> How are copyright holders going to chase spun-up shell companies in some random country abroad where there is zero chance of pursuing them? You still need to

> How are copyright holders going to chase spun-up shell companies in some random country abroad where there is zero chance of pursuing them? You still need to set up a shell company. That's still an extra barrier to entry. > my ad either more or less is a financial scam If your ad has anything to do with finance or is in a grey area it gets extra scrutiny. > people are lured to a site (which gets changed after approval) It's trivial for advertising companies to screen-scrape target websites and alert/suspend ads in case of significant changes. Maybe having liability would push them to do this and close this attack vector? > it names some new crypto thing which the vetter has never heard of before. In this case it gets escalated to a team that can do proper due diligence on it and only then it gets published if it ends up passing muster. > uses the likeness of a celebrity specific to the target country and that the vetter doesn't recognise That's a different problem entirely and is much less serious than financial scams. If that's the only issue with the ad (it might not be - if it's supplements or some other health-related BS it's likely to fail on health-related rules). > Do you need to have vetters in every country and with knowledge of each industry - is this medical ad a scam? Yes - why is this so outrageous? > Facebook might have the means of dealing with something like this, but for anyone smaller hosting ads that wouldn't be the case. So then you'd need a way of segmenting legislation by scale. Potentially, or alternatively we might not. Maybe having the potential to force harmful content in front of millions of people needs to be regulated closely, and if you can't do it responsibly, well tough luck - what matters is the potential harm, not how many employees or your company turnover. Nobody has a right to be in business after all, and it's clear that the industry is not capable of self-regulation. > Then it's whack a mole with new scammers reappearing if you smack one down. I don't doubt there's always going to be a few that fall through the cracks, but the objective is to at least raise the barrier to entry and hopefully having a better paper trail that makes it easier to catch up with the offenders if they do manage to slip through.