FB doesn't care. There is no way to tell them what the report is about (only that it somehow violates "community standards") and they don't care to check if the company even exists.
The only thing they are battling is negative PR as they don't care to take even baby steps to prevent literal thieves advertising on their service.
Heh, not that he gives a shit, the stinking pile bought him a $900K watch, amongst other things.
Paid advertising though? How is it I get Facebook adverts for drugs, with pictures of the drugs, or fake money, from BLUE TICK advertisers? Obviously zero review, LLM or human.
How is it that with paid advertising they can't have one human or even a savvy LLM in the loop spend one single CENT's worth of time reviewing the adverts?
Black holes on Earth are created not in large hadron colliders, they are in human minds.
This just isn't true. Giant numbers of small companies out there doing just fine.
It's only if you need investment that it's hard, because the government sets a floor on what you should expect on a return with the bond market. So a business taking money has to promise a return greater than what the government will just give you.
15% may be hyperbolic but there seems to be a percentage of growth that exists where the company is still perceived as failing.
As a result, it varies based on performance relative to expectation, as well as a wide range of external factors.
A large enough simultaneous spike to reset expectations though, and all the sudden investor expectations switch to ‘lose the least money’.
Notably, the ones who expect/require this up and to the right are generally things like mutual funds, pension funds, and other institutional investors.
You know, the ones who Grandma (or Mom) relies on to not be eating dogfood in retirement.
Also Billionaires.
1. reporting such advertising doesn't do anything,
2. nor the reporting of accounts that are directly soliciting such in messages,
3. nor policing of instagram accounts whose entire profile is just photos of drugs with instructions on how to buy them
It's farcical. It's also standard for these accounts to have tens of duplicate accounts which only differ by an incremental number after their handle.
There's a reasonable argument that user generated content platforms can't survive being held liable for the crimes of their user. However, the advertising is a much smaller volume of content and they're making money directly from it.
City names is probably enough but you can still allow ads from two the same businesses in the same city.
With domains it is even more obvious. No need to pretend everyone could be the nyt.com
They're just happy they get money, don't care if it screws their users. The users aren't their customers...
> West said the growth of this nightmarish industry stems directly from the inaction of Meta and, to a lesser extent, its social-media peers.
> “If there’s anybody who could make a huge dent here, it’s Meta,” she said. “But there’s no hammer over their head.”
This is just f'ing evil in my opinion. Meta could do something that would make a real dent in this problem, but they don't because money.
Meta is basically like a giant leaded gas or CFC factory - they just rake in money while they spew this toxic crap that society has to deal with. If Meta disappeared tomorrow I think the world would be a much better place, and despite some issues I may have with other companies, I really can't say that about any of the other Big Techs.
My wife opened a restaurant a few months back. We're paying for Facebook ads. The early months of operating a food business is burning massive cash, so we had a ~10 dollar payment get rejected on FB ads.
Something about this rejected payment enabled all prior ad campaigns we had disabled. We are still trying to figure it out - noticed it just today. We're in for ~85 dollars in ad campaigns for just 2 days.
Every stupid bug or dark pattern which makes a big tech company money does not get fixed. It will take getting hauled in front of congress to fix it.
Small businesses are prey for tech companies. That's what it feels like.
We all reported an obvious scam and been told "sorry, this doesn't break our standards of community, we know you're not happy but don't give a damn".
Same reason why FB is getting flooded with pages and pages of AI slop
If this continues, people may actually stop sending money to people on the internet completely and not trust anything digital.
Maybe I am too old at this point but I have yet to meet a single 'influencer' (lol, what an idiotic term to be polite but maybe its insulting on purpose to all involved) worth a dime or my time. Quality of life and happiness lie elsewhere, ie actually doing and experiencing things rather than watching others do it.
Is so, it's even more baffling that they can't strike down content with drugs.
But as the other comment say, it's hard to assume good faith from Meta - given that the scammers are paying them to display the ads.
At some point, a prosecutor will start to consider them part of a drug dealing scheme. Zuck escorted by DEA agents would make for one hell of a photo op.
This wasn't some minor court case either: the person(s) have fuck you money to go the distance in the US legal system.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/19/m...
This is why responsible people, or those that can maintain at least a veneer of being able to handle adult responsibilities, are required at the top of the chain for any country (and organisation that actually wants to be somewhat sustainably run). THey're meant to set a standard.
Been a long time since...
When this happens, I submit a report to Facebook and a few days later I get a message from Facebook telling me they have reviewed my report and that they've ruled that the account is not in breach of their rules.
Any lawsuit or quagmire they get embroiled in has very little sympathy from me.
They apparently choose not to, because it improves engagement, or something. Periodically, they have to release this PR pretending it's not their choice, to keep the heat off the question of why they choose the way they do.
Remember the time they enabled a genocide to happen, pretended they had no idea what was going on, but internal documents were leaked showing they knew what was going on, and intentionally chose to allow it?
The first thing I was presented with was an AI image of some random group. I've never realised Facebook has become that bad.
sanswork•8mo ago
Given the ability to shadowban from public posting and a few hours I'm pretty sure I could write a single function to block 95% of the scams. It would be one thing if they were dealing with complex scammers but the fact is they haven't even tried to stop the very low hanging fruit that you could solve with a few regexes.
laweijfmvo•8mo ago
mrguyorama•8mo ago
But "We block 99% of fraud/spam" is an outright useless and purposefully non-informative datapoint. It doesn't tell you anything. As a statement, it is equally true both for the SuperGoodMerchant who lets through a single fraudulent advertisement a year, and it is also true for UltraScamAds who let through a million scam ads a day. It depends entirely on the rate of fraud attempts compared to the rate of legitimate requests.
An actual useful metric if you want to avoid fraud or scams would be, what percentage of ads do they run that turn out to be fraudulent?
My anecdotal experience is like 95%.
650REDHAIR•8mo ago
Reporting illegal firearms sales.
The post and report in question were ~6mo old at the time of review and I believe had already been deleted by either the OP or a sub mod.
I got a similar warning (but no ban) reporting similar sales on FB.
They don’t care to fix it
soco•8mo ago