Quote:
Originally posted by LeeNoga
I know this is not the same thing..
But why did Lightspeed and Lens take a stance with their affililates sceening for certain triggers? Everyone applauded this.
|
Nope, this is not the same thing. For starters you are talking about someone selling a purported medical product without a license and while making false claims for that product. That falls under about 5 different federal statutes and agency acronyms.
Website subscriptions are a very different animal, Lee, so let's just pretend that you didn't compare the two.
CP is enforced technically by one office at the federal level, US Customs, though the FBI can and does take a proactive approach in attempting to wrest control of the situation from them, as they do with anything else they dip a finger into.
The question still remains unanswered regarding just what definition you are using as a baseline for your 'flagging' and 'reporting' with your 'watchdog' -- are you truly using the legal basis for this? Keep in mind I am not making a moral instance out of the whole thing, since my personal opinions are just that -- I am talking about a direct correlation with the law as it is written and enforced at the federal level?
Why did Lightspeed and Lensman make changes to their programs TOS? Well, my guess would be because they own those programs and have the right to do so in their very own terms. Beyond that I will not speculate on why they make their decisions, my name isn't Mrs Lightspeed or Mrs Lensman, and its not any of my business.