You must log in or register to comment.

w1n5t0nM1k3y t1_jcjwlyw wrote

>The FTC is “seeking information on how these companies scrutinize and restrict paid commercial advertising that is deceptive or exposes consumers to fraudulent health-care products, financial scams, counterfeit and fake goods, or other fraud.”

Spoiler, these companies aren't doing anything to stop scam ads


Unusual-Chemical5828 t1_jcm4eqv wrote

They’re accepting all scam ads, good on the ftc, may not be enough.

YouTube is blatantly allowing Mr beast impersonation offering free cash for anyone clicking on this video ad. Reporting it dose absolutely nothing, they even say they can’t tell you if the ad violated the rules and they took action. You know they don’t take action because the video appears again and again for months.


jhachko t1_jclcbwz wrote

What's with all the idiots downvoting the factual replies? Good god Redditors are a hive minded bunch.


PablosDiscobar t1_jcmvnhp wrote

Insane. Each platform has ginormous teams only dealing with ads moderation and ad policy. Endless meetings about what signals to use to detect fraud, counterfeits, etc. I know because I’ve worked on the issues. It’s not as clearcut as one would think to try to establish moderation policies that can be applied universally without blocking bona fide advertisers.


almisami t1_jcnbe9y wrote

Redditors, or sock puppets from said companies doing damage control?


Twisted_Apple20 t1_jcmt81g wrote

You have to provide evidence before you call something "factual"


jhachko t1_jcrg3r0 wrote

Work in the industry. Know it to be true


nicuramar t1_jconsg9 wrote

It’s not actually a factual reply, though. Especially not without provided evidence.


jhachko t1_jcrg0up wrote

I work in the ad industry. Believe me or don't...idc


Kemizon t1_jcnbmig wrote

Just like Rupert Murdock said recently. It's not about blue or red. It's about the green. Scam advertisers still have to pay money.


jhachko t1_jckbayt wrote

Spoiler, they do, but the sheer volume, and cloaking techniques allow stuff to slip through the cracks. And, some companies are more willing to turn a blind eye than others


w1n5t0nM1k3y t1_jckbyfg wrote

What do you mean by cloaking techniques? I'd like more information on that?

Do they have humans reviewing each and every ad before it is shown to users?


jhachko t1_jclc2au wrote

There's huge ad approval teams that this stuff goes to review with...often offshore, with these companies also now relying on image recognition software...there are ways that can show the reviewers one image, and serve a different image once in distribution in the ad networks. Search for Google cloaking, Facebook cloaking,'ll see listings for it. I know a guy who did that stuff. Too complex for me, but it exists.


w1n5t0nM1k3y t1_jcle3x7 wrote

An easy way to get rid of that is to have the images served off Facebooks/Googles servers rather than let the advertiser host it themselves.

What they are doing is the equivalent of selling someone a TV ad spot, but having no control what content is actually shown during the time slot. Have the validated ad shown from the Facebook servers and there's no ability for it to be changed later.


[deleted] t1_jckcwo0 wrote

...that's a rabbit hole you don't want to get into, but yes.

When videos are flagged for harmful content, it's generally some third-worlder being forced to sit through videos of extreme violence for hours on end.

Social medial companies literally export emotional labor onto the third world so that first world children aren't exposed to beheadings on YouTube and Facebook.


w1n5t0nM1k3y t1_jckd762 wrote

This is about ads, not about content posted by users. They are taking money for ads, and should have someone reviewing the ads for harmful content or just general scamminess before allowing them to be posted.


TommyHamburger t1_jckrzf2 wrote

Social media content reviewers are not just in third world countries. Read any article about the "nightmare" job experience - they're pretty much worldwide.


marketrent OP t1_jcjqpwv wrote

From the linked^1 content:

>The FTC is “seeking information on how these companies scrutinize and restrict paid commercial advertising that is deceptive or exposes consumers to fraudulent health-care products, financial scams, counterfeit and fake goods, or other fraud.”

Further reading:^2

>The amount of money consumers have reported losing to fraud that originated on social media platforms has skyrocketed since 2017. In 2022 alone, consumers reported losing more than $1.2 billion to fraud that started on social media, more than any other contact method, according to FTC data.

>The Commission also is seeking information about how the social media and video streaming companies ensure that consumers are able to identify commercial advertising on their platforms as advertising.

>The orders, which the companies are required to comply with by law, were sent to: Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, LLC; YouTube, LLC; TikTok, Inc.; Snap, Inc.; Twitter, Inc.; Pinterest, Inc.; and Twitch Interactive, Inc.

^1 Jay Peters for The Verge/Vox Media, 17 Mar. 2023,

^2 FTC issues orders to social media and video streaming platforms regarding efforts to address surge in advertising for fraudulent products and scams, 16 Mar. 2023,


prefuse07 t1_jckt8jr wrote

The world would be a much better place without the majority of those companies


AsparagusNo9660 t1_jckwpcn wrote

YouTube is rife with all kinds a misleading ads and outright scams, it is time to put an end to this nonsense.


Unusual-Chemical5828 t1_jcm4qys wrote

Exactly, with all the mr beast impersonation scams it went from the comment section to now full video ads and results ads, reporting dose nothing because they’re there months later, it’s a cash grab on YouTube, it’s obvious.


drawkbox t1_jck3rqm wrote

Let's get this party started!


almisami t1_jcnbvcs wrote

🎶 In heeeeeeere~

🪘 And the scams keep running-running and running running~


phoenix1984 t1_jclz8e4 wrote

lol. Little late to the party. That’s kinda the whole financial point of these systems.


Jaysnewphone t1_jcnbz7g wrote

They should be forced to use the money to pay for our internet. Why do I pay $80.00 per month so they can make money hand over fist?


opticd t1_jco2ud0 wrote

The FTC that said they couldn’t do shit about the internet, cellular, or media oligopoly due to lack of funding? Okay. Lina Khan’s FTC has been an absolute joke.