I ended up in Captcha hell trying to archive this, so I'm afraid I can't provide a link.

Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.

A cache of previously unreported documents reviewed by Reuters also shows that the social-media giant for at least three years failed to identify and stop an avalanche of ads that exposed Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s billions of users to fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.

On average, one December 2024 document notes, the company shows its platforms’ users an estimated 15 billion “higher risk” scam advertisements – those that show clear signs of being fraudulent – every day. Meta earns about $7 billion in annualized revenue from this category of scam ads each year, another late 2024 document states.

Much of the fraud came from marketers acting suspiciously enough to be flagged by Meta’s internal warning systems. But the company only bans advertisers if its automated systems predict the marketers are at least 95% certain to be committing fraud, the documents show. If the company is less certain – but still believes the advertiser is a likely scammer – Meta charges higher ad rates as a penalty, according to the documents. The idea is to dissuade suspect advertisers from placing ads.

The documents further note that users who click on scam ads are likely to see more of them because of Meta’s ad-personalization system, which tries to deliver ads based on a user’s interests.

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 1 year ago
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If you open YouTube shorts in a new account or an account that doesn't store history the ads are nearly exclusively AI slop scams. This is not just a Meta issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I get what you're saying is a joke, but most people don't know about Newpipe or whatever the current alternative app is, and soon most people won't be able to sideload anyway when Google makes it's changes to Android.

    It's not good that Google/Meta are exposing these people to scammed for the crime of simply for not knowing how to sideload.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    But the company only bans advertisers if its automated systems predict the marketers are at least 95% certain to be committing fraud, the documents show. If the company is less certain – but still believes the advertiser is a likely scammer – Meta charges higher ad rates as a penalty, according to the documents.

    What a way to run a business! I think we could all learn a lot from the zuck.

  • source
  • 15 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They're also inflating conversion numbers (the thing company ad spend is based on) by over 50%. Google is doing the same. So even real ads are only half as effective as companies think.

    Good news! There's an ad bubble too!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There I'd a bubble with customer relations management software as well. My company pays per email sent. The CRM has uses AI to write marketing emails.

    Less than 1% of emails are getting clicked on, which leads me to believe all the main providers are automatically putting those emails into spam folders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I mean 1% conversion rate for e-mail marketing isn't particularly unique for an AI written email or otherwise.

    I think 1% conversion is basically the rule of thumb for e-mail marketing, and its about the 10% of that for click through?

    So per 1000, you might get 10 clicks and one person going to whatever you are marketing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago
    [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    I don't understand why legitmate companies are not in arms over this. When that many ads are scams your customers will learn that facebook ads are scams and not buy from you either. Fool me once...

  • source
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • The funny thing is, before Google existed, people had no idea if their marketing attempts were working. Maybe they had some ways of knowing or guessing, but there was no way to know how accurate their metrics were. Internet-based advertising, and tracking-based advertising in particular was supposed to change that.

    And now that we sit here with a duopoly of advertising giants, we're back to the stage where marketers just have to trust that their provider is giving them good helpful information. And how are they supposed to know whether they really can believe it or not? They can't of course! So we've come right back to where we've started.

    But considering they still spent tons of money before Google and Facebook gave them these "analytics", it looks like they probably don't even care that much.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    It’s crazy that people still use Facebook. But I bet even if you don’t use it, you’re still producing value for them when browsing unrelated websites.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I live in Eastern Europe. 1/3 ads I have seen during the past month while reading google news, have been scam ads. My eye is pretty trained towards them. I even reported some that I thought are REALLY crossing the line, like the one that used AI generated image of Prime Minister of my country, leading to a phishing site. Each time I've reported it to google with proof, the answer from google has always been "this does not go against our terms of service"

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    At least Meta straight-up admitted to grifting people, Google has yet to do so.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/cybersecurity@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Most of their ads for goods are scams, I keep seeing great ads for band merchandise but the smallest amount of research shows that the sites are fake. I got scammed a while back by a fake vinyl sale but fortunately my CC company reversed the charges.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    reduced user reports of scams

    Probably by hiding the reporting function or something

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Just ask the CBC.

    In Canada there are a ton of fake scam ads pretending to be politicians and the CBC

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Digital slum lords

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    They probably aren't even counting all the political scams and disinformation. In the past year FB has tried to push right wing extremist propaganda from about 40-50 different sources on me, despite me banning each one, one at a time. What the fuck FB??? Why are you trying super hard to peddle Fascism on Americans? Why are the people running FB such incredible sociopaths? I also got 4 posts from left/liberal sources, and I rejected those too. Why the f*ck would anybody wish to use something as crappy and untrustworthy as Facebook to get political information from? Only if the source was Bernie Sanders himself would I consider "subscribing".

    Zuckerberg deserves the phrase "fascist sociopath" on his tombstone.

  • source