Gotta love that Section 230 immunity!
Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
91–100 of 236 posts
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#92Wow this is terrible! Are you saying someone could buy these drugs over the counter, with regular currency, not on the dark web?
Can someone share these ads with me so I could check them out? Just purely out of my own concern?
Thanks
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not in this space, but from the user's perspective I thought that youtube's "Demonitization" doesn't mean the ad doesn't show, just that the channel doesn't get any benefit from the show of the ad. So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share. Am I misunderstanding the landscape?
> So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share. This revenue would go to the copyright claimer. EG if Warner bros struck you for showing their movie, the ad revenue from the video would go to Warner, not simply YouTube
But YouTube still gets their cut, which is better for them than just deleting the video.
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#94Is "hundreds" supposed to be a large amount? How many ads has Facebook run for Mountain Dew?
This. They message to billions, every what, hour, and get how many ad contracts every minute? If the problem really is this order of magnitude they are doing an incredible job, aren't they?
Do you people have FB accounts? Drug sales really make up a notable portion of ad slots recently.
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#95And counterfeit number plates, and no takedown as everything is OK apparently
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not in this space, but from the user's perspective I thought that youtube's "Demonitization" doesn't mean the ad doesn't show, just that the channel doesn't get any benefit from the show of the ad. So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share. Am I misunderstanding the landscape?
> So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share. This revenue would go to the copyright claimer. EG if Warner bros struck you for showing their movie, the ad revenue from the video would go to Warner, not simply YouTube
I'm not privy to their deal, but while I'm confident that Warner Bros' has negotiated a revenue sharing agreement better than a typical Youtube Partners' 55% rate, I also suspect it's not 100%.
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#97Advertising networks get away with so much, it's quite ridiculous. The same company that will ban your account for posting about such content, will regularly run ads about such content. Worse, there's nothing you can do about it except run ad blockers (which they in turn will use various measures as punishment for you doing so). Guess we didn't learn anything from Cambridge Analytica.
They do? If I got the NYT to print an ad for crack what would happen to me and the NYT?
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#98Most of what’s being discussed here is naturally subjective views on propriety. Not many years ago, God forbid should one see an ad for cannabis. Even what is and is not considered a scam is quite subjective, is it not? To what extent are these platforms themselves legalised scams? Or the oh-wow-look-what-we-found false editorial strategy that most rags market.
> what is and is not a scam is quite subjective
It can be, and it can also be quite objective.
There are ads on there for ecommerce shops which clone the websites of known brands, with the exact logos and colours and names of those brands but which don't actually have anything to do with those brands.
These websites ask for your credit card number to purchase items which are advertised significantly below the retail price. I don't know what they do with the credit card number once they have it, but I can guess.
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand correctly, every LLM has an embedding function which can reduce a block of text to a coordinate in high-dimensional space. That coordinate can be used to determine how likely something is to be talking about selling illegal drugs and automatically flag posts for manual review. But given that the problem seems to be in the "manual review" because users constantly report these and get brushed off, that…
> If I understand correctly, every LLM has an embedding function which can reduce a block of text to a coordinate in high-dimensional space. That coordinate can be used to determine how likely something is to be talking about selling illegal drugs and automatically flag posts for manual review. Sounds like Word2Vec, which isn't necessarily an incompatible technique. I'm not exactly on the cutting edge of Language Mod…
I use LLM embeddings all the time at my day job (and I work in a very, very low-tech "tech" job, basically an IT department). It's not even remotely difficult and works incredibly well for sifting through absurd amounts of data to filter it down to something that is easy to human-review.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/embeddings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVGTegRvXg8
I think you may be commenting "confidently" on technologies that you're not very familiar with. It is something that we all struggle with sometimes.
Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs
#100This is part of a larger pattern for Facebook and other "large scale" advertisers where it's clear they are breaking laws at some rate and are protected from paying a real consequence by the cost of discovering the exact rate of misbehavior. Facebook recently settled a lawsuit related to racially discriminating in housing ads (a federal crime)[1]. I suspect this will get added to the pile of illegal services Facebook…
It does seem like many of the web scale FAANG's had no scaling solution. Facebook and Google in particular are egregious beyond their marketing. e.g. YouTube, how much copyrighted content does G profit off from. And then the 100 variations that slip the 'copyright algo.' I see stuff on there that as a UK TV license payer I've already paid for, and then have to suffer ads. They could not give a hoot.
The last thing I'd complain about is YouTube not doing enough copyright enforcement. If anything, they do far too much, beyond what is reasonable or necessary! And in a lot of cases, the studios don't care, because they slurp up most of the profits, not Google.