One of Polish billionaires/entrepreneurs was often featured in scam adds on Facebook (the adds that trick you into “investing” into “crypto”, and similar). Of course not only he — a lot of celebrities or politicians.

Anyways, he takes it to court and even started a campaign to raise awareness of how much money meta makes in Poland out of scams.

Notes: - Rafał Brzoska https://notesfrompoland.com/2026/08/27/poland-asks-eu-to-fin... - Usually there’s no crypto: scammers will show you a fake portal and steal your money

Two weeks ago, I know two distinct octogenarians that got independently scammed by a deep-fake Bill Gates selling brain supplements.. thousands of dollars charged when they thought they were buying ~$100 .. so scam on scam on scam.

I do not know if they were on Facebook. But they had no reason to suspect it was fake (beside the obvious why would Bill sell you supplements, but they tie it as one of his Alzheimer's Research successes).

Can we do YouTube next? Every YouTube ad these days is deception and fraud.

We've completely normalised big tech pushing straight up scams on the population.

I install ublock on every friend computer that I come across. Ads are a scourge, and people working in adtech are soulless. Induced demand distort the market, making them ineffective, ad networks sometimes serve malware, and all network serves scam ads and face no repercussions.

Not different from harmful content. 16 billions fraud establish a pattern which makes a company liable. I would start by paying back the amount with on top a considerable fine (the kind of fine painful enough to remind you not to do it again), then a warning with penal prosecution next time.

> Before Meta bans an advertiser, its automated systems must peg the account as at least 95% likely to be running a scam, the documents say. Below that threshold, the suspected scammer simply pays more per ad and stays live.

Wait, what is their justification for charging you more for ad but not banning you? You are probably but not certainly a scammer, so we charge you more?

Is there something that makes this not what it appears from how OP described it, FB asking suspected scammers to increase the profit-share with meta?

So do all of them.

Google is quite terrible, too, make no mistake, I've had gigs where some ads were under attack from competitors click bots, not very sophisticated ones, mind you, and the Google ad console is completely useless, you have to have cf, find the traffic data there then submit to Google and pray they'll refund a bit, this is well after you been charged.

Now this very client who tasked me with this, in the console I'd of course see the Google flags where they say they might end the campaign because misleading this , non conform that etc but they give you all the time in the world for the "fix" while taking the money and while overlooking bot clicks.

Terrible and I guess industry standard "let it happen so long you have plausible denial cause"

Not just Facebook! I also regularly get obvious scam AI-generated ads on YouTube, e.g. for a weed killer with a video that shows the weeds wilting as soon as the substance is sprayed on, while the grass is completely unaffected. Or a car scratch remover that instantly returns any color of car to an as-good-as-new state. Or instantly adjustable glasses that work for any kind of sight impairment. Or (while it was still warmer) a miracle miniature air conditioner that could cool any room down in minutes without needing an external unit. Etc. etc. etc. All developed at or endorsed by serious-sounding universities or institutes (that have probably never heard of these products, same as Mark Cuban).

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

Why would they change their decade long standing "scam ads are accepted since they're good for profits" policy, just because AI emerged?