[iueotnmunto]

If YouTube cannot police or moderate their own platform, then that's a problem they created for themselves.

'Sorry, moderating this content is something we cannot manage' is not an acceptable response, they are a trillion dollar company with access to tools which can be run at scale. Scam prevention is a cost center, which is presumably why they don't care, and that attitude needs regulation (as they'll never change on their own).

> Some people need to learn the hard lesson and we need to stop bailing them out.

I think the same can be said for large tech companies.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If YouTube cannot police or moderate their own platform, then that's a problem they created for themselves

If we had social consensus that crypto, or at least these sorts of crypto schemes, are a scam, sure. We don't. If YouTube is targeting teens with meth-making ads, that's a problem. This seems more ambiguous.

[zahlman]

>If we had social consensus that crypto, or at least these sorts of crypto schemes, are a scam, sure. We don't.

Per the description in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41920331, "these sorts of crypto schemes" are nakedly fraudulent. We're not talking about a pump-and-dump being achieved by vague allusions. We're talking about too-good-to-be-true representations of arbitrage (i.e. essentially risk-free return resulting from a market inefficiency, which naturally disappears from any market as it's exploited) that are a cover for unauthorized transfer of funds caused by deceptive computer code. I'm pretty sure there's more than enough legal precedent to cover every aspect of that and make an open-and-shut case. (This is not legal advice, of course.)

[stevage]

This is malware, plain and simple. It's not ambiguous.

[iueotnmunto]

So youtube can throw their hands up in the air and say 'its legally ambiguous, therefore we'll take their money' and that's okay?

[fhdsgbbcaA]

If it pleases the stock market, it’s okay.