Frankly speaking I am not sure what to do with it. Maybe this ad can be considered SCAM, in that case I should probably set its rating to somewhare about 20, so that most affiliates never show it. I don't have any strict guidelines yet. What do you think?
Hmm. That's a difficult question. Were it me, knowing what I know about how people are getting money by raising false hopes of people who are looking for work, and wasting their time, I wouldn't accept the ad. Morally, that's probably worse than merely being opportunistic at a large corporation's bonus offer. To my thinking, they knew they were running that risk - or certainly should have known - when they made that promotional offer, and made it anyway.
But I am not you. My sense of Right vs. Wrong appears to be a lot stricter than those around me: I've been living off the grid for over a decade rather than subsidize a lot of the things the federal government has been doing (slaughtering Iraqi civilians, playing gofer for the Israelis, building an estimated 600-800 "FEMA" concentration camps within the U.S.). Because it would be wrong of me to be a party to those things (treason, in fact), I refuse to do it. And must take the brunt of the repercussions for that choice: Can't work reliably while off the grid, and homeless as a result. If everyone made the same caliber of choices I do, our government wouldn't be doing what it does, out of sheer necessity to collect tax revenues. But they don't, and I encounter what I do because the rest of society doesn't boycott things I consider Wrong. Wrong begins when you knowingly and avoidably cause harm to another. Either directly, or through being a knowing accomplice.
So it's not my place to tell you what decision for your own domain is the right one. I would proffer the suggestion that your site policies should probably be an expression of your personal moral standards as much as possible. If at that point you're dissatisfied with the quality of one of those - in either direction - you may want to adjust the other to match as well.
Well if it is a scam then why shouldn't you delete it? In any case you are both helping user not to fall in a scam and your ad network to remain clean.
Were it me, that's what I think I would do. But it's not, and it's tough to make a decision based on profits and needs that I don't actually have.
But just make sure it's a real scam, don't wanna kick someone legit.
Bingo. There's the rub.
We know that
some people are offering promotions like that by defrauding large swaths of unemployed people actively seeking work. We do
not know that
moredropbox is doing that. We can probably agree that it's probably pretty likely. If this tactic turns out to be against
arsenische's ad standards, then due diligence on
arsenische's part would probably require an inquiry into the
moredropbox' business practices. I.e., "It's been called into question; show me how you're doing this or have your ad rejected / downgraded / etc." Having a moral standard means acting on it; whether
arsenische opts to have that standard or not isn't for me to impose.
(at the same time I realize that in an anonymous ad network users should be smart enough to check always for scams regardless of what the ad network owner does about them, so in theory it would be better if we could let the network run itself but since you are just starting, maybe you should take care of scams yourself)
Yes, and no.
Users have a responsibility not to send 100 Bitcoins to the first Nigerian scammer they happen to find a link to, anywhere. But an ad network also has an implied responsibility not only not to become a getaway driver for scams, but also to ensure a certain degree of quality for the ads it accepts. It's sort of like the attractive nuisance laws in real life (i.e., "Your rusty playset on your lawn attracted my kids to start playing on it, and now they have tetanus"). To what extent an ad network does that determines, in part, whether it's considered a high-class establishment or a rickety internet death-trap. In the online world there isn't a lot of actual legal liability, but users - and advertisers - notice which it is and on that basis determine whether they read or place ads there.
That works in either direction: High-class advertisers won't publish on a rickety internet death-trap, but there are plenty of scammers out there who will take their place. It all depends on what sort of business
arsenische has in mind, what his or her financial need level is, and what the caliber of his or her self-image will allow
arsenische to accept or reject.
And that's not a judgement against you either way,
arsenische.
Part of being a society of free, mature and responsible people means having the right to make choices, live with them, and decide whether we like the results they bring us. A large part of society's detriment has been due to a tyrannous effort to childproof our choices, to let someone else make them for us, so that we never get the chance to grow and learn. If I tried to do that, even by trying to force some position of implied moral superiority on you, I'd only be doing the same thing myself.
