2 ms·
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 thou
by 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 agoIt'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 agoHmm, 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 agoWould 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?