Facebook Fired a Contractor Who Was Paid Thousands In Bribes To Reactivate Banned Ad Accounts

BuzzFeed News has found that a Facebook contractor was paid thousands of dollars in bribes by a shady affiliate marketer to reactivate ad accounts that had been banned due to policy violations. From the report: A company spokesperson confirmed that an unnamed worker was fired after inquiries from BuzzFeed News sparked an internal investigation. The person in question was based in the company's Austin office, according to information obtained by BuzzFeed News. The individual was paid to reactivate ad accounts connected to Ads Inc., a San Diego-based marketing firm BuzzFeed News previously revealed was running a sophisticated Facebook scam that involved placing more than $50 million in ads that typically made false claims about celebrities. The ads were part of a scheme that tricked consumers into signing up for an expensive monthly subscription for a product that was initially marketed as a free trial. Ads Inc. announced it was shutting down in October as a result of the BuzzFeed News investigation.

Chat messages obtained by BuzzFeed News, as well as information from former Ads Inc. employees, show how former Ads Inc. CEO Asher Burke and the Facebook insider conspired to reactivate banned ad accounts, further exposing Facebook users to scams by pitching dubious products. A former Ads Inc. employee told BuzzFeed the company had more than one person inside Facebook who would turn ads back on for a fee. "To be honest there were a few people that would flip ads back on," they told BuzzFeed News. They said that the Facebook mole (or moles) wouldn't receive their money if the reactivated ads didn't run for at least two days. Facebook declined to comment on whether it suspects others helped reactivate ads but said its investigation is ongoing. "This behavior is absolutely prohibited under our policies and the individual is no longer working with Facebook," a Facebook spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "We're continuing to investigate the allegations and will take any further necessary action."

And how many were unfairly banned for pay?

[SuperKendall]

It just goes to reason that if some contractor was able to restore accounts for pay, that there are probably a number of other willing to ban accounts for pay also. It would explain some of the more questionable bans (for Twitter and Facebook alike). You have to imagine that it's not even for money in some cases, some groups probably have moles on the inside willing to do moderation for reasons some external group dictates.

Re:And how many were unfairly banned for pay?

[AK Marc]

I'm on a 30 day ban now. If you post political content on a political page, those that disagree with you will flag you on every post. Then, if the automated algorithm sees some questionable words, you get an automatic ban. The "moderation" system is simply broken.

I report adds almost every day. "Local Teacher in %IP geolocation% retires after this one easy trick" which leads to a gambling site hosted in an unknown country with terms that make it obvious its a scam. I don't know how such obvious scams get promoted so high. But tell one guy "Putting people in concentration camps is what Nazis did" and you get a 30 day ban, for apparently historic accuracy that in context is an insult, because it included "Nazi".

Time for word games

[SuperKendall]

But tell one guy "Putting people in concentration camps is what Nazis did" and you get a 30 day ban, for apparently historic accuracy that in context is an insult, because it included "Nazi".

I guess for the next year or so just replace "Nazi" with "Nazgul" anytime you post... everyone will know what you meant. :-)

Re: Time for word games

[HeX314]

Just use "not see." Phonetically, it's the same.

Re:

[kot-begemot-uk]

But tell one guy "Putting people in concentration camps is what Nazis did" and you get a 30 day ban, for apparently historic accuracy that in context is an insult, because it included "Nazi".

I guess for the next year or so just replace "Nazi" with "Nazgul" anytime you post... everyone will know what you meant. :-)

Let me guess. The "people" in question was a fan of a particular non-Arab middle Eastern country in possession of an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Right?

You are not up with the times. In 2016, the aforementioned country lobbied to attach a special rulebook to the definition of anti-Semitism and after that lobbied successfully most of the world to accept the new revised definition inclusive of the rulebook. This includes UK and USA.

This is the definition in question: https://www.holocaustremembran... [holocaustremembrance.com]

You

Re:

[kot-begemot-uk]

No. He ran afoul of clause 10: https://www.holocaustremembran... [holocaustremembrance.com]

You need to count them - they are not properly numbered.

I see it on a daily basis on various newspaper forums, etc. This is being applied as the "gospel" because it is actually the law. Violating it is a criminal offence. No free speech excuses allowed on this one. Facebook is obliged to apply it.

How does that combine with some of its moderation policies elsewhere in the world beggars belief, but that is a different story.

Re:

[AK Marc]

The US has operated "concentration camps". In WW2, we literally called them that, though now, we are revising history to eliminate that term because of the historical implications. We had them before for Natives, and China has them for political prisoners. I wasn't talking about Israel, but the US policies of jailing only brown immigrants in special camps, and white immigrants are cited and released, or given papers of deportation and waiting for white people to deport themselves.

Re:

[hey!]

"It's stands to reason" is a flag for a shoddy argument to follow. Banning other people's accounts, while no doubt something people would like to do, has to be done on a massive scale to have any effect. It's not enough to ban *a* conspiracy theory advertiser, you've got to ban thousands ... tens of thousands ... to have the effect you want. Facebook can't even manage to do that when it *tries*.

Unbanning a *few* accounts for an individual willing to pay generates a measurable benefit to that individual a

Re:

[hey!]

It's not criminal behavior. It's what lawyers call a "tort". If anyone is to be paid for unbanning, it would be Facebook itself, so as a contractor you're in effect misappropriating income.

Advertising as Social Media

[rtb61]

It all feels like the vultures feeding over our dying economic carcase, fighting over the advertising entrails, who gets to control fake social platforms, actually advertising platforms, as the rest of the economy stagnates. What scams are allowed and which ones are banned, who gets the profit for sell virtual items, a product of nothing but more advertising, they claimed worth of a virtual item, so intimately tied to for profit social media, extremely privacy invasive and a know corrupter of democracy at a

Re:

[kot-begemot-uk]

Vultures?

Vultures are lovely creatures. They are cleaners and sanitizers in nature.

These are not vultures. They are something entirely unnatural - they are Ghouls.

Ad company

[AHuxley]

is going to ad...
If your not paying for the service, you are the product.

Wrong approach

[Ol Olsoc]

Bribes have to go directly through Zuckerberg. If there's one thing he can't stand it is upstarts cutting into his back channel resources.

It costs a lot of money to maintain that human suit he wears.

Ad world is slowly dying

[Raymond Berry]

It always happens, just faster at the speed of the 'net. When the costs of policing fraud and abuse become too much, the vine begins to die. FB is slowly dying, as it's ad supply is dwindling and the scammers have stepped up their game. It's what killed the internet 1.0 companies that dominated their time, and will happen again.

They just fired him?

[Tony Isaac]

I would think they would have prosecuted him!