> Is this the standard we want?
I'd say so, yes. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
I'd say so, yes. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Since the answer is clearly "yes" - then taking some steps to reduce the impact of these vulnerabilities seem reasonable. If you are selling a product, show us the product. If you do not have a product, we want to be sure the backers know this.
Proof beyond all reasonable doubt is a lovely standard for a criminal justice system. Note that it is not used in civil suits in America - only criminal cases.
We're not talking about taking away people's freedom here. We're talking about an investment website.
In general with Kickstarter failures current and future, I think we'll find the evidence weighs heavily in favor of incompetence rather than malice. There's no shortage in the world of business ventures that are honest to goodness failures.
Is anyone arguing that mere accusations should result in kickstarter takedowns? You make a good point... just a sort of obvious one.
This is clearly a hard problem, and neither extreme of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" or "accusation = takedown" works. Maybe that's why this space is so unexplored! That doesn't absolve Kickstarter from having to discover the palatable middle ground.
Hard work is hard, and I think today's announcements are part of that hard work. So I say: keep it up, Kickstarter!
Yes, it should - if it's backed by a legal letter, Kickstarter might be liable too, if the suit is sucessful.
Takedowns due to "mere accusations" to me means that I can fire off an e-mail if I see a kickstarter project that looks sketchy and have it taken down post-haste.
To me, that is highly suboptimal.