Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Is Cracking Down On Deceptive Ads For Porn, Diet Pills (adweek.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the authentic-posts dept.

According to Adweek, the next target in Facebook's efforts to keep its News Feed clean is cloaking -- a technique used by "bad actors" to circumvent Facebook's review processes and show content to people that violates Facebook's Community Standards and Advertising Policies. For example, they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it's consistent with Facebook's policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link. "Facebook product management director Rob Leathern and software engineer Bobbie Chang described in a Newsroom post how 'bad actors' -- such as those promoting diet pills, pornography or muscle-building scams -- attempt to game the social network's review processes," reports Adweek. From the report: Leathern and Chang said Facebook has removed "thousands" of offenders from its platform over the past few months, and any advertisers or pages that are caught cloaking will be banned, as well. Facebook is using artificial intelligence in its anti-cloaking efforts, expanding efforts by human reviewers to identify, capture and verify incidents of cloaking and revising its policies. Pages that are not engaging in these practices should see no impact in their referral traffic.

90 comments

  1. Deceptive ads for porn?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heyyy... wait a minute, those aren't *Peruvian* goats... Damn you Facebook!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Deceptive ads for porn?? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Heyyy... wait a minute, those aren't *Peruvian* goats...

      Agreed, those Canadian goats at goats.eh are just not the same. >:(

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Deceptive ads for porn?? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Peruvian goatse, actually.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. I thought this was Slashdot. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now the SJWs at Facebook don't want me to have my porn and diet pills any more. They should mind their own goddamn business.

    This is why Trump won, by the way.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Whilst facebook should not be held liable for the opinions of their users and the courts should be the only accepted method of censorship, when it comes to advertisements, facebook using it's reach to promote products and facebook is promoting product for profit, than facebook should be held legally liable for the product it promotes for profit. Not only should facebook kick off bad advertisers it should sue them for damaging the reputation of facebook (only those that paid for advertisements and that facebook used it's social network to promote for profit).

      The opinions of end users should only ever be censored by the courts, facebook claiming rights beyond the courts is just offensive and another reason why facebook should be avoided.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I do not use FB or at least I do not have knowingly anything to do with it but News Feed suggest this has something to do with news as well as ads if so FB is censoring news for some not insignificant part of the population that is naive enough to use it for sole news source or at least for entry point. Effectively FB is shaping political discourse in some places. Like it or not.

    3. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is unfortunately a very deep rabbit hole. The way ad systems work today, as opposed to two years ago has changed drasticly, a lot of that having to do with wanting to improve the ad experience without resorting to shitty slow tools like adblock.

      Selective blocking is ok, that's one way you can pinpoint where bad ads are coming from. For example, always block taboola and outbrain because they are nothing but slow shitty garbage. Block Facebook's ads when you're not on the facebook platform to avoid being tracked accross the web. Block Amazon's ads when you're not shopping to avoid being profiled.

      If you block everything, then when you encounter one of the billion ad domains that exist that are hosted on AWS so you can't block the IP, and can't block the assets because the file names are literately a faceroll, it's not outbid by targeted content that isn't nearly as shitty.

      If you want a good web experience, you should only be blocking ads on the very same sites you would use the incognito/private browsing mode on. If you want a miserable web experience, keep on blocking ads with a chain saw instead of a scalpel.

    4. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      This is why Trump won, by the way.

      Because he was voted in by people who are too dumb to see through deceptive ads, you mean?

    5. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now the SJWs at Facebook don't want me to have my porn and diet pills any more. They should mind their own goddamn business.

      This is why Trump won, by the way.

      This is Facebook. When you are the product, their business IS your business.

      Literally.

    6. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Blocking at the client is stupid, the ads should be filtered by the networks edge, and the browser should just see empty placeholders. Use a proxy to rewrite the pages.

      Internet is not for making money. But you can't understand that, can you?

    7. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by tsqr · · Score: 2

      News Feed suggest this has something to do with news

      Well of course it does; just mainly not the kind of news you're thinking of. News, as in a report of a recent event (e.g, FB post that says, "I'm on vacation in Elbonia"), or as in information that is new to the observer. When you ask a friend, "What's new with you?" their answer is ... news.

    8. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because he was voted in by people who are too dumb to see through deceptive ads, you mean?

      Or, because millions of people who voted twice for Obama got tired of the Democrats', DNC's, and Clinton Campaign's deceptive behavior (ads and much), and turned their backs on them and their extremely poor choice of a serially lying, corrupt candidate. Doesn't matter what you think of Trump. Ads on FB didn't cause Hillary to somehow forget to even set foot in Wisconsin, a state she took for granted as supporting her coronation despite labeling a sizable portion of its residents irredeemably deplorable people. And it's not just about Clinton. It's just part of the pattern that saw the D's lose nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, and both houses of congress, too. All of the phony Russia stuff and blaming FB ads (as if the only phony crap seen there was aimed at only one end of the spectrum - please!) is just a lazy way to avoid confronting the real reasons why the Democrats have lost so much traction over the last eight years.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      If you block everything, then when you encounter one of the billion ad domains that exist that are hosted on AWS so you can't block the IP, and can't block the assets because the file names are literately a faceroll, it's not outbid by targeted content that isn't nearly as shitty.

      I don't give a fuck who wins the bidding war, they are all shit and I ignore them all. Your "targeted content" is way off target anyway.

      ... If you want a good web experience

      ... Those words are straight out of the ad-man's phrase book ....

      you should only be blocking ads on the very same sites you would use the incognito/private browsing mode on. If you want a miserable web experience, keep on blocking ads with a chain saw instead of a scalpel.

      Your basic flawed premise is that I want to see ads and I want them tailored to me. I don't. When I am thinking of buying something serious (car, camera) I do my own looking for ads, like going to camera makers' and review websites. When I am not thinking of buying something I don't want to see ads. You don't know when I am thinking of buying something like that - here's a clue : it is not necessarily when I look at eg camera makers' websites.

    10. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      They ran a bad campaign and Clinton wasn't exactly an inspiring candidate, but the phony Russian stuff sure helped turn people off that might have been planning to vote but instead stayed home.

    11. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      I'm blocking all ads indiscriminately and have a very fine web experience. I'm not interested in ads and sincerely hope that all sites who make their money primarily from ads go out of business sooner than later. The web was much better before it was infested with ads and companies.

    12. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, the "phony" in the "phony Russian stuff" is a reference to the phony narrative being continually pimped by CNN and MSNBC and the NYT about how the Trump Campaign was working with the Russians to run some massive, secret operation that filled the media with false stories. Which is hilarious, considering the bulk of the media spent the entire pre-election period working FOR Clinton, rather than against her.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Oh so by "phony" you mean the true narrative about the Russians that's been confirmed by all the intelligence agencies? And the true stories about how the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?

    14. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      And you are also including the phony dossier purchased by the Clinton Campaign "detailing" how a certain businessman enjoyed the feel of urine, right? You are not actually claiming that the Trump campaign purchased that dossier and convinced everyone in the world to claim it was actually Hillary that did it, are you?

      Of course, anyone who believes that articles discussing Hillary's involvement with unapproved and illegal email servers are "fake news" is not really bright enough to understand the rest of the world.

    15. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      confirmed by all the intelligence agencies?

      Wait a second. You're talking about Iraq/Afghanistan, right? That was 15 years ago, but apparently credibility is no longer an issue, because, why? Because now the shoe is on the other foot.

      Now then, the evidence, cough it up, babe. I mean, if you want to take this beyond the court of public opinion. Otherwise, you're just another Clinton crybaby loser, and are making Trump's reelection even more certain.

      The democratic party is rotten to the core. Liberals are real suckers to stay with them. It's way past time to turn our backs, or surrender to the extremist right wingers.

    16. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      The Trump dossier (which is being revealed to be more and more true as time passes) didn't come out until AFTER the election in the news so it's unrelated.

      Hillary's email decisions weren't the "fake news", they were just a distraction from actual issues that the right kept hammering away (even though they're equally bad at email). Nice straw man though.

      Fake news was stuff like "Hillary Clinton has brain cancer and only 6 months to live!" or "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor". The ridiculous stuff that's easily proven wrong and was just contrived to make people doubt Clinton's character.

    17. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Oh so by "phony" you mean the true narrative about the Russians that's been confirmed by all the intelligence agencies?

      You mean, the one where the Russians kept doing the same thing in 2016 that they've been doing for decades? That one? What does that have to do with the pure fiction about the Trump campaign colluding with them as they somehow controlled the minds of Hillary Clinton and DNC officials into doing the things that made people not vote for her, or for all of the legislators and governors that the Democrats lost?

      And the true stories about how the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?

      Oh, sorry. I didn't realize this was the "make stuff up" thread. It is fun to see you throwing that sort of thing around with exactly zero attribution, of course. Hilarious! Even top Democrats have stopped trying to pull that one, because it's become embarrassingly obvious that there's a complete lack of anything there, and always has been. But please, do carry on. The juvenile story telling is great - it's exactly the sort of histrionics and BS that cost the Dems so many millions of two-time Obama voters in the first place. Please - do more! Just keep repeating your un-cited fiction - the rest of the voters will do, again, what they did last time. Turn their backs on that nonsense, as they should.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      You mean, the one where the Russians kept doing the same thing in 2016 that they've been doing for decades? That one?

      No, the Russians had a much larger campaign to disrupt the election involving the internet and social media that wasn't possible in the past.

      It is fun to see you throwing that sort of thing around with exactly zero attribution, of course.

      Well I guess if you've been living under a rock, here are the emails tweeted out by Trump Jr: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
      And the relevant parts:

      The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

      If that's not solid evidence on collusion, I don't know what is.

    19. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I see. So, during the "collusion" you're describing, what happened, exactly? Please describe the events of the 20-minute meeting, and what was achieved in terms of the Trump campaign working with the Russians, and what actions both parties then took during their collusion efforts. You obviously have information that nobody else does, so this is going to be big news! Can't wait for you to explain to everybody. Please, do go on with your specific details and the impact of those actions on the minds of voters in places like, say, Wisconsin, where Hillary Clinton never even set foot to campaign ... because of that meeting with the lawyer, no doubt, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1
      Well on the Russian side, they hacked the DNC servers and found information that they then provided to the Trump campaign and released on WikiLeaks.
      The Trump side publicized the information provided and used it quite often in their campaign materials, even pushing the insane conspiracy theories.

      This isn't surprise information that no body else knows. Most people are aware of this, it's just Trump supporters that stick their heads in the sand whenever someone tries to explain it.

      Please, do go on with your specific details and the impact of those actions on the minds of voters in places like, say, Wisconsin

      Sure, the voter in Wisconsin saw negative news reports on the Clinton campaign (emails hacked, campaign details, etc) and those reports + other stories were being pushed by the Trump campaign which caused them to be disheartened and not vote.

      Now you seem to be thinking that all the collusion happened in the 20 minute meeting, but that's not what anyone is saying. The meeting is just evidence that the Trump campaign was engaging in collusion willingly AND sought to hide that they were doing so.

    21. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Well on the Russian side, they hacked the DNC servers and found information that they then provided to the Trump campaign and released on WikiLeaks.

      Actually, no. Whoever stole that information from the DNC's mail server(s) provided that information to EVERYBODY. But it was an inside job, not a "Russian hack." Here you go, have a nice thorough write-up about the details, provided to you by a very liberal outlet and author both of whom hate Trump, but who are increasingly embarrassed by people like you who have taken the bait from the left-leaning media and their DNC handlers. The DNC hasn't even allowed the the FBI to look at those servers. Gee, I wonder why? Assuming you've got the attention span for it, do yourself some homework:

      https://www.thenation.com/arti...

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1
      Well golly, that changes everything!

      Wait, no, it just changes "downloaded remotely" to "downloaded locally". It doesn't change at all that top members of the Trump campaign were meeting with Russians to work on the campaign. Tell me, does the right-leaning media ever show you this incriminating paragraph:

      The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

    23. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does change everything. Because the entire fictional liberal delusion that Trump was "working with the Russians" was based on the deliberately mis-represented circumstances surrounding the DNC leak, which was in-house. Or, are you saying the Russians were working inside the DNC? You know, Russians right there, colluding with Hillary? Sounds absurd, doesn't it. But that's the level of absurd you want everyone else to believe so you can stop asking yourself why Clinton and the Democrats have been losing political power for years, culminating in even more losses in November.

      As for your quote ... again, so? Please explain, in detail, how a meeting with a Russian lawyer that lasted for minutes before anyone related to the campaign walked about because she was rambling about international adoption law ... somehow resulted in you having your mind controlled and voting for Trump. Please! Details. What did it feel like when you were brainwashed? Were all of the other millions of people who were forced to read about the DNC's cheating on Sanders and tipping off Hillary on debate info slipped to her by CNN ... did they all feel the same way as they were magically compelled not to vote for the person all the pollsters said was going to win in a landslide? What happened during that lawyer's discussion about adoption law, before everyone walked out, that actually impacted millions of people? Can't wait for your specifics. Thanks!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    24. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      It's well known the DNC cheated Sanders and that Hillary received one (1) debate question ahead of time (that she gave a poor answer to anyways).

      The "adoption" talking points came from Trump Sr in an attempt to minimize the meeting. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Not to mention that discussing adoption would be a discussion of Russian sanctions...

      To be honest, I don't know the exact details. It's well established that the Russians hacked the DNC and dozens of state elections. It's also well established that they sought to help the Trump campaign win and the Trump campaign was complicit and willing to get them involved.
      Any number of things could have been discussed in the meeting, but the meeting itself it really just the tip of the iceberg that PROVES the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

    25. Re:I thought this was Slashdot. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Nobody needed any help to doubt Hillary's character.

  3. But you shouldn't worry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because deceptive ads for everything else are just fine.

    1. Re:But you shouldn't worry. by meglon · · Score: 2

      Considering deceptive adds for pr0n and diet pills probably makes up 40-50% of all of them, i'd say it's a pretty good start. If they would have added in male enhancement pills, russian bride sites, and payday lenders.... that'd probably get rid of 75% or more of all of the crap. Then again, that'd probably cause the internet advertising revenue to catastrophically collapse.

      Don't worry though, you'll always be able to get your ENGORGE!!! pills. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:But you shouldn't worry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only they'd add in SJW's explaining how they've been "triggered" by people telling them to get a job, there might actually be some useful content available. Sadly, the crowd include my wife *and* 3 out of 4 of her therarpists. The fourth one actually has a degree but is badly outnumbered, but they're the one that precribes speed.

    3. Re:But you shouldn't worry. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What is this deceptive ad for porn stuff?

      Are they saying some of the porn links dont deliver porn?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:But you shouldn't worry. by meglon · · Score: 1

      You don't get those? I get them all the time. I'll type in something like..."google," and it will take me to Google instead of porn. I mean, seriously, WTF is that?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:But you shouldn't worry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shitty ads make up about 0.004% of all ads, and most of these come directly from non-paying, hacked or stolen advertiser accounts anyway, so the advertisement networks wants them gone. The catch is, that they try to maximize their abuse by spiking bids, so their ads may get seen by a billion impressions all at once, but only last about 30 minutes before the domain gets blocked. Then they move on to their next malicious domain and repeat.

      A lot of this could be fixed by Chrome, Firefox, et al actually preventing the closing or opening of new windows/tabs by script (rather requiring the user to click on an anchor link) and whitelisting domains (eg gmail) that you expect this experience to function on. But this "breaks the web", but so did "popup blockers" and this is just popup-blocking 2.0

      The solution for smurfing the ads is a lot simpler, but wastes a shitload of bandwidth. You require the advertiser to upload the entire ad unit, and let the ad network run it in a sandbox looking for obsfucated code, and then only run the "clean" code. If the code is changed, then it must go back through the sandbox. A lot of what is happening is caused by chaining scripts (again, because we refuse to "break the web") through document.write so that it obfuscates the origin.

    6. Re:But you shouldn't worry. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      you left out the space "go ogle" not "google".

  4. but not fake news story that support the far right by jsepeta · · Score: 2

    Fuck Facebook to hell

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  5. Crazy Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Facebook just let me link to whatever I want?

  6. More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they do like Google and hide stuff that makes them look bad.

    See this site: http://www.marchongoogle.com/

    try to find it via google if you don't know the domain name.

    the more this shit goes on, the more I understand how bad it was for people who tried to organize demonstrations during the arab spring.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re: More censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have a point, but Bing doesn't return any useful links either

    2. Re:More censorship by theweatherelectric · · Score: 3, Informative

      try to find it via google if you don't know the domain name.

      marchongoogle.com has only existed since the 8th of August. Did they even submit the site for indexing?

      As it is, searching for march on google without quotes on Google returns a YouTube video talking about it as the first result. The same search doesn't return anything related to marchongoogle.com in the first page of Bing or DuckDuckGo results (although if you switch to the video tab in DuckDuckGo it shows the same video as the first video result).

      But searching for "march on google" with quotes returns the marchongoogle.com site as the first result in Bing and DuckDuckGo and the site is listed in the second page of results on Google.

      So I'd suggest this is less about some kind of conspiracy and more about the newness of the March On Google website.

    3. Re:More censorship by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you were expecting this person to actually have a clue about how indexing works, how long it takes things to get indexed, how complex pageranking is, and the very VERY small chance of hitting the front page for a site that is new and not very crosslinked in its first year of life?

      Ah yes, this is slashdot, you SHOULD be able to expect that, sadly those days are long, long gone.

    4. Re: More censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a search for "thesupraman marchongoogle" on Google returns a result for your comment, which is less than 2h old. Why don't you learn how things work before "teaching" everyone else.

    5. Re: More censorship by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Because existing already indexed sites like Slashdot get indexed more frequently than a completely new site that no one have heard about before?

    6. Re: More censorship by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      that's because slashdot is a little older than the 8th of August if i recall correctly.

    7. Re:More censorship by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      From marchongoogle.com:

      "protesting in front of the homes of Googleâ(TM)s executive team."

      Way to go guys, that definitely won't end badly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: More censorship by Arab · · Score: 1

      That's because Slashdot is already indexed by Google.

    9. Re:More censorship by Arab · · Score: 1

      I literally just Googled march on google and marchongoogle.com is the second result... They are totally censoring it... /s

    10. Re:More censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just gave it a whirl. It asked if I really wanted to search for "mars on google," then it gave me results from the nutjob Jack Pubicsack. That's enough to inform me that March On Google must be a bunch of snowflake beta republicucks whining that it's too hard to be a white man anymore.

      All in all, a good search result, I learned all I needed to know without even seeing the actual website in the ranking.

    11. Re:More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

      Yeah and it looks like an alt-right thing, so the antifa vandals will probably show up and throw glass bottles at them. Popcorn time.

      Still, it's good to see people standing up to censorship.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    12. Re:More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

      Must be because they saw all the traffic coming from Slashdot and they got scared so they unblacklisted it for Slashdot visitors.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    13. Re:More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

      I learned all I needed to know without even seeing the actual website

      Spoken like a true liberal. Making decisions based on preconceived ideas and shallow information. No wonder you almost elected Clinton.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    14. Re:More censorship by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Your narrative sounds irrational. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

    15. Re:More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

      None, I just wanted to promote the website.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    16. Re:More censorship by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      If that same shallowness is representative of March on Google generally then seems clear that it is a pointless protest. If March On Google has the same intellectual dishonesty then it won't achieve anything.

    17. Re:More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

      A protest is never pointless. You'll learn that when you leave you mom's house and face real injustice yourself.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    18. Re:More censorship by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      A protest is never pointless.

      It is when it's shallow. You'll learn that when you learn honesty.

    19. Re:More censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true liberal. Making decisions based on preconceived ideas and shallow information.

      Would you seriously argue that Trump's voters made a decision on anything more substantial? He has no political record, and his history in business is a litany of failures, bankruptcies, shady deals, and threats. He offered nothing but shallow information in terms of his platform, policy, or ideology; all of which shift with the blowing breeze, and are heavily influenced by whomever he last spoke to.

      As is oft repeated, Trump is the poor man's idea of a rich man, the ignorant man's idea of a smart man, and the weak man's idea of a strong man. He's the epitome of preconceived notions.

    20. Re:More censorship by lucm · · Score: 1

      As is oft repeated, Trump is the poor man's idea of a rich man, the ignorant man's idea of a smart man, and the weak man's idea of a strong man.

      Something shallow and stupid repeated by idiots doesn't gain wisdom in the process.

      Since you need to be told the obvious:
      - Trump is worth $3.5 billions; that qualifies as being a rich man.
      - He turned a $14 million loan from his father into that $3.5 billion fortune. You don't achieve that without being smart.
      - He decided to become President, bankrolled his own campaign, stood alone against his own party and against the biased mainstream media and against dishonest, corrupt democrats who kept sending people to disrupt his events with violence. And he is now President. He has a backbone of steel.

      So take your "clever" formulas elsewhere, all they do is make you look like the epitome of sore losers.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    21. Re:More censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Trump is worth $3.5 billions; that qualifies as being a rich man.

      So he claims. He lies about everything. He lied about getting a phone call from the Boy Scouts, for heaven's sake. He hasn't released any proof of his worth, nor the income tax records that would substantiate his earnings or losses.

      - He turned a $14 million loan from his father into that $3.5 billion fortune. You don't achieve that without being smart.

      If he had simply invested that $14 million into the S&P 500, he would now be worth more than $13 billion. Instead, he made countless bad deals leading to multiple bankruptcies.

      - He decided to become President, bankrolled his own campaign

      Now you're going into lunatic territory. He did not bankroll his own campaign. You have drank the Kool-Aid, and I'm very sorry.

  7. Too little too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why are they deciding this now?

    If it looks like shit, smells like shit...it probably is shit.

    And /. can we stop making so many stories with Facebook?
    It is really starting to get boring here.
    Trump, Google, Facebook, Trump, Google, Facebook, Musk.
    Repeat

    1. Re:Too little too late. by sheramil · · Score: 2

      And /. can we stop making so many stories with Facebook? It is really starting to get boring here.

      When chronic Faecebook users complain to me about the toxic environment there, and I tell them "Well, don't go there," they look at me as if I'd suggested they strangle the family budgerigar. I think it's an addiction. Addiction to what, I have no idea. I only go on Faece every few months to post out-right lies, like "I think I'll buy a second boat, to go with my first boat", to give their analytics something to chew on.

    2. Re:Too little too late. by schleimkeim · · Score: 1
      I think it's an addiction. Addiction to what, I have no idea.

      I don't think it's an addiction. My guess is boredom. That would explain why my feed only has entries from people who are unemployed and housewives.

  8. Facebook values by MatiasKiviniemi · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't hold my breath on this.. I've had a few occasions where Facebook will stop an ad link from opening because it suspects malware, BUT will not stop SELLING the ad!! Priorities, it's good to have them..

  9. Re:but not fake news story that support the far ri by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd pit the accuracy/coverage of CNN over Fox "News" any friggen day.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  10. facebook dweeb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't hold my breath on this...

    Why not? If you hold your breath for a REALLY LONG TIME then you won't have to worry about any of that Facebook stuff any more

  11. Re:but not fake news story that support the far ri by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

    There have been several stories about Facebook cracking down on fake news, labelling links to sites like Brietbart as "disputed" or just outright fake.

    In any case, I share you sentiment: fuck Facebook.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  12. Re:but not fake news story that support the far ri by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I'd pit the accuracy/coverage of CNN over Fox "News" any friggen day.

    They're both shit. Fox News is more runny, but that's about the only real difference. CNN is dedicated to maintenance of the status quo, which is unsurprising since they find it profitable.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about getting rid of all the ads asking me if I want to be friends with a bunch of people who are friends of freiends of friends.
    If I want to friend someone, ill find them.

  14. Re:but not fake news story that support the far ri by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fox reminds me of countries with the word "democratic" in the name, like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you have to repeatedly remind people that you are "fair and balanced", you probably aren't...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  15. Is this really Facebook's job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get some people do not like to see these ads, or somehow get tricked into these deceptive ads?? Not sure how? But probably some are still dumb enough to fall for them. But that's the nature of a free social site where stuff you like clashes with stuff you do not. Almost anything is eventually corrupted by some who either do fake news, or are extremists or find this large group of users a perfect place for ads. Considering the fact your supposed to be old enough to understand this stuff to use Facebook. Why is this such a problem??

  16. How about we crack down by mapkinase · · Score: 1, Troll

    On all ads? Destroy this industry, revolutionize economy.

    In the past ads perfomed information function, now they don't. People can search for information now, any information.

    The only acceptable way of advertisement should be word of mouth. If someone is caught paying or being paid for "word of mouth", astroturfing, shilling etc, they need to be executed on the spot.

    How can people that tasted ad-blocking software have anything good to say about ads?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:How about we crack down by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah, I see you've never actually owned a business or been smart enough to understand that your paycheck (assuming you earn one, and aren't living off of other people's taxed income) is actually tied to the prosperity of business ventures that - in order to prosper - have to compete. Competition includes, among other things, communicating to prospective customers about why your product or service might be more attractive than the next one. I presume you think that a someone running a brand new start-up that's never had a single customer should be "executed on the spot" for trying to tell you about what they're offering. Idiot.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:How about we crack down by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      Idiot? Or comic?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:How about we crack down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! The mods don't even let you respond anymore. Obviously the wrong people are getting points.

  17. Aren't all non-FDA approved diet pills fake? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Any weight loss pill that's not backed up by an independent double blind study that proves it causes fat reduction is a fraud.

  18. After years of Facebook by brennz · · Score: 1

    collecting outsized ad revenues, in the hundreds of millions, Facebook has decided to crack down on a few categories of the deceptive ads.

  19. What am I Missing here? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    FTFA : -

    they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it's consistent with Facebook's policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link

    Am I missing something? Why are the Facebook reviewers not using the same sort of browser or app as an end user would?

    1. Re:What am I Missing here? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      ip block checking , browser fingerprinting, referrer and "crawler" cloaking

      or even a trick of time delay swapping (the ad is in version X for the first 2 minutes and then swaps to version Y)

  20. Slashdot ads by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    You mean like those Taboola ads Slashdot slaps on?

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  21. So much more sense... but wait -- by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    And here, I was starting to wonder if Facebook reviewers had gone over the wall into approving of porn, based upon their response when I reported a link, several months back. It actually makes so much more sense that the porn purveyors are just more adept at technical manipulation, and the content reviewers (literally) didn't see what I saw.

    ... except that the porn link was attached to a Facebook profile that had friend requested me.

    ... and that profile itself had adult oriented content in it.

    ... and for some reason, the reviewer didn't seem to have a problem with some random person friending everyone and their brother, while posing in flimsy negligees in their public profile photos.

    ...

    Umm, yeah... I'm just going to go ahead and opine that they still have quite a bit of work to do, before they're going to fully regain my trust. (And my kids won't be signing up for Facebook, anytime soon.)

  22. the real need by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    They need to target viral posts about ridiculous "natural" cures with essential oils and plants and chinese fruit and all that other BS. I'm soooo sick of my idiot friends posting that shit.

  23. Isagenix changed my life and can change yours too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just one person on my friends list that is heavily advertising Isagenix, but his entire damn family. His wife posts, his brother posts, his Mom posts, and then they all suggest, share, and like one another's posts. It is obviously nothing more than a new take on the Pyramid scheme, don't want to hurt their feelings or revenue stream though. They do actually need the referral money they get. From what I can tell at a glance, it appears that Isagenix provides free tools to their suckers for automating the social networking aspect of their advertising.

  24. Best way to stop this stuff.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Is to get the hell off of Facebook.

  25. I thought it was the FBI probe by golodh · · Score: 1
    Or, because voters, after two terms of the same party, voters got itchy for a change.

    Or, because the Republican party carefully hoarded its best publicity shots over its (chronically unproven) allegations of misdemeanors for the campaign and had the good luck that the FBI decided to re-re-re-examine Mrs. Clinton's emails a week or so before the election.

    Or it might also be because despite good and sensible economic policies the economy doing fine but the job-market sputtered under pressure from automation and overseas competition, making people susceptible to empty rhetoric about huuuuuge improvements.

    Incidentally, the economy and the job market seem to be doing Ok now without any meaningful impact of Pres. Tweety's economic policies, which seems to validate Pres. Obama's economic policies.

    Or, because certain voters allowed themselves to be blinded to the current President's huge all-round incompetence by his fact-free bombastic reality-TV performance, which dovetailed nicely with their hankering after a silver bullet for all their problems.