[lazzlazzlazz]

> Compare that to social networks where you can directly extract payments from other members by listing fake items for sale, laundering payments from fake credit cards (on other fake profiles) to yourself, or link-baiting other users. A single successful fake account on those networks can easily net you $100.

You're comparing apples to oranges: fake accounts used for "like spam", etc. are different with regard to their complexity and scalability than accounts used for phishing. There are phishing accounts on Facebook as well.

> Again, follow the money, FB has very little incentive to stop these fraudsters who are only inflating their own numbers.

Facebook has a massive incentive to stop fake accounts: fake accounts decrease meaningful conversions that lower the ROI for advertisers, which is tracked carefully both by Facebook and advertisers. This directly lowers the price for ad space on Facebook, and makes Facebook look noisier and less impactful than other channels.

Following the money leads a direct, unmistakeable path to a strong incentive to shut down fake accounts.

It's also very bad to accidentally shut down real accounts, especially in cases where users could be confused enough not to return.

[kbenson]

> Following the money leads a direct, unmistakable path to a strong incentive to shut down fake accounts.

I think the difference in opinion on that is that if you look at the long term, which you hope FB are, then yes fake accounts that reduce ROI for advertisers are bad. Unfortunately, they lead to a short term increase in FB ad revenue, which disincentivizes stopping fake accounts too effectively, as it may actually be a noticeable dip in revenue, depending on the scope of the problem.

In a worst case scenario, FB might be in a situation where 20% of ad revenue is from bad impressions, and completely stopping that, if they had the power, would have major negative repercussions for the company. There would need to be some hard choice made about the best path out of that situation. Not that I think this is necessarily the case, but it is an example of how the incentives may not be as clear as they seem.

[junker101]

> Facebook has a massive incentive to stop fake accounts

As an advertiser, I am pretty certain this is not the quite case in (current) reality. A large part of FB's proposition for more money from us includes:

A) Pay more for increased reach and engagement.

B) Our traffic isn't decreasing (despite outside reports/indications to the contrary) and you would be missing a massive and engaged audience if you didn't spend with FB.

This combined with the fact that a _lot_ of ad-spend isn't directly attributable to conversions (often by design), means that more "activity" whether its fake or not, drives up ad-revenue for FB.

You see the same issue occur with other publishers by the way. -It is not uncommon for a publisher (or other related party) to purchase a swarm of fake bot traffic to boost impression and engagement numbers of an ad buy they've sold. -Advertisers un-aware of how much of the traffic to their ads are bots vs legitimate humans (read: "publishers stealing money from advertisers") is a major problem for advertisers, but the bigger the publisher, the harder it is to 'not' be on their platform too. (and FB is _very_ big)

[lazzlazzlazz]

> B) Our traffic isn't decreasing (despite outside reports/indications to the contrary)

It's not. Even the "leaks" make clear that overall traffic is still increasing, both overall and per person.

> This combined with the fact that a _lot_ of ad-spend isn't directly attributable to conversions

I've seen direct reports from advertisers at my last job (doing social media analytics) that show how well they can quantify ROI for ad spend. Fake accounts would negatively impact this number, and it would be extremely obvious immediately.