Advertising and scams on forums and websites. Who should take responsibility?

[Hugh Cow]

Having a look at the News headlines on TV,admittedly a rare occurence, I spied a line, "Aussies in trouble politically and financially", which was obviously a click bait add. My curiosity peaked I found it was an ad for Aussie bit coin, of course nothing to do with the click bait headline. I researched the company and decided it would not be one that I would invest in.
There were others on the same site which I thought were questionable. Firstly should the total irrelevance (and ethics) of the click bait headline be a concern to the forum owner and what responsibility should they take to make sure the headlines are an accurate reflection of the advertiser and also the legitimacy of the company advertising. Should they just be allowed to place any unvetted advertisement on their sites and leave it to Caveat Emptor?

[Maanaam]

I think click baits are fair enough and harmless enough. What would be unethical, perhaps illegal, would be to enable a real scam to lure suckers and part them from their money.
Crypto? Well there are arguments for and against crypto being a scam.
What it comes down to is "what is a scam and what is simply an annoyance?".

I'm reminded of a "vendor" advertising for "organic fly and insect killer". One paid one's $5 or whatever and a few days later one gets in the mail a package containing two blocks of wood, one labelled "A" and the other "B", and an instruction sheet. "Place fly on block A, quickly and forcefully bring block B down on fly. Guaranteed to kill all flys".
Scam, or caveat emptor?

[Hugh Cow]

To agree on that one Manny, I would need a degree more moral and ethical "fluidity".

[bowie]

rules to live by - "Buyer Beware" makes the top ten

there are far more con artists than policemen (fine line between the two, eh?)