[akudha]

Can you explain why this matters here? The issue is that Upwork was/is responsible for taking payment from the customer, keeping their cut and paying the freelancer. If they got duped, they should eat the loss. Whether the freelancer is or isn't able to collect payments correctly on his own, is irrelevant here.

Freelancing websites go to extreme lengths to monitor freelancers - including installing monitoring software, taking screenshots every minute etc. Why can't they spend some of this effort making sure they aren't duped, and when they are duped (it will happen at some point) why can't they go after the person who cheated them instead of the little guy?

[wpietri]

My point is that Upwork not creating the problem, just passing along the problem.

From what the freelancer says, Upwork would have eaten the loss if the freelancer had actually used that monitoring software. But he chose not to. I get that sucks for him, and I get how he got taken in by a serial fraudster. But I also get why Upwork only covers fraud under specific circumstances.

[CRConrad]

> My point is that Upwork not creating the problem, just passing along the problem.

Yes it is Upwork creating the problem: They didn't vet their client.

> From what the freelancer says, Upwork would have eaten the loss if the freelancer had actually used that monitoring software. But he chose not to.

That's not how I read it. That software is to ensure the freelancer doesn't scam the client. They tried talking about that first, but then the freelancer gave them testimonials from the client that he had indeed performed the work, which AFAICS closed off that avenue.