Scammers

[badferday]

Could we get a forum to name and shame scammers? I encountered an extremely suspicious seller, and now I am 100% certain they are a scammer. A place where we can share such sellers' names (along with evidence that they are likely scammers - for legal protection of the poster and the forum).

I will say for now, there are a crop of iMac G4 20" postings on eBay that have obvious inconsistencies like 1) serif font on a device made after the switch to sans serif, 2) 20" claims but the relative proportions of the screen of the device to the width of the DVD tray is wrong.

The one I was looking at had 1 bad review, 6 reviews total. And that person said what they got didn't match what they paid for.

 

[Yoda]

This seems like a good idea, but is a problematic legal can of worms. Part of the problem is that there is no one single set of 'rules' about what is and isn't defamation, since the site reaches legal jurisdictions such as the UK and US, where these definitions differ - sometimes widely. You have to be incredibly careful what negatives you propagate about others in public particularly.

Thus, for example, 'evidence a seller is likely a scammer' is a minefield, since evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Someone posting that could find themselves targeted with a perfectly valid action by a seller who wants to contest that evidence, and demonstrate how posting it has damaged their reputation in the eyes of others. Or, from some, simply a SLAPP.

Either way, the site gets caught in the middle, and in some cases could find it named as co-defendant. And where there's a direct bearing on someone's lines of income, you can bet it's not just feathers that get ruffled.

There would be nothing wrong with a forum which invites 'Dubious sale of the day' contributions allowing members to identify questionable offerings, but there would I think need to be a lot of care about exactly what is said.

I would say that @Ron's Computer Videos post about being scammed is a perfect example of how you do this safely from a legal standpoint, because he detailed what had happened, but in the post and the video, did not identify the person. Aside from a salutary lesson to us all about scammers, this was a superbly done piece in a large sense because it didn't seek to identify the scammer. Even then, because the scammer was identified in the comments, there is room for an action - if the scammer was brave enough to have that story tested in court.

All that said, I'm not a lawyer. Even if I was, it would only mean I could potentially speak to the legal implications in the jurisdiction I was licensed.

 

[badferday]

True. Not every country has a law like S230, and probably in some places you can be penalized for saying you suspect someone of something for a set of specific reasons.

 

[Yoda]

True. Not every country has a law like S230, and probably in some places you can be penalized for saying you suspect someone of something for a set of specific reasons.

Laws are different everywhere, and even subtle differences in wording can have vast implications to what is or isn't a matter of legal jeopardy. However, almost everywhere that has a base of English common law (the US included) would regard a statement of suspicion, even with some supporting evidence, as actionable if the person accused can claim that 'a reasonable person' could have their opinion of them negatively impacted by what was said.

In English law itself, it would invite a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) filed by the person accused of wrongdoing. These are cheap to file, and expensive to defend (hence the name). What makes it worse is that since this is a feasible action in the UK under English law, it is often used even when neither the person accused, nor the person accusing even live there. The fact that Tinkerdifferent is accessible there and has at least one board member, administrator or moderator there could be sufficient.

Apologies - not meant as a rant, but law is a bit of my thing!

 

[badferday]

I just ****ing hate scammers and gougers soooo much. They are corrosive to communities like ours.

Laws are different everywhere, and even subtle differences in wording can have vast implications to what is or isn't a matter of legal jeopardy. However, almost everywhere that has a base of English common law (the US included) would regard a statement of suspicion, even with some supporting evidence, as actionable if the person accused can claim that 'a reasonable person' could have their opinion of them negatively impacted by what was said.

In English law itself, it would invite a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) filed by the person accused of wrongdoing. These are cheap to file, and expensive to defend (hence the name). What makes it worse is that since this is a feasible action in the UK under English law, it is often used even when neither the person accused, nor the person accusing even live there. The fact that Tinkerdifferent is accessible there and has at least one board member, administrator or moderator there could be sufficient.

Apologies - not meant as a rant, but law is a bit of my thing!

No. Not a rant. I am a law nerd, too. Hahaha. I was just thinking in a very America-centric way, with just broader thinking short circuited by being pissed at that iMac G4 seller. Hahaha.

 

[Yoda]

I like the idea of calling them out, and those beginning to collect vintage computers could easily be taken in by some sellers. I just can't see a safe way to do it when naming names, and where someone sees their income threatened as a result, there is going to be a problem at some point.

My thought is that you can do this by questioning price or condition of the item, but not the 'reputation' of the seller - you can't defame objects. The Tinkerdifferent board would have to be confident it didn't get out of hand, just to ensure it didn't get ensnared in those jurisdictions where otherwise it could, but by avoiding undermining the reputation of the individual, the risk would be minimal - not zero however, thanks to the ease of finding lawyers in a litigious society, and some people thinking they have a far better reputation than they really do. By which I'm not thinking of any particularly recognizable bay seller. Oh no, not a bit!

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

I agree in that I too do not think a public thread or forum shaming scammers is worth the risk. At the end of the day, scammer can simply turn around and make a new account and continue on because they're criminals and that's what they do. Conversely, the litigious risk to TD is outrageous and would be an end game scenario for the community and website if one decided to turn around, lawyer up and play victim.

As irritating as these gutless pigs are, the best practice to insulate TD is to share experiences in private spaces, not public.

 

[Kai Robinson]

I agree in that I too do not think a public thread or forum shaming scammers is worth the risk. At the end of the day, scammer can simply turn around and make a new account and continue on because they're criminals and that's what they do. Conversely, the litigious risk to TD is outrageous and would be an end game scenario for the community and website if one decided to turn around, lawyer up and play victim.

As irritating as these gutless pigs are, the best practice to insulate TD is to share experiences in private spaces, not public.

Personal opinion - this is something I absolutely agree with, but i'll raise it as an agenda item for the next board meeting.