When fraud pays on Facebook

 Giant greed: According to internal documents reviewed by Reuters, Meta projected that roughly 10% of its 2024 revenue – around US$16bil – came from advertisements tied to scams, banned goods and other fraudulent content. — Reuters

Fake content and scam advertisements are a bane on social media. But it gets worse when platform owners actively allow such content just to make millions.

Wong CHUN WAI National Journalism Laureate Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai is the chairman of Bernama. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

16 Nov 2025

A MONTH ago, I found a video of myself on social media promoting an investment scam promising huge returns.

I was flabbergasted and horrified. The content looked like a TV interview I had given sometime back.

The difference was that my voice had been altered, using artificial intelligence (AI) skills, to talk about investment opportunities.

The original content was on human capital and the importance of training. The modified content, using the AI version of my voice, sounded just like the real thing. It was so good it was hard to tell the difference.

I do not know why I was chosen by these scammers as I do not see my unsolicited endorsement to be of any real value.

But this is the story. I filed a complaint with Facebook on Oct 1 and they replied on Oct 8, thanking me for the report.

“We use a combination of technology and human reviewers and identify content that goes against our Community Standards. In this case, we did not remove the content that you reported,” the reply said.

As I wrote this article, I re-checked and found the content still floating around on FB, promising that “every Malaysian who invests from RM1,200 is guaranteed to earn at least RM210,000 in the first month!” It adds: “Limited spots available.”

In short, Facebook owner Meta did not see anything wrong with the fake content using my face and voice to cheat people. Meta’s reply was mind-boggling and made me feel helpless about combating such fraud.

Last week, Datuk Seri Michael Chong cautioned the public against fraudulent schemes that employ AI to replicate the faces and voices of the Prime Minister and Yang di-pertuan Agong to dupe unsuspecting individuals.

The MCA Public Service and Complaints Bureau chief said he had identified two online advertisements featuring the PM and King. When they were reported, the ads were removed, but the syndicate had re-uploaded similar content, this time using the face sofa nm panda prominent business figure.

Using AI, the syndicate created investment advertisements requiring a payment of RM1,100 while promising returns of up to RM200,000.

Why did Facebook fail to act? Well, we may know now. An investigation by Reuters has cast a harsh light on the business practices of Meta Platforms Inc, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp.

According to internal documents reviewed by Reuters, Meta projected that roughly 10% of its 2024 revenue – around Us$16bil (Rm66.72bil) – came from advertisements tied to scams, banned goods, and other fraudulent content.

What is deeply troubling is that the documents suggest that Meta’s enforcement efforts against these bad actors were intentionally limited, constrained by “revenue guardrails” and automated systems that only block ads when there is at least a 95% certainty of fraud.

For Malaysia and for users of social media everywhere, the implications are profound.

This is not just about one tech giant’s failure; it is about the structural tensions between platform profit models and user protection, and the regulatory void that allows serious harm to happen.

In Malaysia, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission has already expressed alarm, noting that some of that revenue could stem from Malaysian-market ads, and has summoned Meta for answers.

Allowing platforms to be used for such scams and profiting from it makes Meta an accomplice to such cybercrimes.

These platforms should be held to account for the content they host and monetise.

If a platform is earning money from fraud-linked ads, that raises questions of complicity, not just oversight failure.

When a company’s business model allows or even subtly incentivises questionable advertisers, that means it does not value ethics.

It has been reported that Meta internally estimated the scale of “high-risk” scam advertisements at Us$15bil (Rm61.9bil) of such ads per day across its platforms.

The company’s justification is that it will only block advertiser accounts when automated systems are 95% sure the advertiser is engaging in fraud.

If it is not absolutely certain, it just charges them higher ad rates – effectively profiting from uncertainty.

In my case, despite my protest, we can assume that Meta did not find enough evidence that it was a fraud.

It was a case of “looks like you, sounds like you but we are not sure it’s a fraud despite your complaint”.

A Reuters report on Nov 11 said that “Meta knowingly profits off of them” – meaning the social media giant knew about ads for fake products and scam posts and projected that it could earn up to Us$16bil from running these ads featuring banned goods or scamming posts.

Meta is so powerful that it can snub protests and calls from regulators requiring it to publish clear data on scam advertising volumes and the ad revenue derived from them.

If the company doesn’t have any ethics why would it care two hoots about accountability? It knows the world is addicted to its products.

Responsibility does not seem to exist in the company statement.

The only way out is to teach Malaysians how to identify scam ads, report suspicious content, and hold platforms and advertisers to account.

Digital literacy is a frontline defence, and also, simply stop being greedy. If it sounds too good to be true, then it’s a scam.

Meta knows we are hooked on Whatsapp, Instagram and Facebook, and the world will not function a day without these products. It is untouchable.

We have miserably consented and surrendered all our personal data to Meta to use these products for free.

Now you know why and how these scammers get our details. Meta is enriching itself, and each time regulators want to haul it up, it cries that it’s an assault on the platforms.

Wong Chun Wai

Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 35 years in various capacities and roles. He is now group editorial and corporate affairs adviser to the group, after having served as group managing director/chief executive officer. On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.

• https://twitter.com/chunwai09

Meta’s move to end fact-checking spurring shift to mainstream sites

PETALING JAYA: Tech giant Meta Platforms Inc’s decision to scrap fact-checking has prompted social media users and parents to be more cautious, driving them toward credible and established sources for information.

Business development executive Christina Lopez, 46, said despite Meta’s move, it will unlikely change her social media habits, including on Facebook.

ALSO READ: Mainstream media poised for bigger role in combating misinformation

“I will still binge, but I will be extra careful with links, videos or content that involves news or opinions,” she said yesterday.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced on Jan 7 that it would replace its fact-checkers with a user-based “community notes” system to flag inaccurate posts, much like that on X, formerly Twitter.

Launched in 2016, Meta’s fact-checking system identified hoaxes via staff and technology that flagged posts likely to contain misinformation.

Fact-checkers verified and rated these posts, issuing warnings for false content and limiting its visibility.

ALSO READ: Meta’s end to fact-checking will be felt, but not so much in Malaysia, says Fahmi

Users who have shared misleading posts receive a notification providing them with a link to the fact-check article.

Corrections by authors lifted the restrictions.

On Jan 8, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said Meta’s move to remove independent fact-checking on its platforms would have implications but would not immediately affect Malaysian users.

“At the moment, I don’t see it affecting the Malaysian market, only the United States,” he said, referring to Meta’s initial implementation of the move over the next few months.

Meta said the rollback is starting in the United States but does not apply to other countries “at this time.” However, it has since announced several layoffs.

Lopez, who is an avid content consumer, said she spends hours mostly on Facebook watching videos and reading articles on topics to her liking.

“At times, I’ll check who the content creator is and whether or not they posted similar content in the past.

ALSO READ: Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

“However, I will also continue to only trust established and credible sources,” she said, referring to mainstream media and established news portals.

Hamidah Ahmad, 45, a homemaker and a mother of two, expressed concern over Meta’s move, saying that it might lead to the spread of fake news.

“I will remind my kids to not blindly take social media content at face value and to always verify what they find online by cross-referencing with other sources.

“As a parent, I am really wary of clickbait articles because children don’t understand what they are. If there is no gatekeeping, it will open the way to predators and scammers targeting vulnerable groups.

“Also, you do not want your teenagers to be radicalised or influenced by fake content.

“As such, I will never allow social media use for my kid until he is more mature and understands how the world works,” said Hamidah.

Businessman J. Yumnesh, 37, appeared unfazed by the changes, saying that he was unsure if it has any impact on Malaysians.

“Does this mean it applies to our country?

“If it happens, perhaps we will have more freedom to get more information. Whatever it is, in terms of news or information, I will go to a trusted news website or go to any search engine to validate the truth,” he said.

Content Forum chief executive officer Mediha Mahmood said Meta’s move to shift from third-party fact-checking to a community-based approach indicates the evolving complexities of addressing misinformation in the digital space.

“Misinformation or disinformation is a growing challenge, particularly during elections, where false narratives can erode trust and divide communities.

“It is vital for platforms to strike a balance between promoting free expression and providing users with the tools to navigate the online world responsibly.”

Source link

Mainstream media poised for bigger role in combating misinformation

PETALING JAYA: Meta Platforms Inc’s decision to remove its fact-checking initiative in the United States has sparked concern among political and cybersecurity experts over the spread of disinformation and polarisation in Malaysia, especially during elections.

KRA Group director of strategy Amir Fareed Rahim highlighted the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2025, which identifies misinformation and disinformation as top short-term threats.

“If social media platforms won’t proactively address fake news, everyone must be more vigilant.

“Mainstream media can play a bigger role in fact-checking and debunking fake news,” he said yesterday.

The Star, for example, has its QuickCheck and True or Not sections that debunk fake news and viral content.

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil acknowledged Meta’s move on Jan 8.

The firm is also in the final stages of securing an Application Service Provider (ASP) Class Licence in Malaysia.

Amir Fareed said that incorrect stories were spread across multiple countries and regions during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“However, it must also be acknowledged that even the best and most stringent social media fact-checking will not help in countries where trust in public institutions is or has been damaged, or where social polarisation has been allowed to fester.

“Ultimately, the responsibility to maintain social cohesion and credibility rests with governments and institutions.

“The task will get more difficult, but it is still fundamentally their responsibility,” Amir Fareed said, adding that misinformation could be prevalent in the upcoming Sabah and Melaka state elections this year.

Fong Choong Fook, the executive chairman of cybersecurity consulting company LGMS Bhd, said Malaysia perhaps needs a fraud verification unit to combat online scams, which he views as a more critical issue compared with political misinformation in the United States.

“Social media platforms aren’t doing enough to protect users from false advertising on Facebook and other platforms that are used by scammers.

“Users must be wary, especially when AI (artificial intelligence) is now being used to generate false advertising,” said Fong.

He added that disinformation is a global trend, considering that most users rely on the convenience of social media.

This has also led to users easily believing that whatever is posted online is true, which has also conditioned them to trust content without verification.

While there are concerns that Meta’s move could affect the upcoming Sabah election this year, political pundit Dr Tunku Mohar Tunku Mohd Mokhtar of International Islamic University Malaysia said the social media giant’s decision to remove its fact-checking unit would not affect Malaysia that much.

He said that during elections, disinformation often becomes a campaign strategy, as seen in Sabah in the past.

“The danger is when such disinformation spreads, gullible people would believe it, and it is difficult to rectify the situation,” he added.

Tunku Mohar said Facebook and other social media platforms are “democratic” in the sense that people are free to air their views without much restriction.

He said social media platforms provided “credibility” even to unverified news.

In Malaysia’s context, he said fact-checking mechanisms can exist outside of social media platforms to help users verify the truth.

“The government can rely on existing laws, but by the time the due process is completed, the damage is already done.

“In that sense, social media platforms should also be proactively involved to ensure that their platforms aren’t used for ‘black propaganda’,” he added.

Source link

Related stories:

Meta is following X's playbook on fact-checking. Here's what it means for you

Meta’s end to fact-checking will be felt, but not so much in Malaysia, says Fahmi

Indonesia’s fact-checkers slam Meta’s decision to end US fact-checking programme

Meta's 'Community Notes' model will not apply to paid ads