Facebook Is Cracking Down On Deceptive Ads For Porn, Diet Pills

According to Adweek, the next target in Facebook's efforts to keep its News Feed clean is cloaking -- a technique used by "bad actors" to circumvent Facebook's review processes and show content to people that violates Facebook's Community Standards and Advertising Policies. For example, they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it's consistent with Facebook's policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link. "Facebook product management director Rob Leathern and software engineer Bobbie Chang described in a Newsroom post how 'bad actors' -- such as those promoting diet pills, pornography or muscle-building scams -- attempt to game the social network's review processes," reports Adweek. From the report: Leathern and Chang said Facebook has removed "thousands" of offenders from its platform over the past few months, and any advertisers or pages that are caught cloaking will be banned, as well. Facebook is using artificial intelligence in its anti-cloaking efforts, expanding efforts by human reviewers to identify, capture and verify incidents of cloaking and revising its policies. Pages that are not engaging in these practices should see no impact in their referral traffic.

Deceptive ads for porn??

[SuperKendall]

Heyyy... wait a minute, those aren't *Peruvian* goats... Damn you Facebook!

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

Heyyy... wait a minute, those aren't *Peruvian* goats...

Agreed, those Canadian goats at goats.eh are just not the same. >:(

Re:

[sycodon]

Peruvian goatse, actually.

Re:

[rtb61]

Whilst facebook should not be held liable for the opinions of their users and the courts should be the only accepted method of censorship, when it comes to advertisements, facebook using it's reach to promote products and facebook is promoting product for profit, than facebook should be held legally liable for the product it promotes for profit. Not only should facebook kick off bad advertisers it should sue them for damaging the reputation of facebook (only those that paid for advertisements and that faceb

Re:

[umghhh]

I do not use FB or at least I do not have knowingly anything to do with it but News Feed suggest this has something to do with news as well as ads if so FB is censoring news for some not insignificant part of the population that is naive enough to use it for sole news source or at least for entry point. Effectively FB is shaping political discourse in some places. Like it or not.

Re:

[tsqr]

News Feed suggest this has something to do with news

Well of course it does; just mainly not the kind of news you're thinking of. News, as in a report of a recent event (e.g, FB post that says, "I'm on vacation in Elbonia"), or as in information that is new to the observer. When you ask a friend, "What's new with you?" their answer is ... news.

Re:

[nukenerd]

If you block everything, then when you encounter one of the billion ad domains that exist that are hosted on AWS so you can't block the IP, and can't block the assets because the file names are literately a faceroll, it's not outbid by targeted content that isn't nearly as shitty.

I don't give a fuck who wins the bidding war, they are all shit and I ignore them all. Your "targeted content" is way off target anyway.

... If you want a good web experience

... Those words are straight out of the ad-man's phrase book ....

you should only be blocking ads on the very same sites you would use the incognito/private browsing mode on. If you want a miserable web experience, keep on blocking ads with a chain saw instead of a scalpel.

Your basic flawed premise is that I want to see ads and I want them tailored to me. I don't. When I am thinking of buying something serious (car, camera) I do my own looking for ads, like going to camera makers' and review websites. When I am not thinking of buying something I don't want to see ads. You d

Re:

[Unknown User]

I'm blocking all ads indiscriminately and have a very fine web experience. I'm not interested in ads and sincerely hope that all sites who make their money primarily from ads go out of business sooner than later. The web was much better before it was infested with ads and companies.

Re:

[jandersen]

This is why Trump won, by the way.

Because he was voted in by people who are too dumb to see through deceptive ads, you mean?

Re:I thought this was Slashdot.

[ScentCone]

Because he was voted in by people who are too dumb to see through deceptive ads, you mean?

Or, because millions of people who voted twice for Obama got tired of the Democrats', DNC's, and Clinton Campaign's deceptive behavior (ads and much), and turned their backs on them and their extremely poor choice of a serially lying, corrupt candidate. Doesn't matter what you think of Trump. Ads on FB didn't cause Hillary to somehow forget to even set foot in Wisconsin, a state she took for granted as supporting her coronation despite labeling a sizable portion of its residents irredeemably deplorable people. And it's not just about Clinton. It's just part of the pattern that saw the D's lose nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, and both houses of congress, too. All of the phony Russia stuff and blaming FB ads (as if the only phony crap seen there was aimed at only one end of the spectrum - please!) is just a lazy way to avoid confronting the real reasons why the Democrats have lost so much traction over the last eight years.

Re:

[Ksevio]

They ran a bad campaign and Clinton wasn't exactly an inspiring candidate, but the phony Russian stuff sure helped turn people off that might have been planning to vote but instead stayed home.

Re:

[ScentCone]

No, the "phony" in the "phony Russian stuff" is a reference to the phony narrative being continually pimped by CNN and MSNBC and the NYT about how the Trump Campaign was working with the Russians to run some massive, secret operation that filled the media with false stories. Which is hilarious, considering the bulk of the media spent the entire pre-election period working FOR Clinton, rather than against her.

Re:

[Ksevio]

Oh so by "phony" you mean the true narrative about the Russians that's been confirmed by all the intelligence agencies? And the true stories about how the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?

Re:

[ScentCone]

Oh so by "phony" you mean the true narrative about the Russians that's been confirmed by all the intelligence agencies?

You mean, the one where the Russians kept doing the same thing in 2016 that they've been doing for decades? That one? What does that have to do with the pure fiction about the Trump campaign colluding with them as they somehow controlled the minds of Hillary Clinton and DNC officials into doing the things that made people not vote for her, or for all of the legislators and governors that the Democrats lost?

And the true stories about how the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize this was the "make stuff up" thread. It is fun to see you throwing that

Re:

[Ksevio]

You mean, the one where the Russians kept doing the same thing in 2016 that they've been doing for decades? That one?

No, the Russians had a much larger campaign to disrupt the election involving the internet and social media that wasn't possible in the past.

It is fun to see you throwing that sort of thing around with exactly zero attribution, of course.

Well I guess if you've been living under a rock, here are the emails tweeted out by Trump Jr: https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
And the relevant parts:

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

If that's not solid evidence on collusion, I don't know what is.

Re:

[ScentCone]

I see. So, during the "collusion" you're describing, what happened, exactly? Please describe the events of the 20-minute meeting, and what was achieved in terms of the Trump campaign working with the Russians, and what actions both parties then took during their collusion efforts. You obviously have information that nobody else does, so this is going to be big news! Can't wait for you to explain to everybody. Please, do go on with your specific details and the impact of those actions on the minds of voters

Re:

[Ksevio]

Well on the Russian side, they hacked the DNC servers and found information that they then provided to the Trump campaign and released on WikiLeaks.
The Trump side publicized the information provided and used it quite often in their campaign materials, even pushing the insane conspiracy theories.

This isn't surprise information that no body else knows. Most people are aware of this, it's just Trump supporters that stick their heads in the sand whenever someone tries to explain it.

Please, do go on with your specific details and the impact of those actions on the minds of voters in places like, say, Wisconsin

Sure, the voter in Wiscon

Re:

[ScentCone]

Well on the Russian side, they hacked the DNC servers and found information that they then provided to the Trump campaign and released on WikiLeaks.

Actually, no. Whoever stole that information from the DNC's mail server(s) provided that information to EVERYBODY. But it was an inside job, not a "Russian hack." Here you go, have a nice thorough write-up about the details, provided to you by a very liberal outlet and author both of whom hate Trump, but who are increasingly embarrassed by people like you who have taken the bait from the left-leaning media and their DNC handlers. The DNC hasn't even allowed the the FBI to look at those servers. Gee, I wond

Re:

[Ksevio]

Well golly, that changes everything!

Wait, no, it just changes "downloaded remotely" to "downloaded locally". It doesn't change at all that top members of the Trump campaign were meeting with Russians to work on the campaign. Tell me, does the right-leaning media ever show you this incriminating paragraph:

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Yes, it does change everything. Because the entire fictional liberal delusion that Trump was "working with the Russians" was based on the deliberately mis-represented circumstances surrounding the DNC leak, which was in-house. Or, are you saying the Russians were working inside the DNC? You know, Russians right there, colluding with Hillary? Sounds absurd, doesn't it. But that's the level of absurd you want everyone else to believe so you can stop asking yourself why Clinton and the Democrats have been losi

Re:

[Ksevio]

It's well known the DNC cheated Sanders and that Hillary received one (1) debate question ahead of time (that she gave a poor answer to anyways).

The "adoption" talking points came from Trump Sr in an attempt to minimize the meeting. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

Not to mention that discussing adoption would be a discussion of Russian sanctions...

To be honest, I don't know the exact details. It's well established that the Russians hacked the DNC and dozens of state elections. It's also well estab

Re:

[kwbauer]

And you are also including the phony dossier purchased by the Clinton Campaign "detailing" how a certain businessman enjoyed the feel of urine, right? You are not actually claiming that the Trump campaign purchased that dossier and convinced everyone in the world to claim it was actually Hillary that did it, are you?

Of course, anyone who believes that articles discussing Hillary's involvement with unapproved and illegal email servers are "fake news" is not really bright enough to understand the rest of the

Re:

[Ksevio]

The Trump dossier (which is being revealed to be more and more true as time passes) didn't come out until AFTER the election in the news so it's unrelated.

Hillary's email decisions weren't the "fake news", they were just a distraction from actual issues that the right kept hammering away (even though they're equally bad at email). Nice straw man though.

Fake news was stuff like "Hillary Clinton has brain cancer and only 6 months to live!" or "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring in the basement

Re:

[kwbauer]

Nobody needed any help to doubt Hillary's character.

I thought it was the FBI probe

[golodh]

Or, because voters, after two terms of the same party, voters got itchy for a change.

Or, because the Republican party carefully hoarded its best publicity shots over its (chronically unproven) allegations of misdemeanors for the campaign and had the good luck that the FBI decided to re-re-re-examine Mrs. Clinton's emails a week or so before the election.

Or it might also be because despite good and sensible economic policies the economy doing fine but the job-market sputtered under pressure from automati

Re:

[meglon]

Considering deceptive adds for pr0n and diet pills probably makes up 40-50% of all of them, i'd say it's a pretty good start. If they would have added in male enhancement pills, russian bride sites, and payday lenders.... that'd probably get rid of 75% or more of all of the crap. Then again, that'd probably cause the internet advertising revenue to catastrophically collapse.

Don't worry though, you'll always be able to get your ENGORGE!!! pills. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:

[Rockoon]

What is this deceptive ad for porn stuff?

Are they saying some of the porn links dont deliver porn?

Re:

[meglon]

You don't get those? I get them all the time. I'll type in something like..."google," and it will take me to Google instead of porn. I mean, seriously, WTF is that?

Re:

[kwbauer]

you left out the space "go ogle" not "google".

but not fake news story that support the far right

[jsepeta]

Fuck Facebook to hell

Re:but not fake news story that support the far ri

[Tablizer]

I'd pit the accuracy/coverage of CNN over Fox "News" any friggen day.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

I'd pit the accuracy/coverage of CNN over Fox "News" any friggen day.

They're both shit. Fox News is more runny, but that's about the only real difference. CNN is dedicated to maintenance of the status quo, which is unsurprising since they find it profitable.

Re:but not fake news story that support the far ri

[AmiMoJo]

Fox reminds me of countries with the word "democratic" in the name, like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you have to repeatedly remind people that you are "fair and balanced", you probably aren't...

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

There have been several stories about Facebook cracking down on fake news, labelling links to sites like Brietbart as "disputed" or just outright fake.

In any case, I share you sentiment: fuck Facebook.

More censorship

[lucm]

I wonder if they do like Google and hide stuff that makes them look bad.

See this site: http://www.marchongoogle.com/ [marchongoogle.com]

try to find it via google if you don't know the domain name.

the more this shit goes on, the more I understand how bad it was for people who tried to organize demonstrations during the arab spring.

Re:More censorship

[theweatherelectric]

try to find it via google if you don't know the domain name.

marchongoogle.com has only existed [whois.com] since the 8th of August. Did they even submit the site for indexing?

As it is, searching for march on google without quotes on Google returns a YouTube video [youtube.com] talking about it as the first result. The same search doesn't return anything related to marchongoogle.com in the first page of Bing or DuckDuckGo results (although if you switch to the video tab in DuckDuckGo it shows the same video as the first video result).

But searching for "march on google" with quotes returns the marchongoogle.com site as the first result in Bing and DuckDuckGo and the site is listed in the second page of results on Google.

So I'd suggest this is less about some kind of conspiracy and more about the newness of the March On Google website.

Re:

[thesupraman]

Sorry, you were expecting this person to actually have a clue about how indexing works, how long it takes things to get indexed, how complex pageranking is, and the very VERY small chance of hitting the front page for a site that is new and not very crosslinked in its first year of life?

Ah yes, this is slashdot, you SHOULD be able to expect that, sadly those days are long, long gone.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

Because existing already indexed sites like Slashdot get indexed more frequently than a completely new site that no one have heard about before?

Re:

[schleimkeim]

that's because slashdot is a little older than the 8th of August if i recall correctly.

Re:

[Arab]

That's because Slashdot is already indexed by Google.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

From marchongoogle.com:

"protesting in front of the homes of Googleâ(TM)s executive team."

Way to go guys, that definitely won't end badly.

Re:

[lucm]

Yeah and it looks like an alt-right thing, so the antifa vandals will probably show up and throw glass bottles at them. Popcorn time.

Still, it's good to see people standing up to censorship.

Re:

[Arab]

I literally just Googled march on google and marchongoogle.com is the second result... They are totally censoring it... /s

Re:

[lucm]

I learned all I needed to know without even seeing the actual website

Spoken like a true liberal. Making decisions based on preconceived ideas and shallow information. No wonder you almost elected Clinton.

Re:

[lucm]

As is oft repeated, Trump is the poor man's idea of a rich man, the ignorant man's idea of a smart man, and the weak man's idea of a strong man.

Something shallow and stupid repeated by idiots doesn't gain wisdom in the process.

Since you need to be told the obvious:
- Trump is worth $3.5 billions; that qualifies as being a rich man.
- He turned a $14 million loan from his father into that $3.5 billion fortune. You don't achieve that without being smart.
- He decided to become President, bankrolled his own campaign, stood alone against his own party and against the biased mainstream media and against dishonest, corrupt democrats who kept sending people

Re:

[lucm]

Must be because they saw all the traffic coming from Slashdot and they got scared so they unblacklisted it for Slashdot visitors.

Re:

[theweatherelectric]

Your narrative sounds irrational. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Re:

[lucm]

None, I just wanted to promote the website.

Re:

[theweatherelectric]

If that same shallowness is representative of March on Google generally then seems clear that it is a pointless protest. If March On Google has the same intellectual dishonesty then it won't achieve anything.

Re:

[lucm]

A protest is never pointless. You'll learn that when you leave you mom's house and face real injustice yourself.

Re:

[theweatherelectric]

A protest is never pointless.

It is when it's shallow. You'll learn that when you learn honesty.

Re:

[sheramil]

And /. can we stop making so many stories with Facebook? It is really starting to get boring here.

When chronic Faecebook users complain to me about the toxic environment there, and I tell them "Well, don't go there," they look at me as if I'd suggested they strangle the family budgerigar. I think it's an addiction. Addiction to what, I have no idea. I only go on Faece every few months to post out-right lies, like "I think I'll buy a second boat, to go with my first boat", to give their analytics something to chew on.

Re:

[schleimkeim]

I think it's an addiction. Addiction to what, I have no idea.

I don't think it's an addiction. My guess is boredom. That would explain why my feed only has entries from people who are unemployed and housewives.

Facebook values

[Matias Kiviniemi]

I wouldn't hold my breath on this.. I've had a few occasions where Facebook will stop an ad link from opening because it suspects malware, BUT will not stop SELLING the ad!! Priorities, it's good to have them..

How about we crack down

[mapkinase]

On all ads? Destroy this industry, revolutionize economy.

In the past ads perfomed information function, now they don't. People can search for information now, any information.

The only acceptable way of advertisement should be word of mouth. If someone is caught paying or being paid for "word of mouth", astroturfing, shilling etc, they need to be executed on the spot.

How can people that tasted ad-blocking software have anything good to say about ads?

Re:How about we crack down

[ScentCone]

Ah, I see you've never actually owned a business or been smart enough to understand that your paycheck (assuming you earn one, and aren't living off of other people's taxed income) is actually tied to the prosperity of business ventures that - in order to prosper - have to compete. Competition includes, among other things, communicating to prospective customers about why your product or service might be more attractive than the next one. I presume you think that a someone running a brand new start-up that's never had a single customer should be "executed on the spot" for trying to tell you about what they're offering. Idiot.

Aren't all non-FDA approved diet pills fake?

[schwit1]

Any weight loss pill that's not backed up by an independent double blind study that proves it causes fat reduction is a fraud.

After years of Facebook

[brennz]

collecting outsized ad revenues, in the hundreds of millions, Facebook has decided to crack down on a few categories of the deceptive ads.

What am I Missing here?

[nukenerd]

FTFA : -

they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it's consistent with Facebook's policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link

Am I missing something? Why are the Facebook reviewers not using the same sort of browser or app as an end user would?

Re:

[laurencetux]

ip block checking , browser fingerprinting, referrer and "crawler" cloaking

or even a trick of time delay swapping (the ad is in version X for the first 2 minutes and then swaps to version Y)

Slashdot ads

[iTrawl]

You mean like those Taboola ads Slashdot slaps on?

So much more sense... but wait --

[zarmanto]

And here, I was starting to wonder if Facebook reviewers had gone over the wall into approving of porn, based upon their response when I reported a link, several months back. It actually makes so much more sense that the porn purveyors are just more adept at technical manipulation, and the content reviewers (literally) didn't see what I saw.

... except that the porn link was attached to a Facebook profile that had friend requested me.

... and that profile itself had adult oriented content in it.

... and for s

the real need

[slashmydots]

They need to target viral posts about ridiculous "natural" cures with essential oils and plants and chinese fruit and all that other BS. I'm soooo sick of my idiot friends posting that shit.

Best way to stop this stuff....

[MerlTurkin]

Is to get the hell off of Facebook.