Meta must face Australian billionaire Forrest's US lawsuit over scam Facebook...

[Yamane_Keto]

Andrew Forrest has sufficient resources to continue the case, but if his goal is to obtain compensation, this case may disappear soon.
There was an individual lawsuit in 2022, and from there all lawsuits became either related to intellectual property rights or collective.
An Air Force vet who worked at Facebook is suing the company saying it accessed deleted user data and shared it with law enforcement

[Faisal2202]

We know that there are many fake/scam cryptocurrency ads on internet, although usually we only can either block or ignore it. So it's good to see one of them forced to take responsibility over it. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

Facebook is just there to take benefit from everything, even it is listening to our words, and searches we make on Google and then showing us the relevant type of data like on there marketplace or in ads we see while streaming on FB. As far as I remember, ads are a small thing, I mean its just a bunch of meme promoters who might have used Forrest's image to promote some meme coin in advertisement to gain some benefit.

A terrorist live-streamed the attack back in 2019 which occurred at New Zealand, and he live streamed it on Facebook. It can't even stop that then how we can assume FB can save people from watching such fraudulent ads? They don't have any control over the type of content. And I just realize the importance of Section 230 to these media platforms, I am glad this judge is making FB pay I hope it will bring good results on the table.

[ABCbits]

As far as I remember, ads are a small thing, I mean its just a bunch of meme promoters who might have used Forrest's image to promote some meme coin in advertisement to gain some benefit.

Facebook income from ads isn't small and the news clearly state it's far more than some meme coin promote use Forrest's image. He even claim his name/image also misused by Meta, not only the promoter.

A terrorist live-streamed the attack back in 2019 which occurred at New Zealand, and he live streamed it on Facebook. It can't even stop that then how we can assume FB can save people from watching such fraudulent ads? They don't have any control over the type of content.

But unlike live streaming, there's delay before the ads are shown to Facebook users. They can add rule which says ads only shown after reviewed by human moderator, but we know they wouldn't bother do that.

[yhiaali3]

This is completely shameful. It is shameful for giant companies like Meta, Facebook, and X to allow fraudulent ads for cryptocurrencies to appear. It seems that the issue is only related to money.

This is an old problem and it is not the first time that fraudulent cryptocurrency ads have appeared on Facebook, YouTube, and X. These companies must maintain their credibility and reputation by setting very strict criteria for accepting ads before promoting them.

Not only social media sites, but unfortunately big sites like CMC and Cointelegraph, I have seen advertisements for dozens of fraudulent projects there.

[Faisal2202]

Facebook income from ads isn't small and the news clearly state it's far more than some meme coin promote use Forrest's image. He even claim his name/image also misused by Meta, not only the promoter.

I don't think he claimed that his name and image has been used by the Meta (the company) but the users who used these things to promote cryptocurrency (and these are mostly memecoins). If he claims Meta has did it, then I don't think he is going to win the case against the Meta, but fortunately the judge has considered to take good action, by ignoring the section 230. Which is a kind of save haven rule for social media platforms.

And I know ads are not small thing, in the context of earning, most of the earning FB made is from ads, I was speaking in the context of content being shown, like ads are small in compared to full live stream. I hope you got the point here.

But unlike live streaming, there's delay before the ads are shown to Facebook users. They can add rule which says ads only shown after reviewed by human moderator, but we know they wouldn't bother do that.

I don't think ads are reviews by human moderators, I don't know for sure, but from what I have understand from the following page, they use human force only when a person puts a review request. And review request is put after the ads are live on FB. The review process is automated but the request put after the ad is live is dealt by human beings.
https://www.facebook.com/business/news/facebook-ad-policy-process-and-review