Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I was talking about the fairness doctrine just yesterday, a good point and it certainly needs to be brought back in some form.
Not all countries have the press or even the predatory advertising issue though. English native speaking countries are likely getting a worse dose than others. It is important not to think of the world in a purely USA-centrist manner as it exaggerates the problem.
The US is after all just 4.4% of the world population.
How are the still sane countries holding up and what do they do?
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
I don't know because we're not talking about scammers based in one country or even one region. You can't apply CFTC or SEC regulations to somebody based in Cyprus or China for instance.
The trouble with Internet is that this is a global problem - the fraud may be originating anywhere.
I'd hzard to say not anywhere, there are commoditised channels in place for advertising placement, digital agencies etc.
Elimination of "high risk" advertising is not especially difficult and can/is done a multiple levels to varying degrees.
I was a sys admin, our gateway stripped all of the crap out to protect against maladvertisments (virus spreading risk).
Many national ISPs have mandatory child porn/bomb/drug manufacture filtering either human identified or AI. As AI is progressing so quickly now contextual filtering is possible. One can even filter by age, say if the user is over 70 or under 16, male or female.
Like anything, national law & international co-operation affects things. Personally I would make Facebook lock an account for 30+ seconds for every fake ad clicked on/shared as an instructive deterrent to naive users. If we wrap the world in cotton wool (blocking anything bad) we do a lot of damage to the intelligence of the populace perhaps?
You're right in saying 'not anywhere', especially in places where regulatory frameworks exist. Let me then adjust 'anywhere' to 'anywhere with no/unenforceable frameworks'. My guess is - removing North America, Europe and some countries in APAC - there's still a lot of potential for fraud.
Sure, ISPs do play a part and perhaps in the future AI can help by at least flagging suspicious content by keyword, heuristics, etc. and maybe that's where we're headed.
In the last year or so, however, I have seen this emerging trend of 'Wall street is furious b/c of XYZ algo' scam worringly on the rise.
Another poster asked, 'who should be the protector'?
Maybe it comes down to the community, in the same way FIO can be self-policing.
There are tools (such as SiteAdvisor, MyWOT, etc.) that the more Internet-safety-concious users adopt that can flag a website as suspicious or downright fraudulent. But those require 2 critical masses of users: one flagging and the other one adopting the tool.
I've noticed that most people, when shown what they believe is wrong, may denounce it for awhile, but then revert right back to believing it after time. A few, want facts, and so they dig and filter out what is fake on their own, or so they think?
There was a very sticky news item on a study that made one side of the political spectrum look smart and the other side of the political spectrum look dumb.
I went and read the actual study and found that the news outlet was flat out lying about what the study found. It found both ends of the political spectrum were equally confused about the topic. The data and conclusion were that the public at large is misinformed about the topic of study.
When I presented this evidence to people, they became angry with the news source but went right back to just believing everything it put out over time. This is true even if many such examples are presented to people.
My opinion: contempt is one of the most dangerous forces in the world and just about all news these days is contemptertainment. I catch some of my own "wanting to believe", or do I?
Hope this flows, I'm sick as a dog and should probably have stayed in bed.
But did you see what they did there? This is a political correctness test, not probability test. She probably went with the most probable rather than take into account that the test had to be PC in this climate.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the BBC. I'm a Bay Area guy but I'm trying to stay accurate.
