Yes, I have heralded Meta as the next setting that will bring them billions. That is if they do not screw it up beforehand and the BBC gives us two examples. The first (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60789802) was given to us last night with the byline ‘Australia sues Facebook over scam ads impersonating celebrities’. In that article we see “The tech giant had engaged in “false, misleading or deceptive conduct” by knowingly hosting the ads for bogus cryptocurrencies, a regulator said. The US company could face financial and other penalties.
Meta is yet to comment but has previously said it is committed to keeping scammers off its platforms.” We are also given “The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says the ads in question used Facebook’s algorithms to target susceptible users and featured bogus quotes by Australian celebrities.” All elements of deceptive conduct, all because Meta does not properly vet the people advertising, and this is on Meta. There is no excuse, there is no “We need this advertisement to be completed today” that is merely evidence that the advertising party did not properly time manage their project. I have seen decades of stupidity that way, decades of people on the phone “I am on route, I will be there in 5 minutes” all whilst we know that it takes well over 15 minutes to get there. No time management, no proper project management and decades of excuses sees the wrong people enabling stupidity. And now Meta will feel the brung of that impact. And that was merely example one.
In example 2 (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60348334) we are given ‘‘Dangerous’ tanning products promoted by influencers’ influencers are a different story, it will still hurt Meta, but there will also be a larger station for Google. Influencers will need to feel the brunt of choices. I am not talking about people like Georgia Love (see yesterday’s article for that) but people that use their influencer status to promote “It is illegal in the UK to sell nasal sprays or injectables made with “melanotan-2”, an artificial hormone that can accelerate tanning.” Here these influencers need to learn the lesson of not doing their homework. I say that all their video’s are at that point set to zero counter, they lose all their revenue and their channel is removed. Now this is a harder setting. We see “It is illegal in the UK”, so if this influencer is American? We get it and I do not know whether this is illegal in the US, Canada, or the EU. But influencers are so driven to numbers, they do not check where they are watched. There should be an impact, but fairness remains part of this. Yet, when we see “BBC News has spoken to 20 people who have experienced complications, including lesions, fungal infections and abscesses.” Is it truly about fairness? Lives were put in danger and the influencers do not have a really good excuse. I reckon that influencers need to abstain of any product that could impact the health of another, but how to recognise that? There is a dangerous stage, so to stop it in it track now before there is a full 5G network seems essential. Personally I believe that there is no social media source that gives proper investment opportunities. An actual opportunity is for a chosen few, not social media. Social media is for blanket media solutions, get in as many as you can, as quickly as you can. As such I feel a little less for the person with “a consumer who lost more than A$650,000 (£360,000; $480,000) due to one of these scams being falsely advertised as an investment opportunity on Facebook.” Someone who does that does that is too stupid for words. Vetting goes both ways and any investor vets the sources they have and Facebook (Meta) is not a source, neither is Twitter and neither is YouTube. All three could open the door to a direct location that is optionally a good investment, but the chances of that are slim, very slim. Consider the people falling for the Facebook apartment? Someone has a rare option for an apartment in location X where finding a place is hard. Now consider that this person has friends, would you not offer it to your friends first? Would you prefer that a personal friend has a nice new place instead of a person you do not know? That is the stage and it applies to investments a much as it would apply to housing. When dealing with strangers it is in that same setting, direct and to the point. Why? Because I want to make money too, you have got to give a little to get some. So when I offer the options to Randy Lennox and Gary Slaight it is not a shakedown, but it is because they can see the solution that could drive them forward and they can see the benefit of a $50M investment that could bring them in excess of $600,000,000. It is a simple execution of math. This solution could just as easily apply to Amazon, Google a little less so. These people will not now, not ever get such offers, such real offers from Facebook, Meta, Twitter or YouTube. That is how life is and anyone trying to sell you the goods there is fooling you.
But that is the stage Meta faces, a stage that is drowning in deceptive conduct and there is seemingly no proper vetting in place. There are laws and when the Australian ACCC makes its case Meta could face massive fines and once the first one is there all the others will come calling. The influencers are a different issue, connected to some extent, but there we see that influencers need to be stopped and removing their channel and setting their count to zero will do the trick. When they lose that much money once of twice over these people vanish, a simple equation. It does not sound fair, I get that. But these influencers decided to endanger people and there lies the rub, whether that danger exists in nations where these materials are legal, that becomes a different setting, and I will be happy to admit that I see no easy workable solution here, it starts with Meta. That much is a given at present.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 