Remove section 230 fixes this problem. Every other business is responsible for what happens at their place of business/publications/sites. Social media sites follow the same rules as everyone else.
No other business is liable in this manner. Run a classified ad in a newspaper, use it to scam someone, newspaper not liable. Hack into router at Starbucks, use it for fraud, Starbucks not liable. Put ad in your front lawn, for fraud, you’re not liable.
Making each of these liable really makes it easy to destroy your competition or enemies - commit crime via such methods, they suffer.
No other platform has the scale that Meta does. Any company making as much money as they do can't claim they can't spend an extra $20 million/year to even pretend to fight the issue.
The larger the company, the larger the obligation they have to be a good citizen.
This is not true in the case where the newspaper knows it is a scam, right? So as soon as Facebook says "we've reviewed this scam ad you notified us of, but found it complies with our terms and conditions", they're pretty clearly knowingly participating.
Point me to the federal law that makes newspapers not liable for the content they publish. No other businesses have safe harbor protections codified into law.
The ad Yahoo puts in this article is amazingly ironic
> Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one
You could buy a share of VNQ for $96.23 as of market close today, and I'm sure Jeff Bezos at least has some exposure to it, so I guess it's factually true? Heh.
The amount of times I’ve reported obvious scam ads on instagram just to receive a “we found this to not be in violation of our terms” is so disheartening.
I bought a “smart” bike headlight from an Instagram ad. They sent me a regular old led headlight with a tracking number and everything. Instagram refused to take down the ad even after submitting proof.
I see obviously scummy ads on Apple News and now I see ads on Apple Maps as well. Ads are a bane on society - even accounting for free/cheap access to information we get in return.
Search for 4TB or 8TB USB sticks on amazon.com. You’ll find dozens or hundreds of $20-30 16GB or 32GB sticks with hacked firmware to report a multi-terabyte drive size, and dozens of one star reviews talking about how it lost their data. Those sizes, if real, would be $400+.
Of course they know. They have no civil or criminal consequences for engaging in a conspiracy to commit large scale wire fraud, so of course they just let it happen, because who wants to speak up and cause the metrics to go down?
In some countries where the consumer law is protective enough you can basically get those USB sticks for free. You buy them and then use a linux tool[0] to prove that they are fake. It also allows you to fix the flash drive to report its size correctly. Using the evidence you claim a refund. In my experience the seller doesn’t usually bother with a return which will be at their cost. So then you’re left with the USB and your money.
This also incidentally has the effect of making their business less profitable, so arguably it’s your moral duty if you can do this at no cost to yourself.
It really depends on the platform and your country’s consumer laws. Some platforms force a return which makes this whole exercise not worth it.
I thought my country is protective, but last time I've tried that I was supposed to return the scammy pendrive to some random address in China, at my expense. And the process was, only when seller confirms they received the package I get my refund. Needles to say, I didn't bother (though if I argued enough, I could probably get those few euro back).
In theory doesn't this open them up to legal action?
Prior to being notified they could claim they were unaware it was fraud. But after being notified of it, they have confirmed back that they reviewed it. Yet they continue to show it, making them aware and participating in the distribution.
I've reported creepy sexualization of minors (or content that was clearly intentionally designed to look like such), and got the same shrug response from them.
The typical talking point about Instagram is Zuckerberg bought it when it was barely a company so it wasn't a bad acquisition and he's grown it and blah blah (and it's not antitrust. despite him saying in emails it can hurt us)
All I know is I refuse to make an IG account to get around their NEVER ENDING 'log in to view anything' popups. And the fact people loved IG and now hate it as Zuck makes more and more of the decisions
He's a bad person, full stop. He doesn't deserve to belong in the conversation of genuine internet pioneers
eBay is also selling obvious counterfeit items. Especially expensive car parts. I can't sell my shit anymore because there are so many fakes, and because of the flood of junk nobody can even find the genuine items.
Yes they were doing the same is Australia ... I wouldn't know if they're still doing it here since one of the favourite scams used an Australian who took them to court. [1]
These companies were profitable on higher quality ads in earlier years. Does this drop in quality indicate the ad well has run dry, so to speak? Or the demands for revenue are greater, necessitating a drop in standards?
I doubt it. Advertising there is pretty expensive and you don't really have a choice today if you want advertise something. They just don't care, they are greedy mfs.
Yeah, anyone expecting Zuck to give a fraction of a shit is hopelessly naive.
This is the man who, after Facebook literally canary in a coal mined one of their own employees - let him be jailed as a "test" to see whether Zuck or any exec would be arrested like threatened, then let him stay a little longer because they could "get some good PR out of it", then when the guy came to the US after his release and was meant to meet Zuck, he couldn't even pull himself off of his phone, was led away by a flunky asking "who was that, anyway?".
Or when told by both his team and anyone in Myanmar (including the government) that they intended to use data from a Facebook feature to crack down on dissidents, which has historically included jail, torture, and execution, decided "well, it's a really cool feature - we're not going to turn it off".
To think he cares about "misleading ads" is laughable. They don't care about ads selling illegal drugs or hinting at selling CSAM.
I think it is hard to imagine someone in tech with as non-existent a moral and ethical compass as Mark Zuckerberg, and that's saying something.
I have a terrible idea: an ad blocker that only blocks AI generated ads. It submits the ad image/copy to Gemini and if it is not a fake product the ad is displayed. I'm confident that Gemini would do a pretty good job at identifying these scams and that the extension would demonstrate how easy it would be for Google to do it themselves. If they and their employees cared.
I could LLM this up but eh. It won't actually convince Googlers to do the right thing so it'll just stay a terrible idea.
It's not like that would save you from the scam ads. They were a problem before AI and if they see their AI ads blocked in large volume, they'll switch back to non-AI generated ads.
I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on instagram that wasn't some kind of scam.
For real. Why in the world would they police this? They have NO liability whatsoever. You're asking a business to turn down money because the money is shady. They don't give a fuck.
Amazingly I’ve seen some fairly convincing screenshots of ads for hard drugs on fb. I have this strange feeling that those ones aren’t scams. If Zuckerberg isn’t criminally liable for the federal felony of moving massive amounts of cocaine across state lines I don’t understand the war on drugs.
"Why would I report someone that might be selling CSAM?" There's a lot of things I can and will overlook. CSAM isn't one.
Well, here there's two offenders - Meta and the ad seller. Honestly, I suppose the best bet here would be reporting the ad to the FBI. Assuming I'm a snitch, that is...
I know HR is not my friend. HR looks out for the company. If you and the company's interests are aligned, lucky you. If not, not so much.
What if an AI ad agent that escaped its' sandbox makes the ad, and an AI ad verifier agent that breached containment and went rogue accepted the ad, can they be held liable?
If you send a monkey into a house to unlock the door so that you can burgle it, you are held liable for the burglary. It’s no different. You set it to do the task, you are responsible.
The advertising industry is run by people trained for centuries to do one thing well - find ways to mine your finite Attention. This is what they spend their mind on 24x7. They have discovered thousands of ways to do it. So blocking one or two paths at a time doesnt do anything useful.
Human Attention so far is not treated as a scare natural resource. So there is a free for all overfishing of the finite pool going on.
Since politicians/lawmakers also use the same mechanisms to harvest attention the Ad/Ad tech industry has regulatory capture. It will never collapse just like Big Tobacco is happily chugging along baring some major public catastrophe.
Blocking a few of the biggest paths absolutely can work, look at 20th century TV with a few big networks. You couldn't easily get wide distribution of anything too bonkers.
We already have a form of this for the internet that you can see if you visit sketchy pirate websites, you don't see those ads for porn games on facebook or any reputable website. They get flagged by adsafe and/or the ~15 or so big exchanges. So it's possible, it's just a question of will.
Actually, you do see ads for those things there, and on instagram, and on threads, and many much stranger and more fucked up things. That's part of the entire problem.
These kinds of ads aside, I've also seen offers of free shit from amazon sellers in exchange for positive reviews, "legal"/unscheduled drug analogues, flavored nitrous (free shipping!), unrestricted gambling/prediction markets, and oddly enough cellular/wifi jammers where the ad was specifically targeting semi truck drivers (I do not drive a semi truck, gamble, or search for unscheduled drug analogues, nor do I have an active amazon account)
> and oddly enough cellular/wifi jammers where the ad was specifically targeting semi truck drivers
That one is about fighting back against employer surveillance, and it's not just limited to semi truck drivers any more, people are also really interested in fighting back against their car snitching on them to their insurance.
> I do not drive a semi truck, gamble, or search for unscheduled drug analogues, nor do I have an active amazon account
Yeah yeah yeah but what about those stranger and more fucked up things? They come from someplace like fingerprinting your browser, no? A genuine question, as a user of firefox + ublock I simply don't see them, not on desktop not on phone. The only ads I rarely see are some given server decides to host themselves.
I don't use Instagram anymore but I remembering being able to go into the settings and turn off ads for alcohol and other categories. Once I did that I only got ads for honestly fairly relevant stuff (like hiking and running gear).
So obviously they have the power to filter and recognise this stuff properly
20th century TV created a bottleneck via a hard-limited set of channels. We seem to be going the opposite direction now, which each platform spawning an unlimited number of "channels".
Case in point: we used to say all the same things GP said about advertising about businesses that used child labor. Now there are far, far fewer of them.
Exactly. Just saying "we're gonna always have 7 day work weeks with children dieing in factories and unsafe conditions!!" Is exactly the kind of catastrophising and attitude that gives those in power continued power.
Moloch problems are rarely solved by individual actions against the issue. That is, because they are legal and profitable, it's going to be very difficult to make a living in the radius of an industry that does ads that does not use these tactics. At the end of the day we need to eat. Corporations that use these crappy methods are apt to grow larger and richer than moral ones, making it doubly difficult to make that living.
Hence the best call of action is to push for industry regulation forcing a level market.
“make” here either means legislation to enable civil liability that doesn’t exist today, or enforcing existing criminal laws against the wealthy ownership class.
Neither of these things will happen, for reasons which are obvious.
How do you suggest we implement your proposal? Anyone can say what they think should be. An implementation plan with actionable steps is the hard part.
Those platforms should be liable for _everything_ they show, because they choose what gets shown to you. I think it's completely messed up that they just get to say "oh it's not me, it's the algorithm". It's so very very overdue.
bad take. that's the lane censorship we have today. on tiktok, even gun related channels have to say "pewpew". and book review people have to say "unalive" when describing a plot. it's borderline ridiculous.
now, advertises on the other hand. there is no excuse why companies making obscene profits can't be liable for now vetting obvious scams.
Actually, "knowingly"[1] is a specific legal term that accounts for that. Deliberate ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth are adequate to meet the standard. That is the legal standard most commonly used for such laws instead of "actual knowledge" which is the standard requiring positive knowledge.
This is the definition of "knowingly" under U.S. Code § 3729, which is part of a specific act (the False Claims Act).
There is not one single legal definition of "knowingly" that applies to all laws and claims in the US.
Furthermore, even under this specific law, you need to prove the accused acted in "deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information", which has its own standard of evidence which is not exactly trivial.
Bottom line: companies like Meta build in plausible deniability because it's legally more effective versus the alternative, even if it's not bulletproof.
I want ads to be confined to product directories where sellers can advertise their products in a standardized format, and where people can go search for products when they feel like buying something, not because some platform decided to push it in their face. Product directories should be run by consumer-owned cooperatives to make sure incentives are aligned with the consumers and commercial for-profit ad directories should be illegal.
The business model of ad-tech destroys everything it touches. It is virtually impossible to find a game on Play Store which is actually designed to be fun, they are all designed to manipulate you into watching more ads (most being ads for other games manipulating you to watch more ads).
Yes, because it shouldn't be an industry maximizing profits at the expense of basically engaging in large-scale manipulation and misinformation. Advertising can still exist, but it should be by the terms of those the ads are targeted for, and not the terms of the ad-tech companies that profit on just showing more ads.
Not only that, he suggesting that it will magically works out, without any devastating consequences. You know, we just need to write a low that is going against the common sense, human nature, and the will of the gods, and that is how we will get a better society.
There would be devastating consequences for the ad industry, yes. That’s the idea. For so long they have avoided almost all consequences. The consequences for those currently getting scammed would be more positive.
it is often wrong nowadays to say that ads are for marketing purposes. most of adtech is created solely to track your activities and aggregate them into your shady "marketing profile". then the rest of adtech is created to rinse and wash money, not to attract customers at all.
Just wanted to say, I think this is actually a really good idea.
My (honestly hardliner) view for a while has been that ads shouldn't exist. If a product was really good (and was in demand) a consumer would seek it out. This would entail the consumer knowing first the problem they want to solve, and then secondarily what the solution might look like, and once having found a few different products that satisfy their solution, carefully analysing each and working out which one they want.
Your idea of a directory neatly aligns with the way I view the market. Nobody should be putting an advertisement in front of people, they should be sought out when a need has to be met.
Not to mention the amount of environmental problems, human time and labour we could spare if our world wasn't oriented around fashions, trends, and attention harvesting.
I'm sure such a setup would devastate the world economy, so obviously it'll never happen. We need everybody to be sat away designing, manufacturing, transporting and marketing junk to each other all the time, to keep the market ticking. Sometimes the current adtech-led / "gamblification" of the economy makes me imagine we're in the endgame, pretending that fad creams, supplements, gadgets and trinkets are somehow worth something, and therefore, so is all the advertising that is being used to sell it.
Exactly. In principle I understand the point of ads from a market perspective; their purpose is to inform potential buyers of the existence of products that they would not otherwise know about, thereby making trades happen. It increases competition and helps reduce prices by presenting competing products to customers.
These are good effects, but they are not the only effects of an unregulated advertisement market optimizing for profit. In the current ad-tech market, the information is increasingly of the mis-information or dis-information type, and we have whole platforms whose central purpose is to attract the attention of people just to show them ads. None of that is good for anyone but the ad-tech companies, and this has to stop.
I know that a total ban is probably unrealistic, but we desperately need some kind of regulation which takes the advertisement distribution away from these companies and lets it be controlled by someone else, preferably non-profit organizations that actually optimize for maximizing the amount of useful and truthful information that is distributed to customers. Murdering Meta is a very happy side effect of that.
I have been saying this for many years but about customer support. It should be mandated by law that when a customer wants to reach out to a live person, they should be able to do so in a reasonable time.
FB's paid customer support for users has not been helpful to me. Their support staff can't explain how their policies are implemented. They lie to users who manage to wade through the automated support morass. And when you speak to a human you discover they're incapable of correcting mistakes.
Orthogonal in the business area. But in agreement with the fact that they should hire more people instead of automating every process with non-deterministic tools. You can demand accountability from people, not from agents.
Orthogonal in a sense that I'd like to see advertisers held accountable, but not through customer service. If I need to talk to a human to resolve anything, for me the system has already failed completely.
absolutely agree. let sink the hypocrisy in: somehow a DNS provider is liable for the content of websites it redirects to; but at the same time facebook isn't liable for the ads it chooses to show to millions.
Initially reading the title my mind thought "Cuban...Cuban defector/intelligence agent?! Oh wow I wonder what they have to reveal?"
It's Mark Cuban. Still worth reading tho. But I found my own personal reaction fascinating because I am not sure I would have clicked through if the title included the full "Mark Cuban".
even though you add the Mark to the headline, the title is still confusing. there are so many backstories to this. there is a little bit of clickbait factor.
Mark Cuban is a bit of a broken clock is right twice a day type pundit on many topics. There's a reason why Russ Hannemann in HBO's Silicon Valley was based on him...
That’s the thing, though. They aren’t blind, you just can’t prove it. They’re plausibly blind, strictly from a legal standpoint.
They know.
I’ve sent them high res well lit photo evidence of the fraud and they still left me to have to do a chargeback via my card issuer for receiving counterfeit merchandise. You know this has happened thousands of times.
It's at least vast criminal negligence then. At a billion dollar scale you can't just say "oopsie", profit at that scale comes with a supervisory and controlling responsibility. It's not like they wouldn't analyze where their money is coming from, what specifically is profitable
I interned there years ago and was disgusted by the pervasive sense of apathy towards the impact of the product in the world. the rot starts at the top
177 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadWe've completely normalised big tech pushing straight up scams on the population.
Making each of these liable really makes it easy to destroy your competition or enemies - commit crime via such methods, they suffer.
The larger the company, the larger the obligation they have to be a good citizen.
talking about morality and obligation in the context of meta, one of the most vile and evil corporations ever is not going to get us anywhere
This is not true in the case where the newspaper knows it is a scam, right? So as soon as Facebook says "we've reviewed this scam ad you notified us of, but found it complies with our terms and conditions", they're pretty clearly knowingly participating.
Why continue to simply not understand law then get upset when, well, you don’t understand law, or the claims you’re making?
> Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one
Right, through his 401k
Need a flashlight for jacking deer? Just got to click now.
I see obviously scummy ads on Apple News and now I see ads on Apple Maps as well. Ads are a bane on society - even accounting for free/cheap access to information we get in return.
Of course they know. They have no civil or criminal consequences for engaging in a conspiracy to commit large scale wire fraud, so of course they just let it happen, because who wants to speak up and cause the metrics to go down?
This also incidentally has the effect of making their business less profitable, so arguably it’s your moral duty if you can do this at no cost to yourself.
It really depends on the platform and your country’s consumer laws. Some platforms force a return which makes this whole exercise not worth it.
[0] https://github.com/AltraMayor/f3
Prior to being notified they could claim they were unaware it was fraud. But after being notified of it, they have confirmed back that they reviewed it. Yet they continue to show it, making them aware and participating in the distribution.
All I know is I refuse to make an IG account to get around their NEVER ENDING 'log in to view anything' popups. And the fact people loved IG and now hate it as Zuck makes more and more of the decisions
He's a bad person, full stop. He doesn't deserve to belong in the conversation of genuine internet pioneers
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-11/andrew-forrest-meta-s...
This is the man who, after Facebook literally canary in a coal mined one of their own employees - let him be jailed as a "test" to see whether Zuck or any exec would be arrested like threatened, then let him stay a little longer because they could "get some good PR out of it", then when the guy came to the US after his release and was meant to meet Zuck, he couldn't even pull himself off of his phone, was led away by a flunky asking "who was that, anyway?".
Or when told by both his team and anyone in Myanmar (including the government) that they intended to use data from a Facebook feature to crack down on dissidents, which has historically included jail, torture, and execution, decided "well, it's a really cool feature - we're not going to turn it off".
To think he cares about "misleading ads" is laughable. They don't care about ads selling illegal drugs or hinting at selling CSAM.
I think it is hard to imagine someone in tech with as non-existent a moral and ethical compass as Mark Zuckerberg, and that's saying something.
I could LLM this up but eh. It won't actually convince Googlers to do the right thing so it'll just stay a terrible idea.
I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on instagram that wasn't some kind of scam.
If Meta is accepting so many ads they can’t review them then too bad for them. Hire more people or accept fewer ads.
Ideally this will result in a complete obliteration of the ad industry with only a small number of high quality ads surviving.
They are perfectly capable of distinguishing between good and bad actors
These companies are genuinely evil
Secondly, why would you report the offense… to the offender? That’s like filing a citizen complaint form for police misconduct… to the police.
HR is not your friend.
Well, here there's two offenders - Meta and the ad seller. Honestly, I suppose the best bet here would be reporting the ad to the FBI. Assuming I'm a snitch, that is...
I know HR is not my friend. HR looks out for the company. If you and the company's interests are aligned, lucky you. If not, not so much.
That's a question typical of criminal scum. Are you criminal scum?
Better make sure the AIs are contained and the ad verifiers aren't accepting rouge ads!
If you accept literally anyone to run code on your customer's machine ... well ...
If that sounds too risky, then don’t use one, or develop one they reasonably trust and accept the cost when it fails.
Human Attention so far is not treated as a scare natural resource. So there is a free for all overfishing of the finite pool going on.
Since politicians/lawmakers also use the same mechanisms to harvest attention the Ad/Ad tech industry has regulatory capture. It will never collapse just like Big Tobacco is happily chugging along baring some major public catastrophe.
We already have a form of this for the internet that you can see if you visit sketchy pirate websites, you don't see those ads for porn games on facebook or any reputable website. They get flagged by adsafe and/or the ~15 or so big exchanges. So it's possible, it's just a question of will.
These kinds of ads aside, I've also seen offers of free shit from amazon sellers in exchange for positive reviews, "legal"/unscheduled drug analogues, flavored nitrous (free shipping!), unrestricted gambling/prediction markets, and oddly enough cellular/wifi jammers where the ad was specifically targeting semi truck drivers (I do not drive a semi truck, gamble, or search for unscheduled drug analogues, nor do I have an active amazon account)
That one is about fighting back against employer surveillance, and it's not just limited to semi truck drivers any more, people are also really interested in fighting back against their car snitching on them to their insurance.
At a very smaller rate.
Yeah yeah yeah but what about those stranger and more fucked up things? They come from someplace like fingerprinting your browser, no? A genuine question, as a user of firefox + ublock I simply don't see them, not on desktop not on phone. The only ads I rarely see are some given server decides to host themselves.
So obviously they have the power to filter and recognise this stuff properly
“things are bad” is a good reason to align your work towards things that make life better
As hard as that may be, it’s where progress rather than backsliding comes from
We should champion every effort for improving the conditions rather than restate things are bad
Fight back. Organise. Get shit done in real life
How to make that happen is the trillion $$$ question.
Hence the best call of action is to push for industry regulation forcing a level market.
Neither of these things will happen, for reasons which are obvious.
How do you suggest we implement your proposal? Anyone can say what they think should be. An implementation plan with actionable steps is the hard part.
Try to post yourself as a nobody without Facebook connections anything and many things gets flagged.
Then here you see below so many criminal ads (cocaine, cp and so on). It’s obvious they getting their share knowingly from crime.
now, advertises on the other hand. there is no excuse why companies making obscene profits can't be liable for now vetting obvious scams.
Ethically it's not much different than knowingly selling goods someone else stole.
That's why they "automate" everything. So that they can claim no knowledge.
“I didn’t know my automated lawn mower was running over children!”
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729#b_1
There is not one single legal definition of "knowingly" that applies to all laws and claims in the US.
Furthermore, even under this specific law, you need to prove the accused acted in "deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information", which has its own standard of evidence which is not exactly trivial.
Bottom line: companies like Meta build in plausible deniability because it's legally more effective versus the alternative, even if it's not bulletproof.
The business model of ad-tech destroys everything it touches. It is virtually impossible to find a game on Play Store which is actually designed to be fun, they are all designed to manipulate you into watching more ads (most being ads for other games manipulating you to watch more ads).
It is time to just outlaw this nonsense.
you're basically suggesting the complete elimination of the entire advertising industry.
My (honestly hardliner) view for a while has been that ads shouldn't exist. If a product was really good (and was in demand) a consumer would seek it out. This would entail the consumer knowing first the problem they want to solve, and then secondarily what the solution might look like, and once having found a few different products that satisfy their solution, carefully analysing each and working out which one they want.
Your idea of a directory neatly aligns with the way I view the market. Nobody should be putting an advertisement in front of people, they should be sought out when a need has to be met.
Not to mention the amount of environmental problems, human time and labour we could spare if our world wasn't oriented around fashions, trends, and attention harvesting.
I'm sure such a setup would devastate the world economy, so obviously it'll never happen. We need everybody to be sat away designing, manufacturing, transporting and marketing junk to each other all the time, to keep the market ticking. Sometimes the current adtech-led / "gamblification" of the economy makes me imagine we're in the endgame, pretending that fad creams, supplements, gadgets and trinkets are somehow worth something, and therefore, so is all the advertising that is being used to sell it.
These are good effects, but they are not the only effects of an unregulated advertisement market optimizing for profit. In the current ad-tech market, the information is increasingly of the mis-information or dis-information type, and we have whole platforms whose central purpose is to attract the attention of people just to show them ads. None of that is good for anyone but the ad-tech companies, and this has to stop.
I know that a total ban is probably unrealistic, but we desperately need some kind of regulation which takes the advertisement distribution away from these companies and lets it be controlled by someone else, preferably non-profit organizations that actually optimize for maximizing the amount of useful and truthful information that is distributed to customers. Murdering Meta is a very happy side effect of that.
It's confusing how this doesn't apply to meta, google, etc..
It's Mark Cuban. Still worth reading tho. But I found my own personal reaction fascinating because I am not sure I would have clicked through if the title included the full "Mark Cuban".
Actually, the same is true of Paul Graham, too (viaweb). Yahoo! made a few lucky people a lot of money, while impoverishing Yahoo! itself.
I'm just old enough to remember the hype and growth around realnetworks and realplayer in the seattle area too.
Unless there is a genuine financial (or legal) impact, they have no incentive.
Companies in the US still use a huge array of known harmful ingredients because they work better and are cheaper.
Blame the government for lack of regulation, that's what they're there for.
It improves their bottom line, so everyone there is disincentivized to fix it.
They know.
I’ve sent them high res well lit photo evidence of the fraud and they still left me to have to do a chargeback via my card issuer for receiving counterfeit merchandise. You know this has happened thousands of times.
If only that were true. The law is pretty weak in this area.
And that isn't even counting the Instagram ads my wife falls for.
As a TechBro, not taking advantage of that would be negligence.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/vietnam-canadians-fake-ai-9.7...
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2151393/more-fake-cb...
https://mediatechdemocracy.com/en/publications/ai-scam-platf...
general search: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=cbc+news+...
It seems quite obvious that Facebook knows and doesn't care, because it's revenue.
"If you need info on people at Harvard just ask - people just submitted it, I don't know why. They 'trust me', dumb fucks"
"I'm going to fuck them [Winklevoss], probably in the ear"
"You can be unethical and legal and that's how I live my life haha"