Meta made scam ads harder to find instead of removing them

Article framing and evidence

• Several commenters argue the Sherwood piece misrepresents the underlying Reuters report, which says Meta removed scam ads, making them harder to find because they were actually deleted, not merely hidden.
• Others counter that even if ads are removed, targeting enforcement at what regulators search for suggests Meta is optimizing appearances, not solving the underlying scam problem.
• A key Reuters quote about making problematic content “not findable” for regulators is viewed as a potential “smoking gun,” but commenters note the article doesn’t provide full context, making intent somewhat unclear.

Meta’s tactics: removal, sampling, and “cloaking”

• Regulators and journalists sample ads via keyword searches; Meta reportedly identified their most-used keywords and then scrubbed matching scam ads.
• Some liken this to a restaurant fixing only the dishes the inspector tastes; others say it’s more like creating a Potemkin village while leaving the rest dirty.
• There is debate whether this is “cloaking” (showing different content to different audiences) or simply selective deletion and geo-redistribution.
• It’s unclear from the reporting whether normal users in regulated countries see fewer scam ads, or whether the ads are just shifted elsewhere or retargeted via other keywords.

Regulation, enforcement, and “Dieselgate”

• Meta’s behavior is compared to VW’s emissions “Dieselgate” scandal and Uber’s enforcement-avoidance tactics.
• Long back-and-forth on whether US vs EU enforcement actually punished VW meaningfully, with arguments over fines per vehicle and lack of senior executive jail time.
• Some express deep cynicism that US regulators will meaningfully punish Meta, portraying agencies as politically captured and underfunded.

Broader ad-platform issues

• Multiple users report widespread scammy or phishing ads on Google, YouTube, X, and Instagram (fake brand sites, subscription traps, counterfeit or unsafe products).
• Several share personal or family stories of financial loss from scam ads, especially hitting less tech-savvy people.
• Some claim a large share of their ad exposure (e.g., YouTube) appears to be scams or low-quality products.

Corporate incentives and liability

• Strong sentiment that platforms profit from scam ads, face low effective risk, and thus have weak incentives to fix the problem.
• Suggestions: make platforms legally liable for fraudulent ads; hold executives and boards personally responsible; reconsider limited liability and perpetual corporate charters.
• Others caution that liability regimes are complex and must be designed carefully to avoid unintended harm.

User responses and dependence on Meta

• Some commenters delete or avoid Facebook/Instagram entirely, calling Meta a “monopolistic cancer,” but note real costs: loss of community info, events, and local groups that only exist there.
• Others argue that anyone insisting on Facebook-only communication isn’t a real friend, but several describe increased loneliness and missed events after leaving.
• A thread notes Facebook’s continued dominance globally and its role in local marketplaces and niche groups, even as many tech users perceive it as a “wasteland.”

Legitimate advertisers and broken ad review

• Nonprofits and small businesses report difficulty getting innocuous ads approved, while obvious scams sail through, suggesting misaligned or low-quality enforcement.
• Support quality reportedly scales with advertiser spend, reinforcing perceptions that revenue trumps user protection.