Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

sherwood.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 549 posts

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#171

Post by strogonoff »

seeingnature wrote: post #152
9rx wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't need to offer a refund. It was already priced in. You maybe forgot to ask what was coming in future software updates while standing starry-eyed at the impossibly low price it was being offered at, but they knew it was coming. After all, appropriately specced hardware to be able to do it was already onboard.

Your comment is so naive. Most products out there have a terms and conditions that equate to 'the company can change the product at any time and you're always free to stop using it', while giving their salespeople little to no idea about future progress because that would limit sales. Even if you didn't "maybe forgot to ask", there isn't anyone to respond with the truth. If you purchase a product that doesn't have ad…

I read it as more rhetorical than not. No one was literally expected to ask about the future. However, one could be expected to ask oneself “what could such a low price tag on such capable hardware mean for the future?”

It is unrealistic, of course, because it is a textbook case of information asymmetry (the enemy of the market)—only a vanishingly small number of people can adequately assess the pricing, having to know enough about hardware and all the various forces that could bring it down, like potential upcoming lineup changes or inventory overflow.

The right move is to fight information asymmetry. Many developed countries, including the US, already do it in countless cases. A mild way could be requiring to disclose things like this in addition to the ToS; a more thorough way could be simply banning this business model.

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#172

Post by dspillett »

berkes wrote: post #87
deaux wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little ironic when Amazon is filled to the brim with scams.

Not sure how this works on Amazon, but Bol.com (dutch "amazon competitor") sells a lot of crap too. Stuff that sometimes has the images and literal description taken from e.g. aliexpress. People literally re-sell stuff from chinese webshops on there with profit. Technically, on Bol.com, a EU-platform, EU consumer protection is in place. So if a product breaks within guarantee terms, is dangerous, never gets delivered…

> Not sure how this works on Amazon, but Bol.com (dutch "amazon competitor") sells a lot of crap too. Stuff that sometimes has the images and literal description taken from e.g. aliexpress.

That is bog-standard drop-shipping. Every open online market had a pile of that. It isn't that they've taken the images from AliExpress it is that both sets of sellers are drop-shipping product from the same source or collection of sources (or buying and reselling though that is much less common as it means managing stock) and the images come & other sales material come from there.

> So, technically, that premium price brings me me the assurance that I am protected by EU consumer laws.

When comparing Amazon (UK) or eBay to the sellers on, for example, Facebook, often there isn't a premium, Amazon (or AliExpress, or similar) are often cheaper than sellers on social media and/or advertising via adverts on YouTube and their ilk. Those sellers will often try to make the product out to be some unique high quality item with a price to match (which of course is heavily discounted if you buy in the next hour or two), and if you check your preferred general marketplace you'll find several people with the same thing, often with the same images, making no such pretence of it being unique or high-value, at a price noticeably cheaper than the seller from SM/etc. I assume this is the same with Amazon in other jurisdictions and other marketplaces like Boi.

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#173

Post by iammrpayments »

lm28469 wrote: post #25
cjonas wrote: post #8

At least 50% of the YouTube promoted videos I get are crypto currency scams where some paid actor walks you though deploying an eth contract that empties your wallet. I report every one and nothing changes :(

I get 50% AI generated tai chi promising strength gain, weight loss and enlightenment, the other 50% israel sponsored ads assuring me people in gaza are not starving at all and completely healthy

I get a lot of ads from unicef asking money to send good to Gaza so I’m not sure how they target users

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#174

Post by deathanatos »

jeffbee wrote: post #109
Workaccount2 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because google has no profile on you, likely because you block all tracking. Which is fine, but at least understand that it's not the norm. Normal non-tech users (from watching youtube at friends houses or at my parents), mostly get ads for fabric softener and cat litter.

Yeah, it's wild how poorly the hackernewses understand this. If the ad platform has few signals for targeting, but it does have the available signals of you're using a weird VPN or tor, and a weird user agent on an uncommon platform, then it's just going to assume you're a crypto loser like the other people sharing those traits.

… I'll bite, then. I not only accept cookies in this case, I'm logged in. I get these same cryptocurrency scam ads.

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#175

Post by philistine »

dspillett wrote: post #148
deaux wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little ironic when Amazon is filled to the brim with scams.

Amazon has the advantage over some company I don't have experience with, of that I know returns are pretty easy and generally not questioned at all (at least for me, long-standing account in the UK, with infrequent returns, it might vary for new accounts, those who return more than they keep, or those in countries with worse consumer rights at the legally enforced level). My two most recent examples: a couple of roll…

Your experience with no questions asked returns is not what everybody is experiencing these days.

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#176

Post by DonHopkins »

9rx wrote: post #150
noir_lord wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah... so we find ourselves at > “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” >“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

If a contractual party is not acting in good faith, there is a legal system to address that. But I know you will say that the legal system doesn't act in good faith, so... I guess you're screwed. Such is the pitfall of living under a dictatorship.

What are we supposed to do about the fact that you are not arguing in good faith? I'm not buying what you're selling.

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#177

Post by iammrpayments »

stusmall wrote: post #129

Once I got an Instagram ad for buying ketamine that just linked to a telegram channel. They didn't even bother being coy or using mispelling or slang. A simple keyword search to flag for more review would have caught it. I can't even wrap my head around what internal controls exist when something like that makes it out to users.

There’s zero to none manual review. The people who run these type of ads probably burn 100 facebook ad accounts per day

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#178

Post by zahlman »

jerf wrote: post #67
cj wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is the already-existing trend towards walled gardens will simply continue. When a public space is dangerous, people retreat into "safe" enclosed spaces. - "Never download anything unless it's from the Apple App Store" - "Never buy anything unless you're on amazon.com" - "Dont use the internet outside of ChatGPT"

Yes, but observe how that for all three of the things that immediately came to your mind, you have respectively 1. a thing that still has a lot of scams in it (though it may be the best of the three) [1] 2. A thing so full of scams and fake products that using it is already a minefield (one my mother-in-law is already incapable of navigating successfully, based on the number of shirts my family has gotten with lazy-A…

> To forstall any AI debate, let me underline the word "lazy" in the footnote here. Most recently we received a shirt with a very large cobra on it, and the cobra has at least three pupils in each eye (depending on how you count) and some very eye-watering geometry for the sclera between it.

Okay, but if it matches the illustration on the storefront, can it really be called a scam?

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#179

Post by thinkmoore »

samlinnfer wrote: post #57

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere travelling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Recalls happen because they are required by regulators...

Re: Meta projected 10% of 2024 revenue came from scams

#180

Post by philipallstar »

noir_lord wrote: post #75
malfist wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a situation we accept out of other industries. You water provider doesn't get to pipe you sewage every now and again because its too expensive to moderate. We shouldn't accept it for big tech either. And we certainly shouldn't make it the responsibility of the end use to protect themselves

It's just another form of "socialise the costs, privatise the profits". In any sane world we'd regulate big tech far more rigorously than we do (we'd tax them more as well but that's a separate issue).

This is totally backwards. We "socialise" the profits and leave the risk and losses to the private sector.
Post reply on HN