4 ms·

The original reuters article quotes Meta as claiming that making them harder to find by removing them from the system. This article doesn't offer any evidence t

by zaphar 9mo ago

The original reuters article quotes Meta as claiming that making them harder to find by removing them from the system. This article doesn't offer any evidence to suggest that Meta is lying. This is lazy and poor reporting as far as I'm concerned.

billyp-rva 9mo ago
Reuters: Restaurant hides unsanitary waste from food inspectors by hiding it in dumpster.
- fwipsy 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
    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 9mo ago
    >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 9mo ago
      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."
- josefx 9mo ago
  That sounds funny, until you realize that there are people who pull ingredients from the waste bin if they still look "good enough". At least one restaurant chain owner in germany was banned from entering his own restaurants after he was caught on camera instructing his staff to do just that, apparently only one instance of a long chain of food safety violations his "frugal" business practices caused.
LordShredda 9mo ago
The issue as I see it is that these searches are run when testers look for them, not on a regular basis. If Facebook can detect them, why let them be displayed in the first place?

by zaphar 9mo ago

billyp-rva 9mo ago

Reuters: Restaurant hides unsanitary waste from food inspectors by hiding it in dumpster.

fwipsy 9mo ago
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 9mo ago
  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 9mo ago
  >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 9mo ago
    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."
josefx 9mo ago
That sounds funny, until you realize that there are people who pull ingredients from the waste bin if they still look "good enough". At least one restaurant chain owner in germany was banned from entering his own restaurants after he was caught on camera instructing his staff to do just that, apparently only one instance of a long chain of food safety violations his "frugal" business practices caused.

LordShredda 9mo ago

The issue as I see it is that these searches are run when testers look for them, not on a regular basis. If Facebook can detect them, why let them be displayed in the first place?