Top
Best
New

Posted by wtcactus 9 hours ago

Meta made scam ads harder to find instead of removing them(sherwood.news)
246 points | 81 commentspage 2
DivingForGold 6 hours ago|
3 or 4 years ago I tried Google Adwords to see if I could gain new customers. I admit I had a niche business, it was already successful, but I had read prior about certain tech companies overcharging - - or not cancelling services after you requested, so I opted to use only pre-paid credit cards bought at my local drug store. I chose $200 limit per card. That lasted for about 1.5 to 2 years, several times Google emailed me that my card expired or ran out of $$, and I needed to correct the error. That's when I bought another pre-paid card for a limit of $200 and funded my acct again. I never noticed any uptick in customers contacting me from my websites.

Eventually Google shut down the ability to use pre-paid credit cards (it came back an error when I attempted to enter the new card no) and that's when I closed my account. Their response was too obvious evidence <Goggle in conspiracy with the ad click bots> desired the ability to scam my account and one day I would check my email and get a $5,000 bill.

There is a rather obvious "conflict of interest" when you have to dispute a charge with your credit card provider knowing that the credit card co is fully aware they only make their "cut" if the charge goes through.

kyrra 6 hours ago|
Prepaid credit cards tend to be a very common fraud vector (very similar to gift card scams).

For chargebacks, the merchant has to pay at least a $15 fee on every chargeback, regardless of the outcome of the result. It's why many merchants prefer for you to contact them and ask for a refund rather than going through the chargeback process. For small purchases, merchants tend to just refund rather than dealing with an angry customer that's going to charge back.

DivingForGold 3 hours ago|||
On the other hand, prepaid credit cards seem to be one of the only ways to prevent merchants from "running up" the charges on a customers account. Sure, a customer can go through the dispute process but it's quite a hassle. Just "limiting the amount of money you place on the table" is quite effective. Giving a merchant your credit card with say a $5,000 or more available balance seems like insanity, like laying out 50 of $100 bills on the table: "here, go ahead, can I trust you to take only what you should" ? I would pay extra to have a VISA or MC credit card that only offers say a $200 limit, just for dubious situations, but again, providers have a "conflict of interest" in that they only make their "cut" when the charges go through, so the more and the larger the charges - - the more "cut" they obtain.
charcircuit 3 hours ago||
A prepaid card doesn't prevent you from being liable for a bill. This is like how leaving your wallet at home when you visit a resteraunt doesn't entitle you to free food because they don't charge you up front.
Nextgrid 3 hours ago||
No but it significantly raises the effort for collecting said money. The company would need to have a strong case (that they need to be able to defend in court if necessary) to do it.

No scummy company relying on dark patterns/etc to charge the customer without their consent will dare potentially airing this dirty laundry in front of a judge.

charcircuit 3 hours ago||
I consider it immoral to dodge paying bills just because you can get away with it. This is like saying it's okay to shoplift because a store may not think it's worth it to go through the legal process to come after you.
DivingForGold 2 hours ago||
Nextgrid hit the nail on the head. If you are being an honest customer, but a company is attempting to "blackmail" you into paying bogus or "run up" charges like Google Adwords, which multiple reports indicate they are more than 70% bot generated hits, you can sue them in your local jurisdiction, here we have justice of the peace, small claims, force the big corp to hire local counsel. Do they want to take it higher ? Taunt them with "dumping discovery on them", otherwise known as a far reaching motion for discovery, they'll be forced to deliver a tractor trailer load of paper . . .

With all due respect, historically, the guy with the greenbacks holds the upper hand in any deal. Many abide by the rule: “The customer is always right”.

Internet merchants often with unrealistic low pricing to “bait you” are attempting to sway the balance in their favor by cutting corners, eliminating posting a telephone number answered promptly by a live human being, too often sending out “one way” do-not-reply emails, which is shameful. Recently I encountered a tactic whereby a large corporate health care company would ONLY discuss matters over a phone call, so unless you were recording the conversation (and provide proper legal notice of such at beginning of call) there was no record of the conversation (now internet providers like Spectrum are doing the same). In fact, they were attempting to force me to sign a 30+ page contract full of legalese and “boilerplate” in their doscusign pdf format which coincidentally disallows one from modifying or typing in any disclaimers within the signature line. They refused over multiple communications to respond to several of my questions regarding costs and any future billing. I finally just stonewalled them by saying I would only communicate via email so there would be a written record.

I can regularly obtain a live human on the phone with Amazon and have always received a favorable response - - - obviously Amazon values their reputation. I personally will not do business with any company that fails to provide a telephone number answered promptly by a live human. Often I buy locally from brick and mortar shops with return policies in the event the product doesn't hold up to expectations. The somewhat higher prices I pay at brick and mortar are just “added insurance” that doesn't even compare to the serious disappointment or anger one experiences from some internet purchases where the seller sent a fake or missing GPU card, or the item coming from China has no reasonable cost of shipping it back “hoping” for a refund, or even a US merchant who refuses to honor a valid return. Now that memory prices have exploded, I expect to see even more of these fake or missing GPU shipments from online sellers.

Having been a former cc merchant, I know that any merchant that receives a chargeback will suffer at least a $35 hit, plus more on the time and effort to respond and fight the chargeback, indeed I encourage all buyers to challenge any that we discover dishonest. Merchants getting enough chargebacks will suffer the company providing the merchant account cancelling their business merchant account, often the merchants are are then “blacklisted” in the cc industry.

jqpabc123 6 hours ago||
Easy solution: Don't patronize Meta.
arealaccount 3 hours ago|
Nobody can figure this out for some reason
commandersaki 6 hours ago||
I posted in the other thread but in case that no longer has traction I will repeat my question here:

I'm still wondering what the Scam Prevention Framework enacted in Australia will do to mitigate this kind of stuff.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/conso... (Part IVF)

ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago||
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46446838
zaphar 7 hours ago|
The original reuters article quotes Meta as claiming that making them harder to find by removing them from the system. This article doesn't offer any evidence to suggest that Meta is lying. This is lazy and poor reporting as far as I'm concerned.
billyp-rva 6 hours ago||
Reuters: Restaurant hides unsanitary waste from food inspectors by hiding it in dumpster.
fwipsy 6 hours ago|||
Restaurant seen throwing waste in dumpster after removing it from food inspector's plate. Insists there's no other waste on other plates, apparently without checking.

What proportion of the scam ads do you think this approach caught?

billyp-rva 6 hours ago|||
I'm not sure, but starting with the ads that appear with most popular searches isn't a bad idea per se. It's a bit like sending law enforcement to protect popular areas.
gruez 5 hours ago|||
>Restaurant seen throwing waste in dumpster after removing it from food inspector's plate. Insists there's no other waste on other plates, apparently without checking.

That seems... kinda reasonable?

Health inspector: "hey it looks like your ice machine is dirty, and you're not keeping foods at a hot enough temperature"

Restaurant: "ok we'll clean our ice machines more carefully and install thermometers to monitor the temperature of our hot trays"

Journalist: "Restaurant made health violations harder to find instead of removing them!"

Would it be better if the restaurant was proactively fixing issues before the health inspector brought it up? Yes. Does it make sense to imply that the restaurant was acting maliciously by making health violations "harder to find"? No.

josefx 5 hours ago|||
That sounds funny, until you realize that there are people who pull ingredients from the waste bin if they still look "good enough". At least one restaurant chain owner in germany was banned from entering his own restaurants after he was caught on camera instructing his staff to do just that, apparently only one instance of a long chain of food safety violations his "frugal" business practices caused.
LordShredda 4 hours ago||
The issue as I see it is that these searches are run when testers look for them, not on a regular basis. If Facebook can detect them, why let them be displayed in the first place?