Cuban: Facebook knowingly runs AI deepfake scam ads; docs say $16B fraud revenue
524 points
• 6 days ago
• Article
Link
马克·库班正在公开批评 Meta，指控这家科技巨头明知仍在其平台上放任欺诈性的深度伪造广告传播。这位亿万富翁投资人是低价药品公司 Cost Plus Drugs 的联合创始人，经常听到老年人反馈：他们被由人工智能生成的广告误导，广告中虚假使用他的肖像来推销不存在的医疗"疗法"。库班认为，这些骗局绝非单纯的偶然疏漏，而是反映了 Meta 更广泛的内部文化——在用户安全之外，把广告收入放在首位。
相关说法也有报道支撑，报道援引了 Meta 的内部文件。文件显示，公司预计仅在 2024 年，围绕骗局和违禁产品的广告就能带来约 160 亿美元的收入。文件还称，Meta 的内部团队每天识别出约 150 亿条"高风险广告"，其中部分欺诈内容的年度价值大约为 70 亿美元。此外，文件指出，Meta 的自动化审核系统往往要求达到 95% 的欺诈概率才会采取处置措施，这就给出价更高的潜在诈骗者留下了继续在平台上出现的空间。
Meta 对这些指控予以否认。公司发言人表示，这类文件对其反欺诈工作呈现出片面且失真的画面。公司同时强调，用户举报的诈骗广告在过去 18 个月里明显减少，并且在 2025 年下架了数百万条诈骗广告。另外，公司目前还因与金融欺诈相关的广告做法，正受到美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的审查。
这些骗局对老年人造成的伤害尤其严重：他们在数字诈骗方面的经济损失，超过其他任何年龄段。根据美国联邦调查局 FBI 发布的 2025 年《互联网犯罪报告》，60 岁以上人群上报的损失超过 77 亿美元，较上一年大幅上升。由人工智能驱动的骗局构成了其中 3100 多起，造成的总体损失达到数亿美元。专家建议，消费者应对包含名人形象的广告保持警惕，通过第三方渠道核实产品信息，并将可疑行为报告给 Internet Crime Complaint Center 等相关部门。
Mark Cuban is speaking out against Meta, alleging that the tech giant knowingly permits the spread of fraudulent deepfake advertisements on its platforms. The billionaire investor, who co-founded the low-cost pharmacy company Cost Plus Drugs, regularly hears from elderly individuals who have been misled by AI-generated ads that falsely feature his likeness to sell nonexistent medical cures. Cuban contends that these scams are not merely accidental oversights but reflect a broader organizational culture at Meta that prioritizes ad revenue over user protection.
The criticism is supported by reports involving internal Meta documents, which suggest that the company anticipated generating approximately 16 billion dollars in revenue from ads associated with scams and prohibited products in 2024 alone. These documents indicate that Meta's own internal teams identified around 15 billion daily high-risk ads, with some categories of fraudulent content valued at roughly 7 billion dollars annually. Furthermore, the documents note that Meta's automated systems often require a 95 percent probability of fraud before taking action, allowing potential scammers who pay higher rates to maintain their presence on the platform.
Meta has contested these claims, with a company spokesperson arguing that such documents provide a selective and distorted view of their anti-fraud efforts. The company highlighted that user reports of scam advertisements have decreased significantly over the past 18 months and that millions of scam ads were removed in 2025. Additionally, the company is currently facing scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding advertising practices tied to financial fraud.
The impact of these scams is particularly severe for older adults, who suffer greater financial losses to digital fraud than any other age demographic. According to the FBI's 2025 Internet Crime Report, individuals over the age of 60 reported over 7.7 billion dollars in losses, a sharp increase from the previous year. AI-driven scams accounted for more than 3,100 of these complaints, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in total damages. Experts advise that consumers should remain skeptical of advertisements featuring celebrities, verify products through third-party searches, and report suspicious activity to authorities such as the Internet Crime Complaint Center.
234 comments • Comments Link
• 广告主应对其发布的内容承担法律责任，迫使平台全面审查广告，或至少大幅减少广告数量。
• 广告平台的运作背后有着强大的动力：优先追逐利润而非安全，把人类注意力当作取之不尽、可被过度掠夺的资源，并借助监管俘获来逃避问责。
• 当前欺诈性广告的规模——包括深度伪造、假冒商品和非法产品——显示大型平台要么对犯罪活动视而不见，要么为了增收而与之同谋。
• 仅依赖自动化的 AI 审核是一种有缺陷的策略，因为公司常常把"自动化"当作便捷的挡箭牌，声称自己并不知道正在从这些有害内容中获利。
• 在这种背景下，关于《第 230 条》的争论经常被误读：它们并没有为刑事欺诈提供豁免，但在平台是否应被视为"出版者"的辩论中，它们仍是一个引发争执的焦点。
• 有充分理由转向以消费者为中心的替代模式，例如由非营利合作社运营的产品目录，这会把真实信息放在首位，而不是通过操纵性的注意力收集来牟利。
• 客户支持与审核流程中缺乏人工监督，反映的是更广泛的系统性冷漠：平台把可规模化的利润置于对用户应尽的基本注意义务之上。
• 将社交媒体平台与传统出版机构或获得许可的专业人士对比，凸显监管标准的不一致；工程师需要对自己的设计负责，但科技巨头目前却通过算法规避了类似的后果。
• 虽然全面禁止广告在经济上可能并不现实，但通过落实"了解你的客户"法规、让平台对欺诈性收入承担民事责任，或执行现有的刑事法条，都可能推动切实的改变。
• 尽管人们普遍对科技巨头的强大力量抱有失败主义情绪，但历史表明：当公众压力与政治意愿一致时，曾被认为不可触碰的行业也能成功接受监管。
这场讨论反映出对主要广告平台拥有不受约束权力的深层挫败感；这些平台被广泛认为从欺诈、错误信息和非法商业中获利。参与者认为，尽管这些公司具备实施严格的人工或 AI 辅助监督的资源，但它们已成功地把系统性疏忽包装成"算法复杂性"，从而逃避责任。尽管围绕遏制这类做法所需的具体法律机制尚未形成共识——从废除《第 230 条》到强制要求消费者拥有的目录——但普遍观点是：现状难以为继。归根结底，这场对话揭示了注意力经济的巨大获利能力，与社会日益增长的诉求之间的紧张关系——即数字空间也应像传统媒体和专业服务一样受到监管问责。 • Advertisers should face legal liability for the content they distribute, compelling platforms to vet ads thoroughly or reduce their volume.
• Advertising platforms operate with massive incentives to prioritize profit over safety, treating human attention as an inexhaustible, overfished resource while utilizing regulatory capture to avoid accountability.
• The current scale of fraudulent advertising—including deepfakes, counterfeit goods, and illegal products—suggests that major platforms are willfully blind or knowingly complicit in criminal activity to boost revenue.
• Relying on automated AI moderation is a flawed strategy, as companies often use "automation" as a convenient shield to claim ignorance of the harmful content they are monetizing.
• Arguments regarding Section 230 are frequently misunderstood in this context, as they do not provide immunity for criminal fraud, yet they remain a flashpoint in debates about whether platforms should be treated as publishers.
• There is a strong case for shifting toward alternative, consumer-aligned models, such as product directories managed by non-profit cooperatives, which would prioritize truthful information over manipulative attention-harvesting.
• The lack of human oversight in customer support and moderation processes reflects a broader systemic apathy, where platforms prioritize scalable profit over the basic duty of care owed to their users.
• Comparing social media platforms to traditional publishers or licensed professionals highlights an inconsistency in regulatory standards; engineers are held liable for their designs, whereas tech giants currently evade similar consequences for their algorithms.
• While a complete ban on advertising might be economically unrealistic, meaningful change could be driven by implementing "know your customer" regulations, holding platforms civilly liable for fraudulent revenue, or enforcing existing criminal statutes.
• Despite the pervasive sense of defeatism regarding the power of tech giants, history shows that industries once considered untouchable can be successfully regulated when public pressure and political will align.
The discussion reflects a deep-seated frustration with the unchecked power of major advertising platforms, which are widely perceived as profiting from fraud, misinformation, and illegal commerce. Participants argue that these companies have successfully rebranded systemic negligence as mere algorithmic complexity to evade responsibility, despite having the resources to implement rigorous human or AI-assisted oversight. While there is no consensus on the specific legal mechanisms required to curb these practices—ranging from repealing Section 230 to mandating consumer-owned directories—there is a shared belief that the status quo is untenable. Ultimately, the conversation highlights a tension between the immense profitability of the attention economy and the growing social imperative to treat digital spaces with the same regulatory accountability as traditional media and professional services.