I Reported a Facebook Scam. Meta Reported Back: ‘Looks Fine to Us’ | by Ben Rothke | Jun, 2026 | MediumSitemapOpen in appSign up<br>Sign in
Medium Logo
Get app<br>Write
Search
Sign up<br>Sign in
I Reported a Facebook Scam. Meta Reported Back: ‘Looks Fine to Us’
Ben Rothke
5 min read·<br>Just now
Listen
Share
Press enter or click to view image in full size
ChatGPTWhen fraud is the bottom line<br>Over the past few years, I’ve argued that Facebook doesn’t take security seriously and that it doesn’t take fraud seriously either. This is as I wrote last year in Facebook doesn’t care about security, and in 2023 Facebook doesn’t care about fraud.<br>Meta Platforms is one of the world’s largest technology companies. With a market capitalization exceeding $1.5 trillion, annual revenue topping $200 billion, nearly 80,000 employees, and more than 3 billion daily users across its family of apps, Meta has resources that most organizations can only dream of.<br>Yet despite those resources, fraud remains deeply embedded in its ecosystem.<br>In November, Reuters reported that Meta is earning a fortune on a deluge of fraudulent ads. Documents show Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods. Meta internally estimates that its platforms show users 15 billion scam ads a day. Among its responses to suspected rogue marketers: charging them a premium for ads — and issuing reports on ’Scammiest Scammers.’<br>As to the fact that 10% of its overall annual revenue — or $16 billion — comes from running advertising for scams and banned goods, that alone would place it around number 260 on the Fortune 500.<br>At some point, it’s fair to ask whether fraud is merely a problem for Meta — or whether it has become an accepted cost of doing business.<br>A Case Study in How the System Works<br>So here’s an example of how Facebook really doesn’t care about fraud and misinformation.<br>Recently, a Facebook post appeared in my timeline because a friend had been tagged in it.<br>At first glance, it looked like a news story. It featured an emotionally charged headline, vague details, and just enough information to trigger curiosity.<br>In other words, it was engineered for clicks.
The post wasn’t journalism. It was an affiliate marketing scheme.<br>Affiliate marketing itself is perfectly legitimate. Publishers routinely earn commissions by referring customers to products and services. But bad actors often disguise affiliate links behind misleading content, fake news stories, and deceptive claims designed to manipulate users into clicking.<br>That’s exactly what happened here.<br>Clicking the link launched a chain of redirects that ultimately led to online gambling sites. Online casinos are a cash cow and a losing proposition for well over 95% of online betters.<br>Click on that link and takes you to:<br>Press enter or click to view image in full size
Click it again to go to another betting site:<br>Press enter or click to view image in full size
Click it again to go to another betting site:<br>Press enter or click to view image in full size
Click again, and you go to StubHub.<br>Press enter or click to view image in full size
Given that ticket prices for many events can be in the thousands of dollars, the StubHub Affiliate Program can be a very profitable side hustle.. But in this case, it is an illegitimate affiliate link from the original post.<br>The economics are obvious. Gambling operators and ticket sellers pay generous commissions. A successful affiliate marketer can earn substantial income from traffic generated through deceptive posts.<br>The problem isn’t affiliate marketing. The problem is using misinformation and manipulation to drive users toward commercial destinations.<br>Reporting the scam<br>Facebook encourages users to report suspicious content.<br>So I did.<br>I selected “Scam, fraud, or false information” as the reason for my report.
For the above link, I reported it as ‘scam, fraud or false information’, which was clearly the case.
After reviewing the report, Facebook responded:
According to Meta, the content did not violate its standards.<br>That response reveals something important about how Meta’s moderation system operates.<br>Who Do the Community Standards Protect?<br>Meta’s Community Standards define what is and isn’t permitted on Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Threads.<br>Many users assume these standards exist primarily to protect them. I suspect the opposite is often true.<br>Like a corporate Human Resources department, the primary purpose of these policies is to protect the organization itself. Employee interests may sometimes align with HR’s objectives, but HR ultimately serves the company.<br>The same principle applies here. Meta’s standards are designed to manage legal, regulatory, operational, and reputational risk for Meta. Protecting users is part of that mission — but only to the extent that it aligns with Meta’s business interests.<br>When users report scams and receive responses that appear disconnected from reality, they’re often encountering that...