4 ms·

> Basically, there are telcos who are not being super honest out there, in other parts of the world, who were basically gaming the system and running, like, two

> Basically, there are telcos who are not being super honest out there, in other parts of the world, who were basically gaming the system and running, like, two-factor authentication SMS texts over and over again, and just creating a zillion bot accounts to literally run up the tab so that Twitter would SMS text them, and Twitter would pay them millions of dollars, without even asking about it. He’s very clearly accusing the telcos themselves of creating bot accounts.

pcthrowaway 4y ago
True, his messaging wasn't consistent. He is calling them fraudsters (and suggesting some of them are doing it directly). Some of the fraud may be indirect though: > Listen, if you stop scamming us, then we will gladly pay you some amount of money for SMS texts but you can’t turn a blind eye to relentless bogus SMS texts The suggestion here is that the telcos are complicit in the fraud, but "blind eye" suggests they may not be directly responsible.
- lupire 4y ago
  It's unclear if "you" is telcos or Twitter in the last part. Or depends if the fees were for SMS fees to the telco (!?) or fraudulent "pay-to-send-to SMS numbers" ("1-900" numbers), a massive scam that shouldn't exist at all.
- mort96 4y ago
  Hmm, I interpreted the "you" to mean the general "you", not telcos; basically meaning that Twitter can't just turn a blind eye. Similar to how some might say: "I elected to the gym today; you can't just sit on the couch all day after all". That would certainly be a bit awkward wording though, using "you" to refer to both the telcos and to Twitter/the general "you" in the same sentence.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Would you say that a telco is complicit in fraud if it offers a negative rate to customers who take their inbound calls/SMSes in the building where the telco receives the calls/SMSes from its peers/upstream?
honeybadger1 4y ago
I don't exactly see the issue with telcos being accused. Telcos still have done almost nothing to address scammers, fraudulent texts and we all know it is because the benefit financially from their services being abused.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

True, his messaging wasn't consistent. He is calling them fraudsters (and suggesting some of them are doing it directly). Some of the fraud may be indirect though: > Listen, if you stop scamming us, then we will gladly pay you some amount of money for SMS texts but you can’t turn a blind eye to relentless bogus SMS texts The suggestion here is that the telcos are complicit in the fraud, but "blind eye" suggests they may not be directly responsible.

lupire 4y ago
It's unclear if "you" is telcos or Twitter in the last part. Or depends if the fees were for SMS fees to the telco (!?) or fraudulent "pay-to-send-to SMS numbers" ("1-900" numbers), a massive scam that shouldn't exist at all.
mort96 4y ago
Hmm, I interpreted the "you" to mean the general "you", not telcos; basically meaning that Twitter can't just turn a blind eye. Similar to how some might say: "I elected to the gym today; you can't just sit on the couch all day after all". That would certainly be a bit awkward wording though, using "you" to refer to both the telcos and to Twitter/the general "you" in the same sentence.
Arnt 4y ago
Would you say that a telco is complicit in fraud if it offers a negative rate to customers who take their inbound calls/SMSes in the building where the telco receives the calls/SMSes from its peers/upstream?

honeybadger1 4y ago

I don't exactly see the issue with telcos being accused. Telcos still have done almost nothing to address scammers, fraudulent texts and we all know it is because the benefit financially from their services being abused.