[AlotOfReading]

The platform:

1. Takes money from the scammer

2. Tells the scammer how to target people

3. Serves the scam to the consumer, ensuring they see it

4. Takes a cut of the action when the scam is successful

5. Tells the scammer how to optimize their campaign

6. Continues working with scammers after they're reported

The scammer has a fairly small part in the overall operation. The platform is doing almost all of the actual work perpetrating the scam. They're not remotely innocent here.

[izacus]

This is some awfully twisted logic to defend scammers and fraudsters.

Your whole chain stops being relevant if you actually persecute criminals with the same gusto as Disney jackboots anyone voilating their IP.

Instead you demand megacorps to start scanning content and censoring people.

[Alpha3031]

Disney is able to jackboot anyone violating their IP because the DMCA imposes liability on big tech companies if they do not comply with a valid request. The comment you initially replied to proposes imposing such liability for fraud also, which you appear to be adamantly opposed to.

[AlotOfReading]

Care to venture some opinions on how "we" could actually prosecute criminals running scam farms in Myanmar? There's always going to be another criminal, and many of them deliberately operate outside the reach of western law.

For what it's worth, I wasn't demanding anything. I was solely pointing out that the platforms aren't neutral here. They're active participants in perpetuating these scams.