3 ms·

I see your point, but you take it too far. Upwork's behavior generally seems to include significant anti-fraud deterrents. In this narrow case when the fraud ha

I see your point, but you take it too far. Upwork's behavior generally seems to include significant anti-fraud deterrents. In this narrow case when the fraud has already happened, it's true that washing their hands of it doesn't act as a further anti-fraud defense. But it's a very narrow case where a credit-card owner is not going to notice thousands of dollars per month over a multi-month period and where the freelancer specifically doesn't use their time tracking system. Where it does help Upwork is helping freelancers see that a) they really need to follow the rules, and b) if they don't, complaining won't get them any more money.

notahacker 5y ago
It's a very narrow case, but we're talking about how this case appears to fraudsters, not whatever their other policies might be. Fraud policies are necessarily somewhat opaque and often unfairly penalise innocent parties who come under suspicion but "we're so confident you didn't actually collude with this individual we're not even suspending your account, but we will take the $12.5k we lost off your future earnings with us because it's easier than attempting to pursue the fraudster" isn't even an anti-fraud policy. If the freelancer is telling the whole truth, it appears they did follow the rules, and Upwork's client committed a felony, and Upwork's response is to try to recover funds from the freelancer. If carders pay any attention at all which they probably don't that's a positive signal. HN coverage is probably more relevant to freelancers (and genuine paying clients). Its possible it'll scare a few more into using Upwork's spyware tool, but also likely it'll just persuade more to look elsewhere. Not sure the PR damage is necessarily less than $12.5k either..
- wpietri 5y ago
  Again, I see what you're saying, but you take it too far. You have to look at the whole basket of outcomes if you want to evaluate the policies from Upwork's perspective. Is the PR damage less than $12.5k? Maybe. But the proper number to compare with is 12.5k * all the other times this happens or even could happen if the freelancer gets slack.

notahacker 5y ago

It's a very narrow case, but we're talking about how this case appears to fraudsters, not whatever their other policies might be. Fraud policies are necessarily somewhat opaque and often unfairly penalise innocent parties who come under suspicion but "we're so confident you didn't actually collude with this individual we're not even suspending your account, but we will take the $12.5k we lost off your future earnings with us because it's easier than attempting to pursue the fraudster" isn't even an anti-fraud policy. If the freelancer is telling the whole truth, it appears they did follow the rules, and Upwork's client committed a felony, and Upwork's response is to try to recover funds from the freelancer. If carders pay any attention at all which they probably don't that's a positive signal. HN coverage is probably more relevant to freelancers (and genuine paying clients). Its possible it'll scare a few more into using Upwork's spyware tool, but also likely it'll just persuade more to look elsewhere. Not sure the PR damage is necessarily less than $12.5k either..

wpietri 5y ago
Again, I see what you're saying, but you take it too far. You have to look at the whole basket of outcomes if you want to evaluate the policies from Upwork's perspective. Is the PR damage less than $12.5k? Maybe. But the proper number to compare with is 12.5k * all the other times this happens or even could happen if the freelancer gets slack.