Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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


Oh definitely. I have zero expectation of high level of manual reviews. You can run limited runs of adds for next to a couple dollars. The math could never work out. I understand a lot with make it through the system, this was just so blatant. It should be so easy to catch with an automated system. It was nothing but red flags. The automated systems could reject outright or maybe escalate to manual review if it met enough criteria (account reputation, spend floor, etc)


Meta wants to have big scammers. It's hugely profitable. That's why they codified internal policy that if the scam generates at least 0.15% of Meta's revenue, they must be protected and never moderated.

There was a big "bombshell" report on this yesterday (it didn't hit HN frontpage though).

Meta knowingly gets a lot of its funding from scams. They love it! They don't care about technical solutions for it: they've banned any solutions from being implemented because it would impact revenue.


>The math could never work out.

Horseshit. Running an ad in a local publication was also pretty damn cheap and was always human reviewed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: