Facebook Sued Over Fake Ads (theguardian.com)

shilly writes: British finance expert Martin Lewis is suing Facebook for defamation, after a year of trying to persuade the company to stop accepting scam ads featuring his name and image. Facebook insists that he report to them every time he spots a scam; he wants them to check with him before they take money for an ad featuring his name or picture, so he can tell them if it's legit or not. "Lewis said he would not profit from any damages won, which he would donate to charities combating fraud, but that he hoped the action would prompt the site to stamp out scam adverts," reports The Guardian.

Comments

Win-win

[TimMD909]

Seems like another win-win for lawyers. Wondering if we'll get a little trickle down justice from those at the top...?

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea how lawsuits work. This is an individual suit, not a class action.

It's also in UK court, where not only are awards much smaller than in the UK (even with exemplary damages), but also where loser pays, so Lewis and his lawyers are taking on a not insubstantial riakbin going after Facebook.

Re:Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuckerberg should be the warden of the federal prison that Trump winds up in forever? I just want to clarify.

Re: Win-win

[Archfeld]

It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US. I wish the guy luck, and a special place in hell for those who continue to use his name without his permission. After warning Facebook, and having ads pulled, they should be on the look out for more fraud but as usual they will disavow and responsibility or any wrong doing.

Re: Win-win

[nagora]

It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US.

It's funny - I don't see it that way. I think the UK simply applies "innocent until proven guilty" more evenly. If I say you killed Elvis then in the UK you are entitled to demand I prove it; in the US the unspoken assumption is that if you can't show that you didn't then maybe there's something to it.

Free speech is often held up as a golden rule, but it's rare to see it discussed in light of how it affects a right to the presumption of innocence - another golden rule. Facebook (and Twitter) are starting to really shine a light on that relationship now, I think, and what compromises between two supposedly immovable objects in our belief systems might have to be accepted.

Re: Win-win

[c6gunner]

It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US.

That doesn't make it better for the individual; it makes it better for the accuser. If you as the individual are the defendant, it really really sucks. You're presumed guiltily until proven innocent.

Ask Simon Singh how wonderful it was to be the individual sued by the British chiropractic industry.

Re: Win-win

[Gaxx]

I think that you maybe missed the substantial reform of libel law that happened in the wake of the Simon Singh case (see http://www.libelreform.org/ and https://www.theguardian.com/la...).

The UK still has less of a legal emphasis on protecting free speech than the US does and that definitely tips things more in favour of the accuser than the accused (relative to the US) but the libel reform bill addressed that balance somewhat and brought libel cases into alignment with other UK law in forcing an innocent-until-proven-guilty assumption.

In short - things are pretty much closer to an even balance between accuser and accused now with more protections for uneven fights between individuals and corporate entities and special protections for scientific publications.

Re: Win-win

[c6gunner]

I think that you maybe missed the substantial reform of libel law that happened in the wake of the Simon Singh case

You are absolutely correct; I wasn't even aware there was such an initiative, let alone that it had been implemented. Thanks for the links; I'll definitely check them out and then read up some more on it.

In short - things are pretty much closer to an even balance between accuser and accused now with more protections for uneven fights between individuals and corporate entities and special protections for scientific publications.

I sure hope so; the system they had was insane. The US system is far from perfect, but I would far rather err on the side of allowing people to voice their opinions rather than giving scam artists and lunatics the ability to shut down reasonable criticism.

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're presumed guiltily until proven innocent."

Quite the opposite - you've become confused by the fact that there are two claims. A claims that B is a liar. B claims that A is being libellous and goes to court. The fact that technically, in court, B is prosecuting A doesn't change the fact that originally it was A that made the accusation and, quite rightly, is being told to prove it or fuck off. It is B that is being treated as innocent until proven guilty and it is A's responsibility to produce the proof that backs up their claim.

Which is fair and just. The fact that big corporations can use this to silence critics is not a problem with the libel laws, but with the justice system in general which allows far too much power to rich people and companies on either side in ALL cases.

Re: Win-win

[Gaxx]

I sure hope so; the system they had was insane. The US system is far from perfect, but I would far rather err on the side of allowing people to voice their opinions rather than giving scam artists and lunatics the ability to shut down reasonable criticism.

It's a lot better, certainly and seems to actually fit the UK legal system more closely than before the 2013/14 changes. It was a massive victory for the libel reform campaign and Simon Singh played a big part in pushing it forwards. There continues to be campaigning for still more reform (especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland where the changes haven't been applied in the same way).

Re: Win-win

[c6gunner]

Quite the opposite - you've become confused by the fact that there are two claims. A claims that B is a liar. B claims that A is being libellous and goes to court. The fact that technically, in court, B is prosecuting A doesn't change the fact that originally it was A that made the accusation and, quite rightly, is being told to prove it or fuck off.

Which results in wonderful cases like academics being forced to spend millions of pounds to try and prove that the holocaust actually happened, because a holocaust denier is upset that they called him a holocaust denier and wants to use the courts to bully them into silence.

Yes, "quite rightly".

It is B that is being treated as innocent until proven guilty and it is A's responsibility to produce the proof that backs up their claim. Which is fair and just.

You have a seriously messed up idea of fairness and justice. In your silly little world anyone who makes an honest mistake out of ignorance, or who uses hyperbole in a moment of passion, should be held liable in a court of law and forced to pay out the ass. And anyone who makes a factual statement which is difficult to prove should likewise be subject to a government led inquisition which can stretch on for years and cost a small fortune.

That's neither fair nor just; it's a gross misuse of the judicial system. Far more importantly, though, it has a chilling effect on public participation.

that big corporations can use this to silence critics is not a problem with the libel laws, but with the justice system in general which allows far too much power to rich people and companies on either side in ALL cases.

Not at all. Some lunatic like David Irving can accuse you, also, and represent himself. Then you get to spend 2 years of your life and a small fortune of money you don't actually have, trying to prove that yes, the holocaust did really happen, and yes, this maniac did lie about it.

It's not just those with deep pockets who can use it to silence critics; anyone with an axe to grind and some spare time can do the same. Had David Irving sued me instead of an author who was lucky enough to have the financial support of her publisher, I would have had no choice but to cave, apologize, and pay whatever settlement he offered me. Does that sound like justice to you?

Re: Win-win

[mjwx]

It is actually better for the individual in the UK court vs an American court. The bar for libel and slander is lower in the UK. The degree in which the UK values individual reputation and the protection of such is higher in the UK than in the US. I wish the guy luck, and a special place in hell for those who continue to use his name without his permission. After warning Facebook, and having ads pulled, they should be on the look out for more fraud but as usual they will disavow and responsibility or any wrong doing.

Beyond that... The loser pays the winners court costs. This prevents the Big Guy(TM) from threatening the Little Guys(TM) into submission by using high priced lawyers... because if you've got a solid case a high priced lawyer will do it on a no win/no fee basis. There are quite a few Barristers and Queens Councils (a very highly paid lawyers in the UK) who love doing cases like this, they make a killing and look good in the process.

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite the opposite - you've become confused by the fact that there are two claims. A claims that B is a liar. B claims that A is being libellous and goes to court. The fact that technically, in court, B is prosecuting A doesn't change the fact that originally it was A that made the accusation and, quite rightly, is being told to prove it or fuck off.

Which results in wonderful cases like academics being forced to spend millions of pounds to try and prove that the holocaust actually happened, because a holocaust denier is upset that they called him a holocaust denier and wants to use the courts to bully them into silence.

Yes, "quite rightly".

Again, that's not a problem with the specifics of libel law but with courts that won't dismiss frivolous cases and apply damages against those who bring them. And that applies to plenty of types of cases. It also doesn't happen very often (frequencies may vary in Texas).

It is B that is being treated as innocent until proven guilty and it is A's responsibility to produce the proof that backs up their claim. Which is fair and just.

You have a seriously messed up idea of fairness and justice. In your silly little world anyone who makes an honest mistake out of ignorance, or who uses hyperbole in a moment of passion, should be held liable in a court of law and forced to pay out the ass.

If I go on national television and say that you beat the daylights out of your late wife, why do I get to be the person who's "innocent until proven guilty" and you aren't? "Free speech" isn't a good enough answer.

Basically, you're asking for the return of lynching as an acceptable social practise.

Re: Win-win

[c6gunner]

Again, that's not a problem with the specifics of libel law but with courts that won't dismiss frivolous cases

If the burden of proof is on the defendant is to prove his innocence then there's no such thing as a frivolous case. In sane legal systems cases are considered to be frivolous in situations where, no matter what kind of evidence the prosecution/plaintiff presents, it is obvious that they will lose. How would that apply in your system? The plaintiff doesn't have to present any evidence at all. David Irving just had to say "she called me a holocaust denier but I'm a holocaust researcher". On what basis do you determine that the case is frivolous? Just because you don't like him?

Your idea of justice gets more muddled by the minute.

If I go on national television and say that you beat the daylights out of your late wife, why do I get to be the person who's "innocent until proven guilty" and you aren't?

You're not; you just don't understand what that phrase means. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a reference to fucking rumour mills. If you don't see the difference between someone gossiping about you and the government locking you up or forcing you to give someone money, you are not thinking rationally.

Basically, you're asking for the return of lynching as an acceptable social practise.

That's absolutely retarded. And, hey, when you say retarded things I can call you a retard without having to worry about defending myself in court. Because free societies understand that free speech is important no matter how many petty tyrants try to suppress it.

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't get this, do you?

"If the burden of proof is on the defendant is to prove his innocence"

He's only the defendant in the courtroom. In the real world outside he's the accuser and he's being told by the actual defendant to prove it or shut up, but with legal force behind the demand.

'David Irving just had to say "she called me a holocaust denier but I'm a holocaust researcher". On what basis do you determine that the case is frivolous? Just because you don't like him?'

Well, it certainly seems as if the only examples you reach for are ones with emotional weights. You've picked Irving specifically because YOU don't like him and don't want the rules to apply equally to him for that reason. What if you're applying for a job at some university somewhere and someone says you should be banned because you're a holocaust denier? Being the ethereal being that you are I'm sure you'll claim that these things happen and that you would just move on with your life with barely a shrug about such worldly concerns as losing your career. Back in reality, people have to have the right to demand that people back up that sort of accusation because we're not all gifted with your psychic ability to know when someone is a nice person worthy of legal protection or a nasty, evil person who should a-priori never be given a hearing.

"Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept"

No it fucking is not. It is a moral concept (it is better that the guilty sometimes go free to avoid punishing the innocent) which we're lucky to have had enshrined in law, after a good deal of resistance.

"And, hey, when you say retarded things I can call you a retard without having to worry about defending myself in court."

Well, that's a pretty retarded example. In my example you were accused of a serious crime on national television. You dismissed that as gossip, probably because you have no reputation to lose, but some people do, and some people want to bring them down by lying about them (maybe so that they can beat them to the White House, say). Your fetish for "free speech" is emblematic of the mess America is in over fake news and the post-truth milieu of shock-TV, Twitter and all the rest of it. It amounts to nothing more sophisticated than wishing everyone would just ignore people who are obviously wrong. Good luck with that.

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't get this, do you?

That's a damned lie. I get it completely. I'll see your libelous ass in court.

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a damned lie. I get it completely. I'll see your libelous ass in court.

How dare you libel me as a damned liar. I'll see your libelous ass in court!

Re: Win-win

[c6gunner]

It amounts to nothing more sophisticated than wishing everyone would just ignore people who are obviously wrong.

Everything else you've said is pretty stupid, but this is both stupid and ass backwards. I don't want everyone to ignore those who are obviously wrong; I want everyone to be able to point out that they're wrong. Chiropractic is obviously wrong. Homeopathy is obviously wrong. Holocaust deniers are obviously wrong. Alex Jones is obviously wrong about pretty much fucking everything. All of these people are wrong, and I certainly do not want everyone to ignore them. I want everyone to point it out and call them out for the frauds and idiots that they are ... without the threat of then having to defend themselves in a lawsuit where their guilt is predetermined. Whereas you seem perfectly fine with a cunt like Alex Jones being able to sue me for pointing out that he's obviously wrong, and you honestly believe that I should be presumed guilty until I can prove that I'm innocent.

You obviously have no clue what justice is. Sit down; you're done.

Re: Win-win

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a really convincing argument you have there. Obviously you have perceptions far beyond that of everyone else and I'm amazed that every post you make isn't moderated +5 almost as soon as you make it. I'm grateful that your insights are available to tell us what to think, more people like you should have that right. It's clear your intellect is far beyond everyone else so you must feel justifiably outraged at the injustice that people don't recognize that.

Sooner or later the whole world will apologize to you and just let you speak.

Except they don't, why is that?

Convenient Ad for facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering they are pushing AI - their AI - as the solution for all their problems identifying content this seems really, rather odd no?

Keep your AI shit to yourself. Finance "expert" or not, your image carries no copyright nor your name. I mean, how the hell would you even enforce that.

Re: Convenient Ad for facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

While its true there are no full personality laws in the UK, there are plenty of surrounding laws like libel and slander. In this instance it is indeed utilising defamation law. His image and name have a standing with the UK public, if they were to make false claims using them, or associate him with con artists and dodgy scams, a case can be made that they are defaming him. He's not a nobody in the UK, he is well known and respected by the general public. Of course, if it were in the US there are personality rights, so you'd be even wronger.

Re:Convenient Ad for facebook?

[duke_cheetah2003]

AI isn't going to solve this problem. Not even close. For as long as automated systems of any kind have existed, we humans have figured out how to game such systems into doing things they're not supposed to do. Depending on an AI to filter your advertisers sounds like folly AT BEST. You need real people, who can read between the lines and see the bullshit where it is. It's just too easy and will remain easy, to manipulate automated systems into an undesired result.

Seriously, how hard is it for Facebook to maintain a proper marketing team that interacts (with humans!) with advertisers, learning who they are, what they're trying to achieve, etc. The race for the bottom is not making any winners, except for those at the very top. Stop it. Pay some people to handle this stuff, humans are better than any AI, always will be.

Re:Convenient Ad for facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how hard is it for Facebook to maintain a proper marketing team that interacts (with humans!) with advertisers, learning who they are, what they're trying to achieve, etc.

That would cost money, and reduce profits, don't be ridiculous.

Re:Convenient Ad for facebook?

[drew_kime]

For as long as automated systems of any kind have existed, we humans have figured out how to game such systems into doing things they're not supposed to do.

For as long as human systems have existed we've been figuring out how to game them. Social engineering existed long before AI. It's just a different set of rules now, so there's different ways to exploit them.

Half baked

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is profiting from no scrutiny on the ads becsude it lowers their costs. This has turned out to be a huge problem. They have facial recognition, they have analytics... They should fix this problem.

Re:Half baked

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was younger I learned "don't believe everything you read... Especially on the Internet" and due to sites like Facebook, there's a new clause to teach the next generation... "Especially if you saw it on a social network... Especially if you saw it in an ad on a social network"

Re:Half baked

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It is an interesting suit, because at this point in time I think it is provable that FB has sufficient technology to comply with this request to not aid fraud at miniscule direct costs. Of course, the indirect costs are what FB worries about: the cost of losing a source of sleazy revenue, the precedent being set that they could significantly reduce some kinds of fraud easily but have avoided doing so.

Re:Half baked

[Tablizer]

FB can make money by charging for "monitoring services" that scan or track such. It would be nice if they did such automatically after a single abuse is encountered, but I'm not sure that's realistic.

Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Facebook said: “We do not allow adverts which are misleading or false on Facebook and have explained to Martin Lewis that he should report any adverts that infringe his rights and they will be removed. “We are in direct contact with his team, offering to help and promptly investigating their requests, and only last week confirmed that several adverts and accounts that violated our advertising policies had been taken down.”

So Facebook serious expect everyone to maintain a "team"? And spend time and energy scouring the net?

He should just run fake ads in the name of politicians, and attach really inflammatory and outrageous statements to them. That will get their attention.

Re: Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to flood Facebook with Cock-Zuckerberg posts, and expect each one to be reported by him individually.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Spamalope]

And then you'd find out that FB can actually find out whose behind fake ads if you're 'important', and those politicians can do things directly to you...

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[duke_cheetah2003]

Sounds like Facebook is expecting everyone else to do their job of filtering bad actors from the advertisement stream.

That's pretty screwed up. Shouldn't that be Facebook's job, to vet the people buying advertisement on their platform?

Then I realized, if they vet their advertisers, they'd probably have to reject a majority of advertisement dollars cuz they actually bothered to look and can't claim ignorance like they've come to enjoy doing. Broken. Very broken.

While I'm usually of the camp that says leave people alone, if their site is retarded and broken, people will eventually learn that and stop using the site, this is such a scourge on the world, making it so insanely easy for anyone with a few bucks to spread mountains of misinformation.. yeah, something has to be done, this cannot be allowed. Social responsibility > Site freedom.

The really sad part of this all, is that social responsibility seems to be requiring laws and regulations to get these types of companies to be responsible. I mean, shouldn't that be like.. second nature? Don't be 100% a dick?

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

... people will eventually learn that and stop using the site ...

So Fox News is losing popularity? No, weak-minded people will believe that 'corporations are people too' and they must fight the 'eevil gubbermint' to save everyone. Or, like much of the internet, it becomes an echo-chamber where you're the victim and everyone else owes you.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[AmiMoJo]

They have advanced face recognition software, they have OCR software that can detect words embedded in images, and they have databases of blocked images that can recognize transformations like scaling or trivial editing. They use all those things for their own benefit, scanning user uploaded content.

All they have to do is turn that on for ads as well, but instead they expect every individual to police the use of their likeness and reputation on Facebook... Which is impossible unless you have a Facebook account.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, shouldn't that be like.. second nature? Don't be 100% a dick?

Corporations are granted person-hood, not humanity.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you go this road, you hide behind a proxy. Set up a shell company, pay some homeless guy to sign all the paperwork with his real name. He might get 'found' someday, but that won't help the important guys.

Similar to how Swedish criminals register cars in the name of some bum who gets paid for his signature. They don't have to pay tolls, parking or speeding tickets for these cars, and also uses them as escape cars. Any number trace leads to that bum who don't have money and never go anywhere. Has a thousand cars registered to him that he has never seen.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is actually the right avenue. If Facebook is accepting money for a fraudulent enterprise, then they are a party to the fraud. If Martin Lewis has become so associated with fraudulent enterprises on Facebook that it is hurting his reputation, then Facebook should be found liable for that association which they are accepting money to promote.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gubbermints are people too, you insensitive clod!

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Mr_Silver]

Sounds like Facebook is expecting everyone else to do their job of filtering bad actors from the advertisement stream.

Which wouldn't be quite so bad if they actually let you.

I'm constantly bombarded with adverts for Raspberry Pi based retro controls which have no issue with clearly advertising the fact that they come fully loaded with thousands of games from various platforms (Nintendo, Sony and Sega included). Yet when I click on the "report" option the best I can do is tell them that I don't want to see it - there is no "this is blatantly illegal" option.

Similarly, after all the furor over fake news, you would have thought there was a way to report fake news for review and taking down. It turns out there isn't. Again, the best you can do is tell them that you don't want to see it.

Facebook claims that users can report problematic content and advertising, but they can't in a way that makes it extremely clear what the problem is.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then I realized, if they vet their advertisers, they'd probably have to reject a majority of advertisement dollars cuz they actually bothered to look and can't claim ignorance like they've come to enjoy doing. Broken. Very broken."

This is the problem with any advertisements in general, if the people hosting the advertisements were to actually have to investigate every person paying for the space then they wouldn't make any profit. Physical advertising makes up for it by charging more and thus doesnt really have the same level of problems as facebook. Facebook offers cheap advertising and thus is more often taken advantage of because it it considered the low hanging fruit to people with nefarious goals.

Its my personal opinion that any and all advertisements should be banned as they are nothing more than an abuse on human psychological nature in order to sell you things that you dont need. It would get rid of a whole lot of fraud in the world and help regulate crappy products. It would also force people to inform themselves on not only political issues but also on the products that they purchase. It would also get rid of a who0le host of services that arent needed because if you need advertisements to fund your service then you dont have a service worth having, if your service was worth having then people would pay for it. Yes it is that simple, advertisements are the largest scam on the world, they scam companies out of money that should be spent on making a better product at a lower price and they also scam the general population by allowing shitty products to proliferate.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Obfuscant]

- there is no "this is blatantly illegal" option. Similarly, after all the furor over fake news, you would have thought there was a way to report fake news for review and taking down.

If they allowed either one, then it would quickly be abused by people who think "I don't agree" means the news is fake, or "I don't think you can do that" means "that is blatantly illegal".

We see that on /. somewhat, where a lot of "troll" or "flamebait" moderation happens because someone doesn't like what was said, not because it was an actual troll or flamebait. It's kept in check here because of metamoderation, and mod points aren't handed out like candy, but if everyone could "moderate" on /. at any time they wanted, it would be a serious issue. That's what would happen if everyone can report ads as "illegal" or "fake news".

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Mike Van Pelt]

I want the ability to say "I do not want (some facebook friend's peculiar hobby-horse that they constantly flog) postings, at all, ever" without blocking the friend's other postings. I want to block "lost puppy" postings from 3000 miles away. I want to absolutely block certain political screed sites no matter how deeply nested a share of a share of a share it is.

I want to absolutely block any mention of Trump or Hillary whatsoever. No one -- NO ONE -- who talks about them on Facebook, left right or center, has anything useful to say about them.

Facebook is grimly determined to keep flinging this crap in my face. If I could have gotten my friends and family to move over to some service that gave me that filtering capability, I'd have done it, deleted my Facebook account, and never looked back years ago.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Obfuscant]

Facebook is grimly determined to keep flinging this crap in my face.

You want a social media site where you can send whatever you want to your friends but they can't share their thoughts with you unless you approve of them.

Why are you on Facebook AT ALL? It's not Facebook's fault, you're the one staring into the end of the firehose and wanting it to never emit any water. It's like someone who complains about the danger of being run over by a train. Just step off the tracks and the problem is solved.

Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"?

[Mike Van Pelt]

Facebook is grimly determined to keep flinging this crap in my face.

You want a social media site where you can send whatever you want to your friends but they can't share their thoughts with you unless you approve of them.

More the opposite, actually. I want to see what they post, other than specific things that I've seen way way too much of that I'm sick of seeing. And I want them to have the freedom to not see anything I repeatedly post that annoys them, too.

Why are you on Facebook AT ALL? It's not Facebook's fault, you're the one staring into the end of the firehose and wanting it to never emit any water. It's like someone who complains about the danger of being run over by a train. Just step off the tracks and the problem is solved.

I am so very very tempted.

There are just a bunch of people -- family and old friends scattered around the country -- that it's very convenient to keep up with using Facebook.

Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

...would Facebook agree to cut off a revenue stream? Scam ads seems to be their business model

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Scam ads are *EVERYONE'S* business model.

95% of all advertising on the Internet is nothing but fraudulent scams.

This is FAKE NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious much!

Same as the IP war ...

[CaptainDork]

... where owners don't want to chase down every fine-grain violation -- they want service providers to do that work for them.

How's that working so far?

Re:Same as the IP war ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Service providers didn't want to be in the business of scanning all content placed on their servers. They didn't have facial recognition, and they weren't making money from the content itself (only from their customer who paid for hosting). Facebook has demonstrated that it does monitor what information people put on its servers, and has the technology to detect if someone's face is in an image, and is making money from the content itself

So yes, in principle filtering is filtering, but those situations are not the same. Maybe there's a space here for another company to scan for new content and compare it to it's database of what is allowed and then automatically file the complaints and take down notices. Then neither Facebook nor service providers need to individually invest money to do the same thing yet all the filtering still happens.

Politicians will fix this if they need to

[Roger W Moore]

Facebook said: “We do not allow adverts which are misleading or false on Facebook and have explained to Martin Lewis that he should report any adverts that infringe his rights and they will be removed.

I don't think Facebook quite understand what "allow" means. Clearly, they are allowing these ads to be distributed - if they were not there would not be a problem. Simply having a policay which says that you do not allow it and then going ahead and ignoring it until someone points it out seems very unlikely to cut it because it would make it far too easy for all major media organizations to avoid all libel.

Even if they do win the case, the law will be rapidly changed to make it impossible to win a similar case again. Politicians simply cannot afford to have media getting away with libellous content like this. It might be a financial expert getting libelled today but come the next general election it will be politicians and they know it.

Re:Politicians will fix this if they need to

[drew_kime]

Even if they do win the case, the law will be rapidly changed to make it impossible to win a similar case again. Politicians simply cannot afford to have media getting away with libellous content like this. It might be a financial expert getting libelled today but come the next general election it will be politicians and they know it.

That's just adorable. You think politicians aren't salivating at the opportunity to do this to their opponents.

Fuck Zuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the Zuck!

Aussie celebrity Eddie Maguire is also suing FB

[Anonymous Coward]

Eddie Maguire is also starting legal action for someone on FB for using his image to sell boner pills...

Eddie Maguire is a tv celebrity and the president of a AFL football club so he has a public presence that he needs to protect..
While he was having a laugh about it on tv he will be pursuing this in our courts...

Simular story happing now in Aus

[Kellamity]

Where the 'celebrity' was used for erectile disfunction ads.

Facebook don't give a shit about upholding standards, as long as people are clicking on stuff. Maybe a few lawsuits will get them to start caring.

Every day I see posts that violote the groups policy on not having completitions where people are asked to 'tag and share' which is not allowed, but there's no way to actually report it. And clearly, they don't bother inforcing it. People have the images stolen and used on clickpage pages, which no consequence whatsoever to the offenders. Maybe if it's cleaned a little I wouldn't hate being on there so much.

Re:Simular story happing now in Aus

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the 'celebrity' was used for erectile disfunction ads.

Facebook don't give a shit about upholding standards, as long as people are clicking on stuff. Maybe a few lawsuits will get them to start caring.

Every day I see posts that violote the groups policy on not having completitions where people are asked to 'tag and share' which is not allowed, but there's no way to actually report it. And clearly, they don't bother inforcing it. People have the images stolen and used on clickpage pages, which no consequence whatsoever to the offenders. Maybe if it's cleaned a little I wouldn't hate being on there so much.

For my own reasons, I would hate being on there. So I don't use Facebook at all, ever. Why do you claim to hate a thing and continue to subject yourself to it? It makes no sense. Are you a masochist?

We wouldn't allow a billboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Most businesses require some form of Id. for advertising: Both as someone to blame and for billing purposes.

Here's the problem with Facebook being only a channel: We wouldn't allow a magazine or billboard to put whatever someone else said into public view uncensored, they have a responsibility for protecting intellectual property, preventing defamation and not inciting crime. The FBI entraps people for selling real merchandise to criminals (or charges vendors after the fact) so why is it acceptable for information corporations to sell, except to prostitutes?

I'm sure the usual libtards will be bleating about the US first amendment. The right to speech does not include defamation, inciting crime, identity theft or fraud. We need Facebook and others to worry about these crimes, not how many nipples are visible. But then again, the real blame belongs to the US government. They appointed themselves censor of teen nipples but for identity theft, you're on your own. Guess which crime happens by the million?

Not "not stopping"

[nagora]

The point of the suit is, I think, that FB is going beyond simply not stopping these adverts, they are saying that they will allow them for money (just like any advert). The process is not the same as their general content where people just upload stuff and they react, FB are actively approving this content. The problem is that they want to approve that content without incurring any costs, so there's no real process.

I expect FB to try to defend this by conflating their role as a "platform" with their role as a publisher of advertisements and hoping no one notices, but Lewis is smart enough to brief his legal team against this so I wonder what their second-line of defence will be.

Re:Not "not stopping"

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Indeed. The "we are an innocent platform" defense will not work once you are accepting money. I would bet good money, the courts will be persuaded that FB is responsible for making a "reasonable" effort.

The second line of defense was that it would be too hard so doing nothing until a takedown request is received is "reasonable", which made adequate sense in 2010. With modern technology, including technology we know FB has expertise with, it would actually not be difficult at all.

"Reasonable" in 2018 is not going to go well for FB.

Re:Not "not stopping"

[Required Snark]

Facebook wants to have it both ways: they want no regulation and they want the protection of a common carrier. The result is a monopolistic monster that will sell any bit of info that it can lay it's hands on that has no internal or external control. As often happens, unbounded capitalism leads to negative outcomes.

Facial recognition

[mwvdlee]

Don't be so harsh on Facebook, it's not like they have some ready-made solution for recognizing ads using his image and name. /sarcasm

In related news...

[Obfuscant]

In related news, Dean Jerry is seeking work as an advertising spokesman ... and for some unknown reason is highly popular in France.

Re: Oh look

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully somebody steals your identity, creates a Facebook page, and uploads p3d0 shit to it.

Fucking flamer.