> “Eighty five percent of ad accounts removed or banned for violating our policies never spent a dollar” and “nearly 70% of ad accounts removed for violating ou

> “Eighty five percent of ad accounts removed or banned for violating our policies never spent a dollar” and “nearly 70% of ad accounts removed for violating our policies are removed or banned within a week of account creation, many on the very day they’re created,” the spokesperson said. "Hey, a huge portion of the ads actually being put in front of users are scams". "Don't worry, 90% of the accounts we're banning don't actually put ads in front of users". "I know you hired us to remove the asbestos from your house, but don't worry, 90% of the asbestos we've found was not even in the house, it was already piled in a dumpster outside when we arrived". This is a classic misdirection. The volume of spam increases exponentially with decreased effort. So you can have a really stupid filter that catches 99% of spam requests, while the output of the filter that the user sees is still completely dominated by spam. The really stupid low-effort spam is just so much more numerous. The only things that really matter are: what % of actual user views are given to scams, and how hard would meta have to work to catch the scams that we can see coming through.