Forum Topic

Internet fraud.

A SERIOUS QUESTION. In 2019 Money Man Martin Lewis won a £3 million pounds settlement from Facebook for using his face and profile to defraud vulnerable people out billions of pounds. Yet every day dozens of these fake ads are still accepted by Facebook to rob the unwary. In 2021 alone  £11 billion pounds have been defrauded from people. WHY ARE THE POLICE OR OTHER AUTHORITIES UNABLE TO STOP IT. Has Martin Lewis accepted £3 million pounds from Facebook on condition that he doesn't sue them again?                                                                                                                                   FAKE HEADING.                                                                          "Thousands Flock to ATMs After Martin's Exclusive Interview."

Neil Milkins ● 1146d7 Comments

Thanks everyone. I have only just now been notified of the answers to my question.

Neil Milkins ● 1137d

"I think banking and finance have proved that markets don't regulate themselves."That reminded me of Victorian food adulteration, before the market was regulated:-"Buying food today is a straightforward process. Products are made under strict hygiene standards, the ingredients are usually clearly labelled and the origin of the product is named. In Victorian England, it was far more hazardous. The problem was that nothing was as it seemed because almost every kind of food was adulterated in some way.From bread, pickled fruits and vegetables through to sweets, cakes, cheese and butter – they were all adulterated. This meant that foods were being bulked up with other additives to increase the shopkeepers’ profit margins. Every time the Victorians went shopping, they were being sold adulterated food. Even worse, this could pose serious risks to their health.Potatoes, ground bones, plaster of Paris, lime and pipe-clay were often added to bread, as was sulphate of copper and alum. Alum was used in the dyeing and tanning industry, and it increased the weight of bread and added whiteness. Although it wasn’t poisonous in itself, it caused severe indigestion and constipation.""This was probably also the reason for the large numbers of adverts in Victorian newspapers offering indigestion remedies."https://visitvictorianengland.com/2019/03/22/victorian-food-poisonous-bath-buns/#:~:text=Potatoes%2C%20ground%20bones%2C%20plaster%20of,caused%20severe%20indigestion%20and%20constipation.

David Ainsworth ● 1146d

I think our answers passed in the ether … ?

Michael Ixer ● 1146d

It's interesting that most of the adverts I see on FB are from legitimate organisations; is it the company I keep? Social media companies make their money from advertising and advertisers want to see lots of traffic. In many ways it's not dissimilar to the business model supporting commercial TV (as someone from Google said a while ago when being questioned about the business sense of providing services for free). I'd make a couple of observations: firstly, how many people like paying for online services; I suspect many use WhatsApp, FB Messenger, Google Chat, etc - or Skype and Zoom - rather than pay for texts or phone calls? Secondly, commercial TV, although it often moves towards the popular, sometimes lowest, forms of entertainment it is regulated by the jurisdiction within which it's broadcast (except for some who have dishes to access foreign satellite broadcasts); the internet is not regulated in that way. It will be interesting to see if Musk opens up Twitter to expand its "free speech" policy how different jurisdictions in the US, UK, EU and elsewhere will deal with that. (Interestingly, I saw an article indicating that Twitter had effectively closed down its Brussels office.)I would image Mr Zuckerberg does want to bolster FB advertising revenue, isn't most of his wealth in FB shares? I think banking and finance have proved that markets don't regulate themselves. (Look at the FTX disaster with limited regulation, governance, integrity, etc!) I suppose we can look forward to more regulation of internet services; let's hope there can be some international agreements to assist this, and that there's a sensible balance between free speech, surveillance and controlling extreme or illegal material with more onus on those profiting being responsible for filtering out such material.

Michael Ixer ● 1146d

Perhaps a shorter answer is a lack of regulation.Fines handed out by the UK are just to small.

Ed Robinson ● 1146d

I am convinced that Facebook aren't doing more because they are making millions if not billions from fake ads from Bitcoin, cannabis oil etc where the public lose billions. Zuckerberg was worth 100 billion recently. It can only be put down to greed.

Neil Milkins ● 1146d

That's a good question. Should the question be why aren't Facebook doing more to close fake an fraudulent accounts? The police do investigate major internet frauds but often these are cross border offences and even if they know who the criminals are they're outside of the reach of UK's police. There's a need for better international agreements and cooperation, more action by internet corporations - Meta, Google, Twitter, etc - and probably more funding for the police; would you prefer extra police on the streets or more working in cyberspace - which is probably the decision senior police officers have to make. The skills are different, so you're not going to move someone straight from the beat into cyber crime without a lot of training, although the authorities do work with any commercial cyber security companies.

Michael Ixer ● 1146d