3 ms·
> In principle it seems to be banning fraud, and if that's all it does then I can't really complain. But to say "you can't structure your site in such a way" I
by tobylane 12y ago
> In principle it seems to be banning fraud, and if that's all it does then I can't really complain. But to say "you can't structure your site in such a way" I think it's rather heavy handed.
What if the only way to ban fraud is to say you can't structure it this way? Pyramid schemes seem like a good example.
>some sort of government agency with an official review process for websites
My understanding of the article was that customers complain to their local council, get their money back, and the company changes after loosing too much money.
>it's the job of a consumer to decide if they've been defrauded
The EU doesn't like doing that, there's too many vulnerable people, too much to do in the day for the less vulnerable.
- orblivion 12y ago> What if the only way to ban fraud is to say you can't structure it this way? Pyramid schemes seem like a good example. If it's really the only way, then I can accept that tentatively (without taking an even more radical stance which I won't introduce here). But, I would still say tread very carefully and make sure it's the only way. Government regulation has a tendency to creep up and become entrenched. Even if it is the only way to prevent it, it may not be worth the increased government scope. > My understanding of the article was that customers complain to their local council, get their money back, and the company changes after loosing too much money. Okay, sorry I skimmed the article rather briefly. Still, if that's the format, why not keep it in the judicial system? I guess I don't have a strong point there, though.