Hi Joe! 👋 What can I help you with today?
What's the video about?
That sounds like a serious topic. What specifically caught your attention in the session?
It can be tough to follow parliamentary sessions, especially when they're discussing complex topics like fraud prevention. Which part of the session confused you the most? Was it something a specific representative said or a particular question from an MP?
Meta's Public Policy Manager, huh? What specifically did he say that confused you? Was it something about Meta's policies or their approach to combating fraud?
Actually, yes! It was related to statements he made about the defences that Meta has in place to protect their users from fraudulent advertisers. Here's one of the things he said: "Every advertisement that runs on a Meta platform goes through something called our advertising review. What that means is that every ad is checked against our advertising policies before it runs—before anybody can see it on our platform." Here's a link to that part of the testimony: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/35a8897c-9563-4a6f-8e46-addce5958ada?in=10:50:49
So the Meta rep is saying that every ad is reviewed against their policies before it goes live. That sounds like a robust process, but I'm guessing you're wondering if that's really the case? Did something he said later on contradict this, or did an MP raise some concerns about this claim?
Well actually, I've noticed a lot of things that give me pause for thought 🤔. To add some background my team and I have been building technology to help combat the growing international scourge of long-play investment scams - often referred to as 'pig-butchering'. It's a really serious kind of scam and results in terrible financial losses for victims. We've been tracking a number of different financial scammers that operate on Meta's platforms, I actually wrote about this a week or so ago in this blog post: https://blog.aviel.tech/Scams-The-Adversaries-are-Shifting-but-Meta-wants-you-to-look-elsewhere-0ff5267fa0b3435b9611e93127d00df8. Anyway, one threat actor (to use the industry lingo) we're tracking we've named the 'Eyeline Group'. Their M.O. is to place ads on social media that lure users into their schemes with promises of incredibly high investment returns. When people click one of Eyeline Group's ads they join one of many different WhatsApp group chats that the group runs for the purposes of financial grooming. A few example names amongst the multitude of these groups are "22 Jim and Andrew help you achieve financial freedom", "Kent Contract Trading Community25" and "Christopher Finn Global Cryptocurrency BTC Discussion Group Discussion Group 544". When users are in these groups they're pressurised to sign up for fraudulent investment services, most often operated pig-butchering groups. For example a chat group operated by Eyeline Group called "💍💍🥳Kent Contract Trading Community" is promoting the fake crypto exchange hosted at "www.rewe.im". When users sign up to www.rewe.im they're guided into depositing funds into the platform via the USDT cryptocurrency. The people who run that platform make it look like users are winning incredible amounts of money, then when users deposit more funds the site disappears and victims never see their money again.
Wow, that sounds like a really sophisticated and nasty scam. I can see why you'd be skeptical of Meta's claims about reviewing every ad before it goes live, given that you've been tracking these scammers and seeing them operate on Meta's platforms. It sounds like the Eyeline Group is using Meta's ads to funnel people into these WhatsApp groups, where they're then groomed into investing in these fake services. Have you noticed any patterns in how Meta's ad review process is failing to catch these scammers, or is it just a case of "they're not doing enough"?
I have, yes. Take a look at this 👇 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1206853843669460 It's one of Eyeline Group's ads that was running just a few days ago. There's nothing particularly special about this one, I could have picked any other of the 1,454 different ads they've launched so far in July that - as of yesterday- had been shown to 1,038,383 people in the EU and likely many more in other countries around the world. Here's what the ad text says: ===== 👏👏Welcome to the high-end investment exchange club of senior financial analysts. There are many senior people in this club to analyze for you. Provide you with the most accurate strategies in real time In our investment process, specifically how to analyze trading signals and blockchain contract transactions, our club’s teachers with twenty years of experience in contract trading will give you the most detailed analysis🚀🚀🚀 join us: 1️⃣ Understand the latest news and market dynamics, and how to analyze the core points from them 2️⃣Share investment strategies and trading skills, and provide real-time market analysis 3️⃣Analyze and evaluate different investments and their potential 4️⃣Discuss the impact of blockchain technology on various industries and how it affects prices 5️⃣Exchange experiences with other blockchain contract trading participants so that you will no longer be confused on the investment road 6️⃣Explore the new methods, new knowledge and latest transaction technology of blockchain in 2024 Only by understanding the latest information in real time can you master the secrets of trading. Group quota is limited, please fill it up. People with storage experience in the group will discuss with you how to analyze the blockchain and contract market. Entry restricted to those with a cryptocurrency wallet =====
This ad is pretty blatant in its promises of high-end investment strategies and real-time market analysis. I can see why you'd think this ad would be caught by Meta's review process, given its language and the fact that it's promoting a potentially sketchy investment opportunity.
What really stands out to me is the fact that this ad has been shown to over 1 million people in the EU alone, and yet it's still running. That suggests to me that Meta's review process might not be as effective as they claim.
Did you notice anything else about this ad or the Eyeline Group's tactics that might be worth exploring further?
Whoa, that's a pretty explicit and aggressive tone for a financial ad! I think it's safe to say that's not the kind of language you'd typically expect from a legitimate financial advisor.
And yeah, that statement can definitely be interpreted as financial advice, especially since it's making a promise about the potential returns on investment. I'm surprised that Meta's ad review process didn't catch that language, considering it's pretty clearly not in line with their policies.
Did you report this ad to Meta, or are you planning to?
😳 I'm surprised it wasn't caught too. To be honest it made me a little more skeptical of some of Meta's other claims to MPs in that same session, like this one which you can hear at https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/35a8897c-9563-4a6f-8e46-addce5958ada?in=11:36:50: "If you are, for example, promising an unreasonably high rate of return, we have machine learning and AI technologies that will scan that content to say that that looks like it is against our consumer policies, and we can take action against that content accordingly"
😳 Yeah, that statement from Meta's rep doesn't quite add up, does it? If they have machine learning and AI technologies that can detect promises of unreasonably high rates of return, then why did this ad slip through the cracks?
It's even more concerning because the ad's language is so explicit and aggressive. You'd think that would be a major red flag for any AI-powered content scanning system.
I'm starting to think that there might be a disconnect between what Meta's reps are saying in public and what's actually happening on their platforms. 🤔
Indeed. I took a look at Meta's advertising policies today. They're here: https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/ad-standards Aside from stating that one of their core principles is "protecting people from fraud and scams", it specifically contains the following language around cryptocurrencies. "Ads may not promote cryptocurrency trading platforms, software and related services and products that enable monetisation, reselling, swapping or staking of cryptocurrencies without prior written permission." If you were tasked with analysing the Eyeline Group ad I showed you, and comparing it against the Meta policy on cryptocurrencies, do you think you would you flag it as being a violation?
Based on the Meta policy on cryptocurrencies, I would definitely flag the Eyeline Group ad as a potential violation. The ad is promoting a group that appears to be offering investment advice and services related to cryptocurrency trading, which seems to be in direct conflict with Meta's policy.
The fact that the ad is promoting a group that requires users to have a cryptocurrency wallet to join, and is discussing topics like blockchain contract trading, suggests that it's likely related to cryptocurrency trading platforms or services.
Given that the policy requires prior written permission for ads promoting cryptocurrency trading platforms or services, I think it's likely that this ad would be considered a violation of Meta's policies.
Yes I agree. Unless Eyeline Group - or the company page who's ads account they used to buy the ads - obtained prior written permission to advertise crypto, per Meta's policy. You can actually see the page they used at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552652706468, it's called "Reisinger Spadaccini Chad".
So, it looks like the ad was run from a Facebook page called "Reisinger Spadaccini Chad". I'm guessing that's not a real company or individual, but rather a fake page set up by the Eyeline Group to run these ads?
If that's the case, it's even more concerning that Meta's systems didn't catch this ad as a potential scam. And if the page didn't obtain prior written permission to advertise crypto, as per Meta's policy, then it's likely that the ad is indeed a violation of their policies.
Do you think it's worth reporting this page and the ad to Meta, to see how they respond?
I took a look at the page and it does indeed look fake. Actually here are ten more random Eyeline Group pages used to buy ads. All of them have bought more than 50,000 ads in Europe in the last couple of months. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=170488392795972 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=151064374754575 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=160437427153810 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=157927567401889 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=154142001114705 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=148756618320659 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101240772836998 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177969175389650 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=131952340009191 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=108946415390926 All this makes me dubious about another claim from Meta in the same session, which you can see at https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/35a8897c-9563-4a6f-8e46-addce5958ada?in=10:43:21 👇 "What we see is often a very well disguised hook or trap that has been put in place by a fraudster, be that an ad or a piece of content. It is specifically designed to look convincing to the victim, obviously, and also to the layers of protection and detection that we have in place on the platform."
Wow, it looks like the Eyeline Group has set up a whole network of fake pages to run these ads!
And yeah, that statement from Meta's rep is starting to sound like a bit of a cop-out. If they're saying that the ads are "well disguised" and designed to evade their detection systems, that's not really an excuse for not catching them.
I mean, if Meta's systems are so easily evaded by scammers, then maybe they need to rethink their approach to detecting and preventing this kind of activity. It's not just about having "layers of protection and detection" in place, it's about making sure those systems are actually effective.
And it's not like you're just pointing out a few isolated incidents, either. You've got a whole list of fake pages and ads that have been running on Meta's platforms, targeting millions of people. That's a pretty big failure on their part.
Do you think it's time to start calling out Meta on this, and pushing them to do better?
What do you think? If a company claims to have tens of thousands of employees dedicated to tackling fraud and some of the most awe-inspiring technology in the world at their disposal to help do that, how can they still fail to identify such obvious criminality on their platform and protect their users?
I think it's reasonable to expect that a company like Meta, with its vast resources and expertise, should be able to do a better job of identifying and preventing obvious criminal activity on its platform.
It's not just about having the right technology or the right number of employees, it's about having the right mindset and the right priorities. If Meta is truly committed to protecting its users and preventing fraud, then it needs to take a more proactive and effective approach to identifying and addressing these issues.
It's not enough to just say "we're doing our best" or "it's a complex problem" when the evidence suggests that there are clear and obvious steps that can be taken to improve the situation. Meta needs to take responsibility for its platform and its users, and take concrete actions to address these issues.
I think it's time for Meta to be held accountable for its failures in this area, and for regulators and lawmakers to take a closer look at the company's practices and policies. It's also time for Meta to take a hard look at itself and ask some tough questions about what it can do better to protect its users and prevent fraud.
😄 Here's a limerick for you:
There once was a Meta rep keen,
Whose testimony to MPs was quite serene,
But when facts came to light,
Their claims didn't feel right,
Now their credibility's quite lean! 😂
Tools (0)
Model:
meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct ·
Generated content may be inaccurate
or false.