Derek Smythe wrote:
It does not take a brain surgeon to recognize a scam, just some experience in the understanding of the scam.
Then it ought not to be hard to establish a procedure in which the facts and context of the accused scam is presented to an independent and disinterested third party, one who is familiar with the nature of these things, to review the situation.
Talk is cheap, but the victims to these are real.
Accusations are even cheaper. And in many cases it is the one being accused who is the victim. Who is the victim when a company uses takedown-upon-accusation to shut down a website that discloses the ill acts of that company? Who is the victim when the website of a labor union at a company is taken down upon accusation by the company that its trademark is being violated? I had hoped that society had passed the shoot-now-and-ask-question-later stage. There is a deeper aspect to this - which is that the internet has been lacking a protocol layer, one slightly above IP. It would be the mandatory identification and authentication layer. IPsec is there, but few use it even for protection much less for mutual identification and authentication. --karl--