Banning spammers from the Marketplace section

[Mike Hearn]

I've noticed an uptick in threads selling things like botted Twitter followers, YouTube accounts, etc.

I hereby move that people selling services which violate third party websites ToS should be removed for the following reasons:

• They are spammers. Nobody likes spam.
• They typically work around abuse controls via botnets, which is illegal.
• They therefore bring the Bitcoin forums into disrepute.
• There are other, dedicated forums where spammers can sell their services anyway.

I work on anti-abuse as part of my day job. I am not surprised or annoyed that Bitcoin is being used this way (the most common payment form for these services I see is LR/WebMoney/Paypal actually), but we should try and keep bad guys off of bitcointalk.org specifically.

[1713862131]

1713862131

[1713862131]

1713862131

[1713862131]

1713862131

[1713862131]

1713862131

[1713862131]

1713862131

[rjk]

I've noticed an uptick in threads selling things like botted Twitter followers, YouTube accounts, etc.

I hereby move that people selling services which violate third party websites ToS should be removed for the following reasons:

• They are spammers. Nobody likes spam.
• They typically work around abuse controls via botnets, which is illegal.
• They therefore bring the Bitcoin forums into disrepute.
• There are other, dedicated forums where spammers can sell their services anyway.

I work on anti-abuse as part of my day job. I am not surprised or annoyed that Bitcoin is being used this way (the most common payment form for these services I see is LR/WebMoney/Paypal actually), but we should try and keep bad guys off of bitcointalk.org specifically.

While some such as dropboxexpander can provide a useful service, I agree that should not be allowed since it disregards the ToS of the site being exploited (Dropbox). I support this motion, and hope the marketplace can become a little cleaner.

[Maged]

I totally agree. However, it'll at least have the following implications, as you currently have the rule worded:
1) You wouldn't be able to sell game currency.
2) You wouldn't be able to sell game accounts.
3) You might not be able to buy/sell PayPal money for bitcoins (Bitcoin is against their ToS).

As such, this is a more complex issue than it appears to be. It's also a question on what we want to allow, as a community. I don't really know the answer here.

[koin]

It's also a question on what we want to allow, as a community.

it's a democracy?

anyway, for reference the posts that describe the current policies: Marketplace rules and guidelines: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3629.0
and Forum moderation policy: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20333.0

[theymos]

I lean toward enforcing the free-speech principle as purely as possible and allowing such posts, though I'm willing to enforce new policy on this matter if the community wants it.

I totally agree. However, it'll at least have the following implications, as you currently have the rule worded:
1) You wouldn't be able to sell game currency.
2) You wouldn't be able to sell game accounts.
3) You might not be able to buy/sell PayPal money for bitcoins (Bitcoin is against their ToS).

As such, this is a more complex issue than it appears to be. It's also a question on what we want to allow, as a community. I don't really know the answer here.

It'd also make moderation much more difficult, since mods would have to make decisions on issues like those. Probably the rule would need to be less inclusive and more specific than just "violates a site's ToS".

[koin]

we should try and keep bad guys off of bitcointalk.org specifically.

is that a suggestion that has the goal to improve Bitcoin's image and perception in general or is that a suggestion that enabling that kind of activity could put the bitcointalk.org forum in harms way like it being targeted for liability in a suit or puts it at risk of otherwise unwanted attention?

[Mike Hearn]

I don't think there'd be any legal liability created. But it looks bad to have people promoting tools and services that exist only to "game the system" at other sites.

I'd be OK with restrictions on the other things Maged mentioned. There's lots of things that can be bought and sold with Bitcoin that don't annoy other people or companies. If a company wants to restrict the sale of in-game items or whatever, it's their game / their rules.

[NothinG]

What if we say anything that would be highly illegal?
Botnets are highly illegal, but then again...depends on where you live. :\

[Stephen Gornick]

Example:

Selling two Twitter Accounts
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82860.0

[Maged]

Example:

Selling two Twitter Accounts
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82860.0

It's not that we don't understand the examples that's the problem. It's properly defining a rule so that there aren't any unintended consequences.

[72289]

Sure, but what about the folks selling obviously illegal substances? Xanax is illegal in the US and most western European countries without a prescription. Paypal will be tossed, and I'm sure if I look closely enough at MoneyPak's TOS that will be gone as well.

Also ALL of these SEO services would need to be banned if this was passed:

- Blog comments
- Yahoo commenting
- Xrumer (and all other forum/blog/profile link creating bots)
- Blog lists (yes, this is considered spamming technically)
- All Facebook services
- Simply advertising on these sites is technically against their TOS unless you go through the correct pipelines so simple advertising would need to be at least postponed until that could be discussed.

I've been doing SEO/SEM & advertising for years. I'm sorry some people here have a problem with techniques, which whether you like them or not, have been around for a fairly long time. If BitcoinTalk.Org doesn't want to expand into the realm of online marketing and optimization (which should be a massive market for BTC since it's a virtual & global currency) then that's fine.

My input.

[malevolent]

If there is a good or service offered on these forums that you disapprove of don't buy/use it and don't talk about it. This is the best way you can fight someone, if there is no demand they will stop offering it. If you stop giving them free advertising less people will hear of them.  

[72289]

If there is a good or service offered on these forums that you disapprove of don't buy/use it and don't talk about it. This is the best way you can fight someone, if there is no demand they will stop offering it. If you stop giving  them free advertising less people will hear of them. 

Well said.

[Mike Hearn]

Yes, I don't think anyone is going to cry if your attempt to game Google with blog spam gets kicked off these forums. 72289 is exactly the kind of abuser who makes this forum and community look bad. The Bitcoin economy is big enough that there are plenty of goods and services available that don't implicitly involve being asshats, so why allow them to advertise here?

[epbaha]

The moderators don't have the time to read every third party ToS and moderate accordingly.  Plus, bitcointalk.org moderators shouldn't be responsible for other site's problems.  The moderator's limited amount of time is better spent correctly identifying thieves, whom are more threatening to the growth of bitcoin than spammers.

[ludo0777]

Well I agree the forum shouldn't be used for bad things, but part of bitcoin is that it is anonymous and uncontrollable... 

[imsaguy]

Well I agree the forum shouldn't be used for bad things, but part of bitcoin is that it is anonymous and uncontrollable... 

Perhaps, but this forum isn't anonymous and it is controllable.

[weex]

I, have a hard time recommending professional contacts come here which is sad. It's one of the best places to learn about Bitcoin and get help.

If only we could identify better what is good for us and for the Internet. I think most of us can agree that spam in any form is bad and should not be supported here. I would like to see a paid section as well so I could recommend people pay $10-20 equivalent for year to reduce the noise level.

I second the original motion, ToS and all.