scamalytics.com/Defamation search results for just about every provider here

oplink

We did some random google searches to check SEO this week and found a company (scamalytics.com) listing us in a very false away. To the point where we consider it defamation. We think it’s a great topic and we would like to seek some input from providers here who may have dealt with this before have done. We also wanted to bring it to the attention of lowendtalk providers since most everyone is being listed like we are on their website as med/high risk of fraud for no valid reason.

You can see the choice of words they used “high fraud risk ISP” is very poor. We reached out to them and are still trying to work with them directly before considering the legal path. We feel they should re-word things a bit. We feel their website/service is interesting and maybe helpful to providers, but their choice of words is awful.

If you review https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/the-optimal-link-corporation IPs are being penalized for having an open SSH port or just simply because they are a server. If a client is not abusing our network we don’t care if your port is open. Some of the data is old or just simply marked as a “SERVER” and obtains a fraud score of 67 with zero complaints or abuse: https://scamalytics.com/ip/66.187.79.210.

We host all kinds of companies, some offer VPN services, which is a must-needed service to protect yourself online. We don’t believe in telling you how to run your server that you rent unless it’s breaking our AUP/TOS. I know many of the other providers here feel similar.
Providers here should check your company name in google to see if they come up, maybe we are just unlucky with whatever this google snippet thing is coming up first.
Many other providers are flagged with the word too, maybe just not as high as the snippet shows Oplink.net. This could be something that moves up in your own google seo rankings as time goes on. We just wanted to share this with the community. As you can see they doing this for almost everyone:

OVH: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/ovh-sas
Linode: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/linode-llc
Reliablesite: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/reliablesite-net-llc
Buyvm: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/buyvm
Dataideas: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/data-ideas-llc
HostSlick: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/maximilian-kutzner-trading-as-hostslick
1gservers: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/1gservers-llc (low risk yet your medium fraud?)
hetzner.com: https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/hetzner-online-gmbh

@DataIdeas-Josh @ovhcom @reliablevps_us @HostSlick @1gservers @Hetzner_OL @Francisco

Thanks,
Oplink.net

ehhthing

Someone hasn't read the legal definition of Defamation in the US.

"High fraud-risk ISP" is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion, and therefore cannot be defamation.

jar

I think you have to consider their function and what they’re trying to achieve. This all seems to be based around web traffic. If, for example, I used their classification for SMTP blocking I would be mistaken and introducing a bad idea.

Being a server and seeing web traffic from it does dramatically increase the probability of fraud, understanding well that this reality repeatedly infuriates people. It’s why most of us don’t allow orders via VPN, because the probability of fake account information, intent to spam (forum, comment, whatever) all skyrockets by that one detail: that it came from a VPN.

Of course, you’re probably posting this because some idiot client opened a ticket about it and blames you for it while lacking any evidence that this website caused them any problem. You can’t fix stupid, try as we may.

JoshR

Funny enough. They only complaining about 1 of my subnets. So the site is a tad unfair on its raiting.
You take another one of our ranges and it is considered as a high risk.
https://scamalytics.com/ip/38.81.163.0

Or lets take the whole /8 in account for that matter
https://scamalytics.com/ip/38.0.0.0
https://scamalytics.com/ip/isp/cogent-communications

Side note: @oplink tag us next time

endrit

Their Ip results blacklisted by their own Ip checker , at least they are not hiding it lol

treesmokah

@ehhthing said: Someone hasn't read the legal definition of Defamation in the US.

Said site is not American, its located in Britbong Land.

@jar said:

I think you have to consider their function and what they’re trying to achieve. This all seems to be based around web traffic. If, for example, I used their classification for SMTP blocking I would be mistaken and introducing a bad idea.

Being a server and seeing web traffic from it does dramatically increase the probability of fraud, understanding well that this reality repeatedly infuriates people. It’s why most of us don’t allow orders via VPN, because the probability of fake account information, intent to spam (forum, comment, whatever) all skyrockets by that one detail: that it came from a VPN.

Of course, you’re probably posting this because some idiot client opened a ticket about it and blames you for it while lacking any evidence that this website caused them any problem. You can’t fix stupid, try as we may.

This site has no real use case and clients. Its just farming Search Results and SEO and monetizing page views with AD's, that's it.

ehhthing

@treesmokah said:

@ehhthing said: Someone hasn't read the legal definition of Defamation in the US.

Said site is not American, its located in Britbong Land.

Suing a company in the UK while being a non-UK company is going to be ridiculously expensive, and if you lose (which is probably the case, even under UK laws), you'll have to pay for the opponent's legal expenses.

yoursunny

2a07:54c2:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b Fraud Risk
Low Risk

IP address ​2a07:54c2:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b is owned by ​​Svens Jansons whose ​web traffic we consider to present a potentially low​​ fraud risk.
Non-web traffic may present a different risk or no risk at all.
Scamalytics see low levels of traffic from Svens Jansons across our global network, ​​ of which we suspect to be potentially fraudulent.
We have no visibility into the web traffic directly from 2a07:54c2:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b​, and therefore apply a risk score of ​​0​/100 based on the overall risk from Svens Jansons’s IP addresses where we do have visibility.
The device on​ 2a07:54c2:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b is operating ​an anonymising VPN, which could be proxying traffic from another geographical location.
The geographical location of 2a07:54c2:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b:b00b is in Australia, however the geographical location of the user could be anywhere in the world.

crunchbits

Stop Scammers Automatically

We help you automatically remove scammers from your dating site in real-time, 
saving your business time and money whilst improving your brand's reputation.

Wellp, guess it's time for us to involucrate our dating site. 89/100 high risk.

@jar said:
I think you have to consider their function and what they’re trying to achieve. This all seems to be based around web traffic. If, for example, I used their classification for SMTP blocking I would be mistaken and introducing a bad idea.

Being a server and seeing web traffic from it does dramatically increase the probability of fraud, understanding well that this reality repeatedly infuriates people. It’s why most of us don’t allow orders via VPN, because the probability of fake account information, intent to spam (forum, comment, whatever) all skyrockets by that one detail: that it came from a VPN.

Of course, you’re probably posting this because some idiot client opened a ticket about it and blames you for it while lacking any evidence that this website caused them any problem. You can’t fix stupid, try as we may.

I think you nailed it. They're focusing on profiles, which if opened from a VPS on our network would be pretty suspect. Using my residential ISP range shows low risk.