Hacker News
points by otterley 2 days ago | 0 comments
I wouldn’t argue they are “knowingly complicit” as much as they are “willfully blind.”
[–] sneak 2 days ago
That’s the thing, though. They aren’t blind, you just can’t prove it. They’re plausibly blind, strictly from a legal standpoint.

They know.

I’ve sent them high res well lit photo evidence of the fraud and they still left me to have to do a chargeback via my card issuer for receiving counterfeit merchandise. You know this has happened thousands of times.

[–] 7373737373 2 days ago
It's at least vast criminal negligence then. At a billion dollar scale you can't just say "oopsie", profit at that scale comes with a supervisory and controlling responsibility. It's not like they wouldn't analyze where their money is coming from, what specifically is profitable
[–] otterley 1 day ago
> profit at that scale comes with a supervisory and controlling responsibility

If only that were true. The law is pretty weak in this area.