[raphaelj]

It would be better if Meta would focus on detecting spam at scale.

I put a desk chair on Marketplace last Friday, and got 8 messages that were actually scams. These were trying to "schedule" a Fedex/DHL pickup, and would redirect me to fake branded websites that were requesting my personal details and bank account. This was so obviously fake it baffled me Meta can't detect these automatically.

I am also getting multiple message requests per week asking from hookups. These are obviously fake [1].

---

[1] https://imgur.com/a/yZDPh3C

[ebbp]

It’s a different team, with a different skillset, that would be responsible for that. Big companies can focus on more than one thing at a time.

[BbzzbB]

They ban like 1.7B account per quarter ignoring those blocked at registration. Isn't that focus?

Subjectively too I also see so much less bot activity on Facebook than I do on any other social media.

[zitterbewegung]

I think that large tech companies giving a snapshot of what cool or interesting things they do is great but if there are bigger problems that don’t seem to have that kind of focus it just feels like a marketing / recruiting post (which isn’t that bad). But, the problem would be if they made public antispam systems they can’t give that to spammers which presents as a catch22. Also if you have humans in the loop to evade a spam system it is basically impossible .

[spookthesunset]

At the scale of FB, handling fraud is a non-trivial effort. At any given time there are probably thousands of somewhat well funded fraud teams looking to bypass whatever shiny new countermeasure FB adds to their site.

There is a lot of money to be made from defrauding FB users. This monetary incentive results in criminals investing tons of effort into bypassing anti-fraud stuff. It is a non-stop effort of incremental moves on both parties that will carry on for as long as FB users remain a juicy target.

[monkeybutton]

Somehow I knew it was going to be a bit.ly link before opening the image