A transaction tax would fix HFT in a New York microsecond.

And the BIN (bank numbers) of those virtual cards are trivially identifiable and able to be blocked.

Look, I get it: you want a world where fraudsters can operate with no regulation and rob with impunity and I don't. Let's agree to disagree.

They should not be allowed to run a platform and take "no responsibility" while raking a percentage off of fraud.

You seem to not mind that they enable fraud but even you admit they "sell" something. In a functioning regulatory environment, their business model will change or they will be shut down.

[citation needed] - the "Scamstarter" nickname didn't come about for nothing. It's not whether projects "succeed" or "fail" - it's that Scamstarter releases the money in its entirety without monitoring manufacturing or delivery. So scams proliferat and they allow "creators" to use trade dress of stores so despite the warnings, more than the "functionally illterate" believe they're funding manufacturing and reasonably believe a platform would exercise safeguards to ensure that at least the "creator" doesn't take the money and run, as has happened on numerous occasions with Scamstarter/Kickstarter giving zero fscks because they got paid.

You mean the donations not specifying employers? I'm not sure how that's proof of fraud but it does look suspicious.

That is a reasonable stance but Amazon is on the hook to make its customers whole when they're scammed by a platform merchant and so they don't profit from scams at customer expense like Kickstarter does.

Caveat emptor is not a good argument for allowing platforms that exercise no oversight and profit from scams to exist. I look forward to Biden's FTC clamping down.

If it were on a legitimate platform, I'd consider contributing now. But since it's on Scamstarter, I'll wait.

Damn it, you beat me to it.

. . . and they couldn't parallel construction their way around all the wiretapping evidence. So it was either show their cards and shut it down or let all the criminals walk. Look for a new company with mysterious funding offering a similar product soon.

The whole point of Section 230 is that third party platforms shouldn't be held accountable for what's posted by their users. But once those platforms start censoring/editing/curating/fact check-annotating content, they should be liable for everything. Either they're not liable or they are: you don't get to ban and censor and scarlet letter content you don't like then cry "muh neutral platform" when you get nailed for hosting something infringing or illegal.

So that sounds like they're pinning their hopes on people who are too lazy to go vote being not lazy or impatient enough to be mail in a ballot application and then fill out and mail a ballot. And assumes that there won't be ballot harvesting stings followed by felony charges for those who fall into the trap. Will be a more interesting than usual election season.

If they find a way to ban this, they'd better g*d-da*n well find a way to ban robocalls the same way. Following the money is easy, if the powers that be really want to.