Either way works - I'd still prefer the scammers to be liable and persecuted for their scamming than demanding that platforms enact censorship and policeing control.
1. Takes money from the scammer
2. Tells the scammer how to target people
3. Serves the scam to the consumer, ensuring they see it
4. Takes a cut of the action when the scam is successful
5. Tells the scammer how to optimize their campaign
6. Continues working with scammers after they're reported
The scammer has a fairly small part in the overall operation. The platform is doing almost all of the actual work perpetrating the scam. They're not remotely innocent here.
Your whole chain stops being relevant if you actually persecute criminals with the same gusto as Disney jackboots anyone voilating their IP.
Instead you demand megacorps to start scanning content and censoring people.
For what it's worth, I wasn't demanding anything. I was solely pointing out that the platforms aren't neutral here. They're active participants in perpetuating these scams.
You are also free to call it censorship, but I am not aware of any jurisdiction where fraud is considered protected speech, so as far as I'm concerned, censor away baby.
If they choose to get out of the business of facilitating crime because of that then so be it.