Meta Accused of Trying To Discredit Ad Researchers (theregister.com) 18
Thomas Claburn reports via The Register: Meta allegedly tried to discredit university researchers in Brazil who had flagged fraudulent adverts on the social network's ad platform. Nucleo, a Brazil-based news organization, said it has obtained government documents showing that attorneys representing Meta questioned the credibility of researchers from NetLab, which is part of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). NetLab's research into Meta's ads contributed to Brazil's National Consumer Secretariat (Senacon) decision in 2023 to fine Meta $1.7 million (9.3 million BRL), which is still being appealed. Meta (then Facebook) was separately fined of $1.2 million (6.6 million BRL) related to Cambridge Analytica.
As noted by Nucleo, NetLab's report showed that Facebook, despite being notified about the issues, had failed to remove more than 1,800 scam ads that fraudulently used the name of a government program that was supposed to assist those in debt. In response to the fine, attorneys representing Meta from law firm TozziniFreire allegedly accused the NetLab team of bias and of failing to involve Meta in the research process. Nucleo says that it obtained the administrative filing through freedom of information requests to Senacon. The documents are said to date from December 26 last year and to be part of the ongoing case against Meta. A spokesperson for NetLab, who asked not to be identified by name due to online harassment directed at the organization's members, told The Register that the research group was aware of the Nucleo report. "We were kind of surprised to see the account of our work in this law firm document," the spokesperson said. "We expected to be treated with more fairness for our work. Honestly, it comes at a very bad moment because NetLab particularly, but also Brazilian science in general, is being attacked by far-right groups."
On Thursday, more than 70 civil society groups including NetLab published an open letter decrying Meta's legal tactics. "This is an attack on scientific research work, and attempts at intimidation of researchers and researchers who are performing excellent work in the production of knowledge from empirical analysis that have been fundamental to qualify the public debate on the accountability of social media platforms operating in the country, especially with regard to paid content that causes harm to consumers of these platforms and that threaten the future of our democracy," the letter says. "This kind of attack and intimidation is made even more dangerous by aligning with arguments that, without any evidence, have been used by the far right to discredit the most diverse scientific productions, including NetLab itself." The claim, allegedly made by Meta's attorneys, is that the ad biz was "not given the opportunity to appoint a technical assistant and present questions" in the preparation of the NetLabs report. This is particularly striking given Meta's efforts to limit research into its ad platform. A Meta spokesperson told The Register: "We value input from civil society organizations and academic institutions for the context they provide as we constantly work toward improving our services. Meta's defense filed with the Brazilian Consumer Regulator questioned the use of the NetLab report as legal evidence, since it was produced without giving us prior opportunity to contribute meaningfully, in violation of local legal requirements."
As noted by Nucleo, NetLab's report showed that Facebook, despite being notified about the issues, had failed to remove more than 1,800 scam ads that fraudulently used the name of a government program that was supposed to assist those in debt. In response to the fine, attorneys representing Meta from law firm TozziniFreire allegedly accused the NetLab team of bias and of failing to involve Meta in the research process. Nucleo says that it obtained the administrative filing through freedom of information requests to Senacon. The documents are said to date from December 26 last year and to be part of the ongoing case against Meta. A spokesperson for NetLab, who asked not to be identified by name due to online harassment directed at the organization's members, told The Register that the research group was aware of the Nucleo report. "We were kind of surprised to see the account of our work in this law firm document," the spokesperson said. "We expected to be treated with more fairness for our work. Honestly, it comes at a very bad moment because NetLab particularly, but also Brazilian science in general, is being attacked by far-right groups."
On Thursday, more than 70 civil society groups including NetLab published an open letter decrying Meta's legal tactics. "This is an attack on scientific research work, and attempts at intimidation of researchers and researchers who are performing excellent work in the production of knowledge from empirical analysis that have been fundamental to qualify the public debate on the accountability of social media platforms operating in the country, especially with regard to paid content that causes harm to consumers of these platforms and that threaten the future of our democracy," the letter says. "This kind of attack and intimidation is made even more dangerous by aligning with arguments that, without any evidence, have been used by the far right to discredit the most diverse scientific productions, including NetLab itself." The claim, allegedly made by Meta's attorneys, is that the ad biz was "not given the opportunity to appoint a technical assistant and present questions" in the preparation of the NetLabs report. This is particularly striking given Meta's efforts to limit research into its ad platform. A Meta spokesperson told The Register: "We value input from civil society organizations and academic institutions for the context they provide as we constantly work toward improving our services. Meta's defense filed with the Brazilian Consumer Regulator questioned the use of the NetLab report as legal evidence, since it was produced without giving us prior opportunity to contribute meaningfully, in violation of local legal requirements."
Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I ran Facebook ads quite a bit. It was kind of funny how my click-through rate was so high, but my conversion rate was abysmal.
Click through rate is the number of times an ad is clicked divided by the number of times it is shown. 2-3% is considered successful. My ads routinely had CTRs above 5%.
Almost all of those clicks (well over 90%) resulted in a bounce, meaning the person who clicked left my site. This often happened within 5 seconds.
Those clicks had costs upwards of 20c and even 30c each.
This was confusing because the whole point of Facebook ads was that your audience was pre-qualified, meaning they had already expressed an interest in the product in question. If they are already interested (Facebook's claim, not mine) and they clicked an ad leading to the thing they are interested in, why would they bounce after five seconds? That isn't even enough time to properly identify what is on the page.
One day I was at breakfast scrolling through my Facebook news feed. I accidentally tapped an ad and instantly hit the back button.
Then the light went on.
Re:Experience (Score:4, Interesting)
Understands why people use ad blockers.
Re: (Score:3)
I regularly click on the Slashdot job ads (although I have no interest in them) and I don't interact further with the job ad (mainly because doing so requires an account in the job application website) probably result in the same effect: a cost for the big shop advertising the job, and hopefully a few cents for Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Once, I had an ebay account selling hand-made merchandise: I would have 200 views per month with 1 in 35 buying. Then I decided to setup my own shop-front. I chose a business (although in hindsight, they chose me, I just signed on the dotted line) that demanded 80c per click. I got 800 views per month, with 0 in 800 buying. I was paying hundreds per month to sell nothing. I cancelled them very quickly.
Cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire ad industry is a cancer on society. Let the whole damn industry burn as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone else astonished (Score:4, Interesting)
It feels like the FCC should be stepping in at some point but the courts are so packed they're basically neutered. Every time they try to take somebody to court they just get struck down... The decades spent putting pro-corporate judges in place really has paid off
Before I stopped going to Facebook... (Score:3)
Everyday I would see an add on Facebook for a robotic dog. The video was of a real dog, the actual product (according to one angry customer) was a stuffed toy that didn't even look realistic.
I reported those adverts every day for 2 weeks, they were still appearing on the 3rd.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you mean all those, "I made ten thousand dollars this month! You can too!" ads are scams? Say it ain't so! I had retirement plans!
Get serious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I am the founder and chairman of FACEBOOK.
But I also have a style that is completely unblockable.
Now I see you're trying to use your style over mine.
Now, you try to block me.
Brzzz! Byeow!
Now you have learned that you cannot block me.
Meta would like to remind you all that while it values your input & that Meta stands for truth & democracy, they're still laughing all the way to the bank.
Now excuse us & don't try to block us while we continue to "help" the Myanmar govt use Facebook to spread hatred against their muslim population & encourage Buddhist-led pogroms against them. (Yeah, you can't make this shit up!)
Facebook's handling is disgraceful (Score:3)
Whatever means Facebook uses to check reports are utterly failing.
I regularly see obvious scams - sales of "lost packets" or whatever in contexts where that is both utterly unthinkable and illegal (from the local airport, postal services etc.), or ads featuring our political leaders (geez, as if they'd stoop that low - we're not MAGA USA over here). When I see such, I report them. The result, without fail, comes a couple of days later with "we didn't remove the ad" as they didn't see any issue. Are they effing blind or so naive and credulous? Whether it's AI or actual people, this is simply ridiculous.
I sure wouldn't mind for the law to come down hard on them, forcing them to improve this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly see obvious scams - sales of "lost packets" or whatever in contexts where that is both utterly unthinkable and illegal...
My routers log all packets they drop, what is illegal in then trying to sell those?
Snowflake researchers? (Score:2)
Let's see. Meta "questioned the credibility of researchers", "accused the NetLab team of bias and of failing to involve Meta in the research process", "said that it was not given the opportunity to appoint a technical assistant and present questions". To the researchers, this is "unfair treatment" and "intimidation". Looks to me like some researchers over-reacted. Also, when your work causes a mega-corporation to be fined millions, don't expect the corporation to stay passive and not fight back in any way.
It's way worse (Score:2)
Lawyers tried to discredit their accusers? (Score:2)
Uhhh, isn't that basically what defense lawyers do? I'm no fan of Meta, but this is not news, let alone "News for Nerds." It's more, "no $hit"