4 ms·
Wouldn't that be useless to scammers given that they'd have to provide their payment details?
by andreygrehov 4y ago
Wouldn't that be useless to scammers given that they'd have to provide their payment details?
- depereo 4y agoDepends if they already scammed some payment details.
- KZerda 4y agoPlenty of ways around that, like prepaid debit cards, using stolen credit cards, etc.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoIf you're going to imitate say, Buzz Aldrin, wouldn't card-based verification require that you steal Buzz Aldrin's credit card, specifically? Neither a random stolen card nor a prepaid card are going to work for verification in that scenario. That makes the problem way harder.
- ok_dad 4y agoHow do you think scammers pay for things? It’s with other people’s credit cards.
- stevewatson301 4y agoStolen credit cards. Also, the $8 price will make it useful for card testing, the practice of checking whether stolen credit cards work.
- mdasen 4y agoI've worked at places that had to implement policies limiting features for a while because scammers would use credit cards that would turn out to be fraudulent. I don't know the details of how they worked it out, but they could sign up, send SPAM via us, and then the account would get shut down a week later (and we'd get a huge hit to our deliverability because of their SPAM).
- tsol 4y ago>I'm not saying that Twitter won't take steps to prevent this. I'm just saying that there are a lot of scams that are worth more than $8/mo. In this situation it's $8 just to attempt to scam someone. Every time you fail you pay again. It actually should incentivize Twitter to improve their scammer-catching algorithms/systems-- at $8 per offender that's not a bad payout at all.