[fwipsy]

Restaurant seen throwing waste in dumpster after removing it from food inspector's plate. Insists there's no other waste on other plates, apparently without checking.

What proportion of the scam ads do you think this approach caught?

[billyp-rva]

I'm not sure, but starting with the ads that appear with most popular searches isn't a bad idea per se. It's a bit like sending law enforcement to protect popular areas.

[gruez]

>Restaurant seen throwing waste in dumpster after removing it from food inspector's plate. Insists there's no other waste on other plates, apparently without checking.

That seems... kinda reasonable?

Health inspector: "hey it looks like your ice machine is dirty, and you're not keeping foods at a hot enough temperature"

Restaurant: "ok we'll clean our ice machines more carefully and install thermometers to monitor the temperature of our hot trays"

Journalist: "Restaurant made health violations harder to find instead of removing them!"

Would it be better if the restaurant was proactively fixing issues before the health inspector brought it up? Yes. Does it make sense to imply that the restaurant was acting maliciously by making health violations "harder to find"? No.

[fwipsy]

Regulators can't verify every single Facebook ad. So, they take a sample. Facebook is creating a Potemkin village - trying to provide a clean sample. It suggests they don't believe that a wider sample would pass muster.

It's more like if the health inspector found e coli in the spaghetti, so Facebook threw out the spaghetti then said "trust us, you don't need to check the macaroni, it's fine."