[wahnfrieden]

One third of all scams in the US are operated on Meta platforms.

They have a policy that if a scammer’s ad spend makes up more than 0.15% of Meta revenue, moderators must protect the scammer instead of blocking it.

Meta is working hard to scam your dad for ad spend. It’s hugely profitable for them and they are helping to grow it per internal policy. They are only interested in fostering big-time scammers.

[wahnfrieden]

I would like to understand the downvotes: is it from doubting these facts? If so, I will post the sources (which were recent mainstream news on the front page of HN). Or is it because of the negative sentiment about Meta? Or disagreement that Meta has any responsibility over moderating scams they promote?

These are verified facts that make up the substance of my message:

- Meta protects their biggest scammers, per internal policy from leadership

- Meta makes a huge profit from these scammers (10% of total revenue; or in other words, their scam revenue is approximately 5x larger than the total Oculus revenue)

- The scams that Meta promotes represent one-third of the total online scams in the US

[ryandrake]

> I would like to understand the downvotes: is it from doubting these facts? If so, I will post the sources (which were recent mainstream news on the front page of HN). Or is it because of the negative sentiment about Meta? Or disagreement that Meta has any responsibility over moderating scams they promote?

It may be as simple as "there are a lot of Meta employees browsing HN."

[cutemonster]

> 0.15% of Meta revenue

That must be a gigantic amount of money, you (or someone else) don't happen to know who any of those people (or organizations?) are?

[wahnfrieden]

I don’t but there was national news about this policy some days ago - they must exist because of the enormous volume (one third of all scams in US not to mention abroad) and the fact that they created this policy for a reason. Meta is a criminal empire

[filoleg]

> One third of all scams in the US are operated on Meta platforms.

And 100% of all internet scam traffic in the US goes through either US ISPs or US cell carriers.

Should those entities be held liable instead? Or maybe, Meta instead should scan users' private messages on their platforms and report everything that might seem problematic (whatever the current US administration in power considers as problematic) to the relevant authorities?

My personal take: there should be more effort in going after the actual scammers, as opposed to going after the "data pipes" (of various abstraction levels) like Meta/ISPs/cell carriers/etc.

[gherkinnn]

Meta is not a pipe. Meta curates the feed to maximise their income to the detriment of everyone else.

[alex1138]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15956811

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719

[jddj]

> Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

[slumberlust]

If the ISP was taking ad money they know were scams...yes they should be liable.

International law and extradition has already proven to be too slow and small scale to be effective.