• my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ll definitely be downvoted for this too but I completely agree. There’s a fine line between entertainment at scammers’ expense and vigilantism for views. Publicly spreading the faces of people you’re accusing of a crime without any sort of trial is definitely the latter and has little direct impact on shutting down these operations. This video screams ego trip.

    I used to watch Kitboga and they were much more ethical (at least when I watched). They’d lean heavily into the entertainment side, waste a lot of the scammers’ time which they then couldn’t spend on actual victims, and report/shutdown accounts as they came up which actually does directly impact their operation. Your scam call center still works if one of your workers gets their face posted online, it doesn’t if you have no bank account.

    • deafboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Publicly spreading the faces of people you’re accusing of a crime

      That would be a sound argument if they weren’t doing the crime right there on the video.

      • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I suggest you read the next few words in that sentence which you conveniently left out of your quote, might help clear up any confusion.