3 ms·

I agree with you to the extent that the conversation should basically be "it's not my fault you were dumb enough to lend money to someone who pretended to be me

I agree with you to the extent that the conversation should basically be "it's not my fault you were dumb enough to lend money to someone who pretended to be me" and it is 100% the institutions fault. In practice though, I find advocating for language change to be a completely empty gesture. There should be clearer laws or precedents about who is liable, and it seems clear it should be "buyer beware" - for greater clarity by buyer I mean to include the lending institutions. If I lend someone money without properly vetting them, it's obviously going to be on me. It should be no different for institutions.

Avicebron 5y ago
and if the institutions are "criminally" negligent in their actions? yea, it's fine to tell joe shmoe down the street that it's their fault they trusted an institution, but we have laws about this regarding large companies falsely or not "read, it may be in 35000 pages of text agreed to with a button click" claiming to be secure while not, taking advantage of peoples ignorance or more rightly, being busy, that those who claim anything implicit, whether legal or not, should be the ones to shoulder the burden. There has been a science developed around "how much can we get away with" and that's the problem. Do you expect joe shmoe to have that kind of budget?