Facebook Sued Over Fake Ads (theguardian.com) 63
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 wr
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Win-win (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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/ [libelreform.org] and https://www.theguardian.com/la... [theguardian.com]).
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-u
Re: Win-win (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 c
Re: Win-win (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:1)
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 i
Re: Win-win (Score:1)
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 c
Re: Win-win (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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"? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Who's gonna pay for the "team"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 acco
Re: (Score:3)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
- 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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 cente
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Politicians will fix this if they need to (Score:3)
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 simil
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Same as the IP war ... (Score:2)
... 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?
Aussie celebrity Eddie Maguire is also suing FB (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
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 conseq
Not "not stopping" (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re: (Score:2)
Facial recognition (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)