Are there reasons why Brexit might have been popular? Yes, in the sense I've heard about them. Should we then be blaming Facebook?
The problem is consolidated power. Carole herself said in her talk that it's not about Trump vs no Trump (sorry. It's been a bit since I've seen the talk. I shouldn't just paraphrase), it's about citizens' right to meaningfully choose in an information landscape
This is the problem with Facebook. It becomes an Everything App. Who cares about fraud (say, on marketplace, needless to say the site itself, the way it's screwed over businesses) on the platform when you can grow big? Let's say in this case, the actual case I'm commenting on - "Facebook didn't know". Well then that's the problem, isn't it? It's a company set up by someone of low moral reasoning (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122) that doesn't set out to make a good product, something people will actually like. It's about dominating an industry and ads can be totally unvetted or scummy or scammy if it enables them to do this
Results:
- Reporting a message does nothing no matter how much the content breaks their terms of use. 100% of messages I reported bounced back in a matter of minutes with "no action"
- However, using the "request another review" function, which is available after the initial "no action" response, actually seems to work. How quickly this works seems to vary, I've had actions taken as result of this from 1 day to multiple weeks.
Tiny providers have to scramble, because they'll be destroyed by a single failure to handle it fast enough.
For a lot of people, government regulation of this sort is not desirable, but at what point does someone need to drop the hammer to stop this?
This truly is a case where AI is the solution. There's no way to automate this at scale with humans. As AI gets better hopefully detection and moderation will catch up
through meta might have lobbied on both
but they lobby for specific (often pretty bad) forms of age verification to be able to
- spy on people better
- have a regulatory moat where due to beady designed laws new alternatives have a much higher hurdle/initial investments and in turn never get anywhere
If you are downvoting this please explain why, it’s important that we come to a shared understanding how these things are ever okay for corporations and not individuals…
You don't have Metas legal team nor does the power structure find your valuable to have helping them out nor can you harm them if you don't like them.
There was, quite famously, a man who got away with these sorts of things for quite some time. He owned an island. I can't recall his name....
Search something rather innocuous like "news". Click the first thing then go back to the main page. You have to watch through the ad.
The amount of slop you will get suggested as soon as the algorithm warms up is nuts. The ad you are first served might also be slop. I mean AI generated video advertising overt bogus cures (a memorable one recently - "did you know the Bible has the answer to Alzheimer's?") over AI slop footage.
When I compare to my normal/auth'd Youtube experience, it feels like a totally different app. I have never really experienced such a cheap illustration of the "Youtube rabbit hole" effect. The degree to which AI authored advertising is participating in this is imo pretty concerning if you have, in particular, older parents or relatives.
Meta knowingly runs scam ads, they just charge more to run them: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/consumer-watchdog-g...
> Reuters also reported that Meta internally projected in 2024 that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running ads for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.
At $employer we're CONSTANTLY fighting fake ads cloning our brand. Their various brand protection features seem deliberately inept and ineffective.
I didn't realize the original was behind a paywall.
If Zuckerberg wants total voting control, then he can also deal with the consequences of being caught hosting CSAM.
https://www.engadget.com/2231100/meta-apps-displayed-ads-tha...
“Just stop using meta properties then”. Sure but some of us have wives, friends, etc
So it's the SAME AD PLATFORM? Even in MESSENGER? My god. Not only is this whole thing horrible but it's doubly so
How on earth can they know?
Again, and again, and again, these technologies have proven ineffective to moderate content. User posted and otherwise. Until we have a legal mechanism in place to hold these companies meaningfully liable for this, it will not stop.
Every single one of these has the same damn list of excuses about cost of hiring human moderators, but I promise everyone reading this if you make the executives of a social network legally liable for distributing CSAM on their platforms, they will find all kinds of money to get human moderators really fucking quick.
That serves as an example, a deterrent. "Clean up the act, or you too can go from being a hyper-wealthy executive to the biohazard cleanup detail in a cell block at Leavenworth."
Absolutely!
Related story... my wife works in a regulated industry and she was running facebook ads for one of their new products. Facebook had just introduced Ai generated ad-copy and the ad agency didn't know that option was turned on by default so they uploaded all of the ad-copy that was approved by legal and then facebook was running all of these alternative ads that were actually illegal because the copy it wrote were all claims they are not allowed to make in that industry. They only caught it because one of the ads was served to my wife and she immediately noticed it was copy that was not approved and something they could not claim.
I always assumed these shady ads were created by shady people, and I think a lot are, but I wonder how many companies are unintentionally running shady ads because facebook generated those ads.
Is this firehose of social media actually a societal benefit? I’m less and less convinced that it is.
no, it's just more work, and it's not like facebook could not afford to pay more people
So you'd think that a sophisticated tech company that had paid that financial penalty would find it pretty easy to have a simple text filter for "Martin Lewis" and perhaps even an image filter for his very distinctive face which pushed those ads into a moderation queue, particularly if they both appear together in the scam-ridden investment opportunity category and the advertiser is a new one (that's probably not going to stick around under that name for very long). But no, they remained a common theme for years afterwards...
And, as the sibling ad points out, if you report stuff that's obvious scams you get told they've reviewed it and found it to be OK. Plus you get more of it promoted into your feed because hitting the report button is a form of interaction with it...
I actually had some sympathy for Facebook when they were condemned for not moderating fake news from Myanmar they have no real capacity to moderate, or condemned for daring to slap the gentlest of content warnings on antivax stuff in contexts they understand perfectly well... but when it comes to ads they get paid for, which is a much smaller fraction of Facebook content that is unambiguously not protected speech or a matter of opinion, their lack of effort is quite something to behold.
Ad pipeline is malware at this point.
Always has been.
Occasionally my girlfriend will comment on something she saw in an ad, even buy things off them. Thing is though that ad platforms don't seem to be doing anything meaningful to stop bad actors.
So really, clicking any ad and interacting with it amounts to placing your trust in a total stranger with the only criteria being they paid a little bit of money for you to see them. To which you will then download their software, give them your credit card, or whatever the end goal is.
It's far easier to assume anything in an advertisement is a scam and block them accordingly.
How is this our problem? We make the rules, the obey them. If they can't they ought to be shut down. If they want to argue that at their scale they can't abide by the rules society lays down for them we can cut them down to something human sized.
For software, sometimes paying off that debt means getting rid of some of your features/code/stuff. i.e. there's another alternative to "let's AI the AI".
scale the business down. shrink the number of users. make less money.
It doesn't matter how many people are consuming the ads, it matters how many companies are placing the ads.
Let's not invent excuses for the trillion-dollar tech companies. Meta has plenty of money to put humans in the loop. It just chooses not to because some upper manager needs to buy a fifth house, or a third private island.
Secondly, if I’m wrong and it’s not possible, then you stop providing the dangerous service! There’s no reason Meta has to exist in its current form. If it can’t meet basic standards of human dignity in its product offerings, then it should change or cease to exist.
The truth is impunity is the rule, victims especially of CSA and CSAM, or revenge porn, or of Mark or Musk's companies generating naked images of their body have basically no power, and its an exception when someone who is an abuser AND has any amount of social standing is put away.
but, plenty of people do end up in prison, especially if its facebook/dropbox/gmail/etc... they just dont make the headlines (especially nationally) unless its especially heinous.
No, not at all.
"removing over 36 million pieces of child sexual exploitation content last year"
Not CSAM.
Also how much of the child exploitation material was created by the children themselves?
Teenagers who send each other nude photos are creating child exploitation material but you hardly want to put them jail for that.
Not only are their AI tools ineffective at what they claim they should be doing, they can't even be bothered to prevent removed ads from being re-uploaded later on.
As for the cost of content moderation, Meta has zero interest in any type of moderation to begin with. The cost is just a public-facing excuse. In Careless People, Wynn-Williams mentions that Facebook didn't do anything to stop anti rohingya posts in Myanmar because they did not have any fact checkers who could read Burmese. In other words, they did not have a single moderator in the damn country.
On the other hand, now try to ban that telecom. Gods will laugh.
The eternal question of tech platforms - should we be responsible for what users post? (Ads are not user posted, so we can eliminated that factor. Even if posted by 'users' it's a separate pipeline) But with companies like Meta it doesn't even have to go that far - the philosophical conversation - because it's so hostile to users. People get banned for mild things all the time (apparently extra the case, since the 'pivot' to AI) while the absolutely horrible things you report never get taken down
I would never say a platform has to be responsible for what a user posts, and to be clear, I mean either a user of the platform, or a user of the platform's ad tooling, or anything else. Anything that arrives via an upload button of some sort. However: If you as a platform then distribute what has been posted, yes, you are responsible for it. Your service is now broadcasting that content. If that content is harmful, you should be held responsible.
Who else conceivably could be? And if the response to this is "well we have way too much stuff coming in to moderate it" okay, then restrict how much stuff comes in. Require approval on individual posts or on accounts.
Like, this is such basic shit. If a newspaper printed CSAM on the front page, they would be arrested within the day. But because Facebook is real super big they just don't have to take care of their house? Ridiculous.
---
This is sarcasm, by the way. Most decent people make sure what they're about to do won't harm other people and if would cause harm they wouldn't do it. But social media companies and ad networks aren't run by decent people. They're run by people who believe their business is entitled to infinite scale regardless of how many people are harmed along the way.
you say sarcasm, but i think this is literally true.
this isn't a defense of facebook, i think that their scale makes it actually impossible (while remaining a going concern). the result should be that they arent allowed to operate at a scale that they cant handle, instead of being able to brush it under the rug every ~6 months when an incident hits the news cycle.
When people started using Grok to make CSAM the platform's response was to paywall image generation. If we don't start making the driver responsible for what the car does, the coder responsible for what the code does, the CEO responsible for what the company does, they will continue to exploit people in increasingly horiffic ways.
Well rational thinking people wouldn't. A great many using CSAM as a wedge to de-anonymize the Internet or institute regressive "profanity" laws are often neither.
I'm just bemoaning the fact FB can't even pretend they care when they're so busy banning people for nothing
Part a) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24201306 part b) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24776748
But if a thousand people see some ad then the amount of damage is not much compared to their overall business. I'd go for a healthy penalty on top, and adding in more transparency to make sure they don't hide the real extent of the problem, but it's still probably small to them.
Well, tough. Maybe they should have to find a way. If that means requiring everybody to have to pay to afford the moderators then so be it. All the other companies would have to as well.
right, that was my point.
it would require millions on millions of employees, spread across ~every country. between the payroll, buildings and property, equipment, etc. i just dont think its possible at that scale.
(again, emphasizing that im not saying this as an excuse for facebook, but that i dont really think facebook/instagram should exist at all)
Certainly it’s not unreasonable to have them disprove that
And the scope could be further reduced by looking at posts with more then a few views.
Who ever said that companies should have the right to exploit network effects to dominate online communications?
One of the more perverse aspects of risk prevention is that riskier customers are often way more lucrative. It's kind of inherent to the notion that markets price risk into transactions. The thing is, illegal behavior is also just a particular kind of risk: if someone wants to sell nudify apps or scam old people, Facebook could conceivably be on the hook[0] for damages if they're caught. And in a sense, a risk premium is just a fancy kind of bribe: if Facebook won't take my ads because they think they're too risky, then I'll just pay more and more until Facebook accepts them.
With illegal behavior, we hope that we can make the punishment high enough that Facebook refuses any conceivable risk premium the perpetrators of that behavior would be willing to pay. The problem is that Facebook is really desperate for any increasing growth story, and when you're too big to fail, your growth story is to drip-feed enshittify your stack. Increasing tolerance for illegal behavior is downstream of this: you cut enforcement, tell them to automate more, they become easier to bypass... and you make more money. Because it turns out all that risky behavior... is only risky for normal people. Facebook can launder[1] the risk away and make a tidy profit.
[0] Do not tell me about CDA 230, I was there when the old magic was written.
[1] See also, HSBC turning themselves into a literal money laundering operation.
Make that the policy, and I'd bet my life savings that Facebook, miraculously, will figure out how to detect this shit with bulletproof accuracy.
the comment that started this thread says:
"these technologies have proven ineffective to moderate content. User posted and otherwise"
which is what i (and i assumed the parent to my comment) was replying to. i agree that paid ad campaigns alone is more tractable.