By this I take it that you believe:
- If someone notices a security flaw or a scammer, they should keep quiet and allow others to lose their money
- If someone notices an obvious "confidence loan," they should keep quiet and not warn others that it's probably just a scam-preceding reputation ploy.
Are you a social darwinist?
- If someone notices a security flaw or a scammer, they should keep quiet and allow others to lose their money
- If someone notices an obvious "confidence loan," they should keep quiet and not warn others that it's probably just a scam-preceding reputation ploy.
Are you a social darwinist?
Perhaps I am naive.
There is however a difference in warning about a potential danger and outright calling someone a scammer or saying two people are the same person.
Example(not quoting anyone specific):
"Be careful as people with low reputations may not intend to pay back" or "There is a danger that both people are the same person trying to create the appearance of a reputation" <-- reasonable
"This person is clearly a scammer" or "There two people are clearly the same person" <-- baseless and unnecessary.
I don't know what social darwinism is. I do believe in assuming good faith when it is reasonable to do so, this does not mean extending credit but it does mean not accusing without basis.
The very best business relationships I have developed started with an assumption of good faith by either myself or the other party.
