3 ms·

I haven't seen this on Facebook (I have ads blocked there and see almost nothing from people I don't know personally), but I see this a lot on Twitter, on YouTu

I haven't seen this on Facebook (I have ads blocked there and see almost nothing from people I don't know personally), but I see this a lot on Twitter, on YouTube, and in email spam (some of which makes it through gmail's spam filter). The scammers have fairly sophisticated tactics and a high degree of automation; flagging and blocking individual spam accounts is useless, they clearly have scripts churning them out. Fighting spam is a legitimately difficult problem. It's particularly difficult with crypto-scams, because the per-victim profit is so high that the spammers wind up well-resourced. Given that other major platforms have mostly failed to deal with the same scammers, it doesn't seem reasonable to hold Facebook-in-particular liable.

Nextgrid 5y ago
The difference between spam and this is that these are paid advertisements that Facebook happily profited from.
- jimrandomh 5y ago
  Unlikely. Given that these are scammers, they wouldn't want a trail of payment information leading to their real identities. So I'd expect them to use stolen credit cards and stolen accounts, which tends to lead to a lot of chargebacks and a net loss.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    There's some loss for sure, but given that ads are free to Facebook, even a 10% success ratio is still profit. Either way, whether it's later charged back or not, it doesn't change the fact that Facebook is initially happy to take money to artificially promote & spread this harmful content.
    - jimrandomh 5y ago
      Chargebacks aren't free; the payment processors charge a substantial penalty.
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        I'm sure these are negotiable - I don't expect Facebook to be held to the same standard as small businesses. They are big enough to become their own processor if they wanted to. It doesn't even have to end up in chargebacks even - if the scam ads are profitable, it's in their best interest to keep paying for the ads legitimately and fly under the radar (yes - the account may be under a false identity, but nobody cares if the money is there; these things tend to come to light when someone looks closer, but if the account is in good standing there's no reason for anyone to do so).
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I agree wholeheartedly. Spam (email, if that's the comparison here) can be sent by anyone to anyone. Advertising (and I can't believe this would need explaining, unless my understanding is ridiculously simplified) involves a business transaction between two parties: Party #1: I want to run this ad on your network Party #2: OK, pay me money and we'll run it The party being paid (should - and this seems to be the crux of the issue at hand) be responsible for what they're serving up because otherwise they could be serving up viruses, malware, Russian propaganda, etc. The ad network (looking at your Google and Facebook) are the party serving the advertisement to the public; distributing the ad as software, handing out the flyers containing the message, whatever analogy you prefer. I'm starting down the "should" slippery slope here: The ad network has (should have) a responsibility to both police the content for obvious malevolence and the ability to point to a legitimate, traceable Party #1 to hold legally responsible for the kind of content in question here. What are the rules governing TV, radio, and print advertising? Could a TV ad company get away with this same advert? If not, why is internet advertising held to a less stringent set of rules? Could I pay Facebook to run an ad that's actually a recently released full length movie? Separate topic: Do they wonder why ad-blocking is an increasingly popular practice?
ronsor 5y ago
So many YouTube channels get hacked and used to post those weird Ethereum/Ripple/whatever crypto livestreams where there's a video in the corner of Big Crypto Icon Guy giving some kind of talk and a big banner telling you to send money to XYZ address.
- duskwuff 5y ago
  This is still an ongoing problem; YouTube has just gotten somewhat better about not surfacing these streams in recommendations. Searching for livestreams with the keywords "Elon Musk" makes it pretty clear that they're still quite active: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elon+musk&sp=EgJAAQ%253D%253D https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elon+musk&sp=Eg...

Nextgrid 5y ago

The difference between spam and this is that these are paid advertisements that Facebook happily profited from.

jimrandomh 5y ago
Unlikely. Given that these are scammers, they wouldn't want a trail of payment information leading to their real identities. So I'd expect them to use stolen credit cards and stolen accounts, which tends to lead to a lot of chargebacks and a net loss.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  There's some loss for sure, but given that ads are free to Facebook, even a 10% success ratio is still profit. Either way, whether it's later charged back or not, it doesn't change the fact that Facebook is initially happy to take money to artificially promote & spread this harmful content.
  - jimrandomh 5y ago
    Chargebacks aren't free; the payment processors charge a substantial penalty.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      I'm sure these are negotiable - I don't expect Facebook to be held to the same standard as small businesses. They are big enough to become their own processor if they wanted to. It doesn't even have to end up in chargebacks even - if the scam ads are profitable, it's in their best interest to keep paying for the ads legitimately and fly under the radar (yes - the account may be under a false identity, but nobody cares if the money is there; these things tend to come to light when someone looks closer, but if the account is in good standing there's no reason for anyone to do so).
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. Spam (email, if that's the comparison here) can be sent by anyone to anyone. Advertising (and I can't believe this would need explaining, unless my understanding is ridiculously simplified) involves a business transaction between two parties: Party #1: I want to run this ad on your network Party #2: OK, pay me money and we'll run it The party being paid (should - and this seems to be the crux of the issue at hand) be responsible for what they're serving up because otherwise they could be serving up viruses, malware, Russian propaganda, etc. The ad network (looking at your Google and Facebook) are the party serving the advertisement to the public; distributing the ad as software, handing out the flyers containing the message, whatever analogy you prefer. I'm starting down the "should" slippery slope here: The ad network has (should have) a responsibility to both police the content for obvious malevolence and the ability to point to a legitimate, traceable Party #1 to hold legally responsible for the kind of content in question here. What are the rules governing TV, radio, and print advertising? Could a TV ad company get away with this same advert? If not, why is internet advertising held to a less stringent set of rules? Could I pay Facebook to run an ad that's actually a recently released full length movie? Separate topic: Do they wonder why ad-blocking is an increasingly popular practice?

ronsor 5y ago

So many YouTube channels get hacked and used to post those weird Ethereum/Ripple/whatever crypto livestreams where there's a video in the corner of Big Crypto Icon Guy giving some kind of talk and a big banner telling you to send money to XYZ address.

duskwuff 5y ago
This is still an ongoing problem; YouTube has just gotten somewhat better about not surfacing these streams in recommendations. Searching for livestreams with the keywords "Elon Musk" makes it pretty clear that they're still quite active: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elon+musk&sp=EgJAAQ%253D%253D https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elon+musk&sp=Eg...