People who aren't doing this basic level of due diligence are just on borrowed time until they are robbed and no amount of shitting out tags is going to stop them from getting stolen from.
I disagree. We can't expect every newbie to crypto to instantly be able to tell what is a scam and what isn't. Maybe in the early days when the majority of people involved in bitcoin were technically minded, but if bitcoin is going to grow and appeal to a global audience then it has to start attracting less technically literate people. I don't think it's fair to just say "Do your own research/do your due diligence" and then refuse to arm them with the tools to do so, such as warnings in the form of trust ratings. Sure, red tags won't protect everyone, and sure, there are some who will ignore them and be scammed anyway, but I don't agree with the implication that pre-emptively negative rating scammers doesn't achieve anything.
I should clarify here I am talking solely about pre-emptive ratings on obvious scammers, like the examples I gave in my previous post. In terms of the reference you make to ratings being spammed to punish people for opinions or disagreements, I am in agreement that they are entirely inappropriate.
Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors.
You've made this or similar statements several times. Genuine question - I'd be interested if you could point to some cases where scams were able to be pulled off because of "signal noise" in the trust system.