4 ms·

Parasites like this have also colonized plumbing, locksmiths etc, as has been discussed on this site in the past. Seems like straight up fraud to me.

by gumby 4y ago

sneak 4y ago
A lot of the institutions who historically would have prevented fraud seem to have abdicated their responsibilities in the last few dozen years. Doctorow calls them out in the thread: AmEx and Google in particular.
- izacus 4y ago
  Calling out a megacorporation for not defending your rights is oxymoronic by the extreme. You didn't stop other products from killing people by asking Walmart nicely to make sure it's safe. Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is US government now so fundamentally broken that it can't even provide its basic function anymore and has to be replaced by "pretty-please" appeals to megacorporations?
  - aychedee 4y ago
    It's broken by design. AKA regulatory capture by business. Ever since America made corruption (paying money to politicians) legal it's just been downhill. Enjoy!
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      Regulatory capture has nothing to do with corruption. Regulatory capture is when businesses benefit from complex regulation because the competitive moat that the regulation gives them is more valuable than the cost (so high that only huge companies can afford it) to comply. Large businesses like moats and regulators like to regulate. No coordination required. Actual corruption, at least in the US, is much less common.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    > Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is the US... The latter, partly. But a bigger problem is that actually-functional government is no longer part of the worldview of most of the public. Ditto for serious consequences for the responsible elected officials, when government fails at its basic functions. Without those things, it is really not possible to sustain a high-functioning government.
    - sneak 4y ago
      Nevermind that if you are relying primarily on agents of the state to prevent fraud, your society is already fundamentally broken. The state enforcing laws using the threat of violence (the only enforcement mechanism they have) is a last resort, not a first. Institutions having the desire to not create a broken world should be the first line of defense. Google doesn't give a fuck anymore, and are fine watching the world burn now. I personally speculate that most Googlers today are simply there for the paycheck, and their apathy about the way their products work reflects that.
      - jtode 4y ago
        I've had a few conversations with Google employees, and every one of them had a faint tinge of koolaid on their breath.
      - bell-cot 4y ago
        Okay. Society is fundamentally broken. Our "last resort" seems to be completely dysfunctional. And the institutions you want as the first line of defense mostly don't exist. Now what?
      - cool_dude85 4y ago
        >Nevermind that if you are relying primarily on agents of the state to prevent fraud, your society is already fundamentally broken. Huh? Why's this? It seems like a core component of a functional state to me, and if the state is doing a decent job, why should a bunch of private parties be sticking their noses in too?
thih9 4y ago
How is this different to what the real estate agents do? If you try to sell property on your own, you'll get many unsolicited offers from real estate agents, sometimes claiming they already have a buyer and sometimes this is even true.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Random Real Estate agents likely don't go to potential buyers and claim that they're you.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Totally different. If an agent is actually an agent, it isn't fraud. If an agent legitimately has a buyer lined up already, depending on the market, it's likely worth the 3%.
- SargeDebian 4y ago
  It is different because the real estate agents typically don’t pretend to be the buyers.
- chadlavi 4y ago
  Maybe real estate agents are also useless parasites?
bsenftner 4y ago
My questions surround: where's the (society saving) "parasite lawyers" going to town in a shark frenzy eating these criminals business models? It is not as if these small business fraud scams are not omnipresent in modern society... why are not attorneys making bank and DA's making headlines shutting these clear and obvious public criminals down?
- stephencanon 4y ago
  Because Google and the other ad networks have successfully convinced everyone in power that they aren’t the scammers, and that the people paying for the ads are. Those people are tiny fly-by-night operators with nothing to lose (and not worth anyone going after).
ilamont 4y ago
Straight-up fraud that will never be prosecuted. AGs and DAs don't care about small-scale scams and ripoffs and cheats, generally aren't equipped to investigate them, and if the party committing fraud is in another country are likely to throw up their hands and say "not in my jurisdiction." This will stop with tough legislation and penalties that force Google to give up a percentage of its annual revenue. It will never happen in the United States.

Parasites like this have also colonized plumbing, locksmiths etc, as has been discussed on this site in the past. Seems like straight up fraud to me.

by gumby 4y ago

Parasites like this have also colonized plumbing, locksmiths etc, as has been discussed on this site in the past. Seems like straight up fraud to me.

sneak 4y ago

A lot of the institutions who historically would have prevented fraud seem to have abdicated their responsibilities in the last few dozen years. Doctorow calls them out in the thread: AmEx and Google in particular.

izacus 4y ago
Calling out a megacorporation for not defending your rights is oxymoronic by the extreme. You didn't stop other products from killing people by asking Walmart nicely to make sure it's safe. Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is US government now so fundamentally broken that it can't even provide its basic function anymore and has to be replaced by "pretty-please" appeals to megacorporations?
- aychedee 4y ago
  It's broken by design. AKA regulatory capture by business. Ever since America made corruption (paying money to politicians) legal it's just been downhill. Enjoy!
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Regulatory capture has nothing to do with corruption. Regulatory capture is when businesses benefit from complex regulation because the competitive moat that the regulation gives them is more valuable than the cost (so high that only huge companies can afford it) to comply. Large businesses like moats and regulators like to regulate. No coordination required. Actual corruption, at least in the US, is much less common.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > Isn't there a small thing called "regulators" for this? Or is the US... The latter, partly. But a bigger problem is that actually-functional government is no longer part of the worldview of most of the public. Ditto for serious consequences for the responsible elected officials, when government fails at its basic functions. Without those things, it is really not possible to sustain a high-functioning government.
  - sneak 4y ago
    Nevermind that if you are relying primarily on agents of the state to prevent fraud, your society is already fundamentally broken. The state enforcing laws using the threat of violence (the only enforcement mechanism they have) is a last resort, not a first. Institutions having the desire to not create a broken world should be the first line of defense. Google doesn't give a fuck anymore, and are fine watching the world burn now. I personally speculate that most Googlers today are simply there for the paycheck, and their apathy about the way their products work reflects that.
    - jtode 4y ago
      I've had a few conversations with Google employees, and every one of them had a faint tinge of koolaid on their breath.
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Okay. Society is fundamentally broken. Our "last resort" seems to be completely dysfunctional. And the institutions you want as the first line of defense mostly don't exist. Now what?
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      >Nevermind that if you are relying primarily on agents of the state to prevent fraud, your society is already fundamentally broken. Huh? Why's this? It seems like a core component of a functional state to me, and if the state is doing a decent job, why should a bunch of private parties be sticking their noses in too?

thih9 4y ago

How is this different to what the real estate agents do? If you try to sell property on your own, you'll get many unsolicited offers from real estate agents, sometimes claiming they already have a buyer and sometimes this is even true.

luckylion 4y ago
Random Real Estate agents likely don't go to potential buyers and claim that they're you.
fallingknife 4y ago
Totally different. If an agent is actually an agent, it isn't fraud. If an agent legitimately has a buyer lined up already, depending on the market, it's likely worth the 3%.
SargeDebian 4y ago
It is different because the real estate agents typically don’t pretend to be the buyers.
chadlavi 4y ago
Maybe real estate agents are also useless parasites?

bsenftner 4y ago

My questions surround: where's the (society saving) "parasite lawyers" going to town in a shark frenzy eating these criminals business models? It is not as if these small business fraud scams are not omnipresent in modern society... why are not attorneys making bank and DA's making headlines shutting these clear and obvious public criminals down?

stephencanon 4y ago
Because Google and the other ad networks have successfully convinced everyone in power that they aren’t the scammers, and that the people paying for the ads are. Those people are tiny fly-by-night operators with nothing to lose (and not worth anyone going after).

ilamont 4y ago

Straight-up fraud that will never be prosecuted. AGs and DAs don't care about small-scale scams and ripoffs and cheats, generally aren't equipped to investigate them, and if the party committing fraud is in another country are likely to throw up their hands and say "not in my jurisdiction." This will stop with tough legislation and penalties that force Google to give up a percentage of its annual revenue. It will never happen in the United States.