seems like it doesn't apply once you get big enough. Anecdotally, Amazon and Walmart and other big retailers seem to not be held responsible when they sell goods that dont work as advertised or even actively harm people.