Finally! I've been wondering how Facebook and Google can get away with running ads that are clearly malicious in nature like https://imgur.com/a/Lk85lST (which my elderly father got a while back). Organizations like the Ads Standards Council exist for a reason, and there's no excuse for the "new" digital media not to follow the obligations for advertising as every other form of media is.
My mom fell for a similar ad on Google for her computer. They got her to install a remote access tool but she managed to wise up before they got anything sensitive (aside from some payment, iirc).
I know it is a rats nest of jurisdictions and technological boundaries to track down people who are, I will admit, relatively small time scammers. The organizations capable of doing so often have much bigger fish to fry.
This is why I fully endorse making Google and FB liable. They are in a commercial arrangement with these scammers, and providing them access to clueless elderly folk who maybe should know better, but often don't.
So, the company that's advertising, do they sell farm apples or do they do tech that somewhat impersonates Apple, one of the largest companies in the world.
I can't click on a link in an image so I wouldn't know If malware installed I would expect google to detect and disable that ad.
She clicked an ad. Removing ads from search results should be the goal. She made a mistake. Google blended ads with results. She did not realize she was clicking an ad.
Same here in NL plenty of google searches for phone numbers, even of government institutions will turn up numbers owned by scammers. Usually these will connect you through to some tape that pretends you are nth in line to keep you hanging while they ding your account for the maximum rate per minute. The phone companies are in cahoots, they make tons of money of this too.
In a similar vein: Most of the adverts I see on Reddit are for very obvious Ponzi schemes. But I guess because they're "social media" and "disruptive" it's ok?
If the automation can't weed out malicious scams and phishing ads that are obvious to a human, perhaps they're not doing what needs to be done "at scale".
Andrew is a persistent guy, and he really hates this shit. (understandably)
FB don't have a leg to stand on here.. its trivial to see these scams are scams, they plaster his face and name all over them, make it look official by putting ABC NEWS or 7 NEWS etc (mainstream media) logo's all over it and when you click the link it'll go through to an obviously hacked web site (eg www.bobsgardeningandplants.com.au/cryptonews).
FB couldn't possibly claim its too hard or that there is no way that they could know.
> FB couldn't possibly claim its too hard or that there is no way that they could know.
I have always wondered how this is a defense. Surely it's just admitting you can't run your operation safely at scale and so shouldn't be running it at that scale in the first place?
There seems to be an expectation that scale is the most important thing, but if scale stops being managable or safe, why does that mean we just give up and let it grow?
If I made a fuel bowser that went so fast that fuel went all over the place, saying "Sorry, it's too fast to manage" isn't really a valid defense. I should slow down the fuel bowser.
If found guilty, I imagine it would set a precedent that opens the floodgates for a great many more to follow.
I don't know much about the AU legal system; if this were the US they would likely try to get the prosecutors to drop the case / settle out of court in exchange for a vague promise to do better.
A precedent that a publisher is responsible for ads that it publishes? I expect that it already exists. They may as well plead guilty and promise at the sentencing that they are improving their systems so that it won't happen (much) ever again.
Edit: in this case, the charges seem to be a bit more involved, such as money laundering. I suppose publishing misleading ads has been happening for a long time, and I don't know exactly what laws apply. Plenty of people may have been scammed buying dodgy used cars in classified ads, for example.
Once one firm has established how to do it and win it basically becomes open season for anyone to follow the exact same playbook. Even if you don't necessarily lose the other ones, simply spending money on lawyers to get dozens or hundreds or thousands of copycat lawsuits dismissed is a huge hassle.
There's a reason why personal injury and mesothelioma ads get placed on the radio and TV so often in the US; "you may be entitled to financial compensation" and all that.
A used car is a used car. Caveat emptor beyond that.
Apple support line must be a support line for Apple. Using someone's likeness means they have approved to have their likeness used.
Even if these things are already illegal, and even if the publishers are nominally responsible for not allowing illegal advertisements, at least there will be a precedent of these kinds of scams actually getting prosecuted.
There needs to be an actual injunction against further fraud, meaning every instance is a liability, rather than what is most likely going to be a slap on the wrist.
Not a lawyer and not an Australian but isn't the whole point that there isn't a prosecutor in this situation. The miner has hired a lawyer to prosecute the case on his behalf ?
Yes it still 270k , that's a lot of lawyer hours and they might become open to the same penalties in other jurisdictions. If you calculate times 100nations and an increased volume plus the PR hit, it's best to delegate to legal.
Worth noticing that prosecution of foreign companies under Australian law requires the consent of the Federal Attorney General. This consent has been given, meaning that the Australian Govt agrees he has a prima facie case. Forrest has deep pockets and I hope he succeeds. FB's 'we're only a platform' schtick is wearing pretty thin.
> Forrest, Australia's richest man and chairman of Fortescue Metals Group (FMG.AX), said he was taking the action to stop people losing money to clickbait advertising scams, such as ones using his image to promote cryptocurrency schemes.
> This action is being taken on behalf of those everyday Australians – Mums and Dads, Grans and Grandads – who work all their lives to gather their savings and to ensure those savings aren't swindled away by scammers," Forrest said in a statement.
Lol wait does anyone actually believe this shit? This article reads like it was dictated by the rich man's publicist. This is what throwing a tantrum looks like when you have infinite money.
If it were an Australian source, it may very well literally be that it was dictated by his publicist. Many Australian mining magnates are also part of a media cartel, and have financial interests against new media.
Politicans and Miners are indistinguishable in this Australia. The main political party is in cahoots with the large media companies and is a boys club of ex-miners come polticans.
This is great to know -- feels commonsensical in a way (I think Australia and I think Murdoch, mining, and fun loud Aussies traveling abroad, so 2/3 I guess). Thanks!
Well, it’s overreach, but only slightly. Facebook is not stopping obvious scams he has reported, so yeah - causing Facebook pain seems like a very good way to make them out systems into place that stop scammers.
If a billionaire wants to make Facebook’s costs go up, he will. And this particular billionaire is quite willing to spend a lot of money to make it happen. Makes him look good in Australia. There isn’t any downside for him.
Oh I'm not complaining if he wants to bleed Facebook half to death. My gripe is more with something like this appearing in a wire service masquerading as journalism and not, say, a pop-up ad, or one of those flyers they hand out in front of the flea market. Bad people doing good things every now and again are still bad people.
What an odd viewpoint. The article is factual reporting on what's happening, and includes a statement from one of they key parties. This statement will obviously have been vetted or written by a PR person who works for that party.
Journalism regularly includes quotes from parties involved without accusation of dimishment of quality; In fact it's more common for journalists to face criticism for _not_ having taken statements from parties.
The article shows no opinion of either party being "good" or "bad".
43 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 93.7 ms ] threadI know it is a rats nest of jurisdictions and technological boundaries to track down people who are, I will admit, relatively small time scammers. The organizations capable of doing so often have much bigger fish to fry.
This is why I fully endorse making Google and FB liable. They are in a commercial arrangement with these scammers, and providing them access to clueless elderly folk who maybe should know better, but often don't.
That last thing you want is ads to need to be approved by a Standards Council with appointees controlling advertising.
If it was related to Apple the company. It could be a third-party selling ad repair services and support or educational material.
You can't ban ads because someone may not notice they are clicking an ad vs a normal search result. If you care you make the difference clearer.
Should there be a google-lite page that would be a filtered starting point for people like this?
She clicked an ad. Removing ads from search results should be the goal. She made a mistake. Google blended ads with results. She did not realize she was clicking an ad.
https://ibb.co/Wtn38Hf
(there was no malware)
Andrew is a persistent guy, and he really hates this shit. (understandably)
FB don't have a leg to stand on here.. its trivial to see these scams are scams, they plaster his face and name all over them, make it look official by putting ABC NEWS or 7 NEWS etc (mainstream media) logo's all over it and when you click the link it'll go through to an obviously hacked web site (eg www.bobsgardeningandplants.com.au/cryptonews).
FB couldn't possibly claim its too hard or that there is no way that they could know.
I have always wondered how this is a defense. Surely it's just admitting you can't run your operation safely at scale and so shouldn't be running it at that scale in the first place?
There seems to be an expectation that scale is the most important thing, but if scale stops being managable or safe, why does that mean we just give up and let it grow?
If I made a fuel bowser that went so fast that fuel went all over the place, saying "Sorry, it's too fast to manage" isn't really a valid defense. I should slow down the fuel bowser.
Would they even find it worth employing a lawyer to defend it?
I don't know much about the AU legal system; if this were the US they would likely try to get the prosecutors to drop the case / settle out of court in exchange for a vague promise to do better.
Edit: in this case, the charges seem to be a bit more involved, such as money laundering. I suppose publishing misleading ads has been happening for a long time, and I don't know exactly what laws apply. Plenty of people may have been scammed buying dodgy used cars in classified ads, for example.
There's a reason why personal injury and mesothelioma ads get placed on the radio and TV so often in the US; "you may be entitled to financial compensation" and all that.
Apple support line must be a support line for Apple. Using someone's likeness means they have approved to have their likeness used.
Even if these things are already illegal, and even if the publishers are nominally responsible for not allowing illegal advertisements, at least there will be a precedent of these kinds of scams actually getting prosecuted.
There needs to be an actual injunction against further fraud, meaning every instance is a liability, rather than what is most likely going to be a slap on the wrist.
One can dream, I guess.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/apple-co-founder-steve-woznia...
> This action is being taken on behalf of those everyday Australians – Mums and Dads, Grans and Grandads – who work all their lives to gather their savings and to ensure those savings aren't swindled away by scammers," Forrest said in a statement.
Lol wait does anyone actually believe this shit? This article reads like it was dictated by the rich man's publicist. This is what throwing a tantrum looks like when you have infinite money.
https://act.greenpeace.org.au/dirtypower
If a billionaire wants to make Facebook’s costs go up, he will. And this particular billionaire is quite willing to spend a lot of money to make it happen. Makes him look good in Australia. There isn’t any downside for him.
Journalism regularly includes quotes from parties involved without accusation of dimishment of quality; In fact it's more common for journalists to face criticism for _not_ having taken statements from parties.
The article shows no opinion of either party being "good" or "bad".