The Facebook parent company is partnering with defense technology company Anduril to design, build, and field a range of XR products for soldiers

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta gets into military technology

Scam Watch Pilipinas is calling out Meta for enabling the widespread abuse of Facebook by scammers, citing the tech giant’s failure to detect and remove

Scam Watch Pilipinas calls out Meta for letting fake accounts spread fake news, online scams

Meta faces heightened scrutiny and fines from Nigerian regulators demanding respect for local data protection and consumer rights.

Why Meta is in trouble in Nigeria and what this means for Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp users

In Meta's own words, its platforms are affected by an 'epidemic of spams'. Despite such acknowledgement, scam enforcement does not appear to be a priority for Meta.

Conned on Instagram, Facebook? Meta says platforms facing ‘epidemic of scams’

Poland claims to have discovered attempts to interfere with its presidential election campaign through Facebook ads potentially financed from abroad. NASK suggests the ads aim to destabilize the election, favoring liberal candidate Rafal Trzaskowski while discrediting others. Facebook's parent company, Meta, disputes the assertion, claiming no evidence of foreign interference.

Poland Uncovers Possible Foreign-Interference Attempts in Presidential Election

Poland has uncovered a potential attempt to meddle in its presidential election via foreign-funded Facebook ads. The ads targeted candidates Rafał Trzaskowski, Karol Nawrocki, and Sławomir Mentzen. NASK, Poland's cybersecurity institute, reported the issue to Meta and is probing the ads' origin and funding.

Election Interference Fears Loom over Polish Presidential Campaign

OpenAI and Nvidia are becoming the next big players, potentially changing the tech landscape in the same way Apple, Google, and Meta once did.

Silicon Valley is ready for a makeover: Why time is running out for iPhone, Google Search and Facebook

More opportunities to optimize your Facebook and IG campaigns.

Meta Expands Access to Opportunity Score To Help Improve Campaign Performance

Meta wins its fight against spyware firm NSO Group

Facebook owner Meta set for $167 million windfall after NSO Group ordered to pay up over WhatsApp spyware campaign

A range of new Meta ad updates to consider.

Meta Outlines Facebook, Instagram and Threads Ad Updates at NewFronts 2025

Facebook (Meta)

facebook

The Internet Facebook, ChatGPT, Tiktok & Google Don't Want You To See

Facebook Is Watching and Tracking Kids As They Prep for College

Another day, another innocent user booted off Facebook — while the spam beggar who started the mess is still kicking around like nothing happened. And what was the victim's crime? Calling out a spammer. That’s it. started the mess Calling out a spammer. Let me walk you through the absolute joke that is Facebook’s moderation system — because what just happened to me sums up everything that’s broken with the platform. I just had my Messenger access suspended for 7 days — for literally doing nothing wrong. No abuse. No spam. No policy violation. Just calling out a spammer/fake SEO expert who called me every bad name under the sun. I just had my Messenger access suspended for 7 days — for literally doing nothing wrong. We're talking about a system that’s so broken, so utterly brain-dead in its automation, that a group of scammers can mass-report someone, and Facebook just accepts it at face value. No context. No review. Just a big red ban hammer coming down on the wrong person. a group of scammers can mass-report someone, and Facebook just accepts it at face value. Here’s how it happened: I got spammed by someone from overseas — a region well-known for being one of the worst spam hotspots in the world. The guy jumps into my Messenger inbox claiming to be an “SEO expert from the United States.” Right away, I knew it was the same tired blog post reseller beggar.. These guys look to resell blog post placements or provide an SEO service while claiming they’re professionals. They’re not. They’re just middlemen spamming people across Facebook, attempting to cash in on something that’s not theirs. Facebook So, I called him out. Straight up told him he was no expert, just a spammer looking to cash in on reselling SEO services. That’s when he flipped. Started swearing, throwing around abusive language, and calling me all kinds of names. Totally unprovoked. flipped swearing abusive language So what did I do? I used Facebook’s own tools to report him for abuse and spam. And guess what happened? Facebook suspended me. Facebook suspended me. me Let that sink in:He spammed me.He swore at me.He used afake name/profile with paid friends, pretending to be in the U.S. while clearly operating out of India. fake name/profile with paid friends fake name/profile And I got the 7-day ban for “violating policies.” I This happens way too often. It’s not just me. This happens way too often. way too often. These scammers aren’t working solo. They’re running packs of 50+ fake accounts. They’re in dodgy groups across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and especially Telegram. They coordinate. The moment you challenge one of them — call them out, expose them — they screenshot the conversation, twist the narrative, and then mass report you with their entire network of burner accounts. packs of 50+ fake accounts screenshot the conversation mass report you And Facebook? Facebook just cops the flood of reports and boots the wrong person. No questions asked. No context reviewed. Just an instant ban on the bloke trying to protect the community. boots the wrong person. protect the community. It’s a broken system. It’s not moderation — it’s automated injustice. automated injustice automated injustice Meanwhile, the real abusers — with fake names, abusive messages, and clear-cut spam—keep right on scamming. fake names The only way to flip the script is to play them at their own game: screenshot everything, rally others, and flood Facebook with reports on the actual scammer or spammer. If enough of us shine a light on them, they’ll eventually get removed. But why should we have to go to war just to make Facebook do its job? screenshot everything actual This platform claims to care about user safety, but right now? It’s siding with abusers. It’s empowering scammers and spammers
And it’s punishing the people who are actually trying to protect the space.
It automatically punishes people who report spam and scams. (In certain instances) It’s siding with abusers. It’s empowering scammers and spammers And it’s punishing the people who are actually trying to protect the space. It automatically punishes people who report spam and scams. (In certain instances)

🚨 SPAMMER MADNESS: Facebook's Broken System That's Booting the Wrong Bloke! 🚨

This article is coreported with KFF Health News KFF Health News Read on our collaborator's site Read on our collaborator's site This article was coreported with KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF. Sign up for KFF Health News’s newsletters. This article was coreported with KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF. Sign up for KFF Health News’s newsletters. KFF Health News’s newsletters Looking for an at-home HIV test on CVS’s website is not as private an experience as one might think. An investigation by The Markup and KFF Health News found trackers on CVS.com telling some of the biggest social media and advertising platforms the products customers viewed. And CVS is not the only pharmacy sharing this kind of sensitive data. We found trackers collecting browsing- and purchase-related data on websites of 12 of the U.S.’s biggest drugstores, including grocery store chains with pharmacies, and sharing the sensitive information with companies like Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, through its advertising and analytics products, and Microsoft, through its search engine, Bing. The tracking tools, popularly called “pixels,” collect information while a website runs. That information is often sent to social media firms and used to target ads, either to you personally or to groups of people that resemble you in demographics or habits. In previous investigations, The Markup found pixels transmitting information from the U.S. Department of Education, prominent hospitals, telehealth startups, and major tax preparation companies. the U.S. Department of Education prominent hospitals telehealth startups major tax preparation companies Pharmacy retailer websites’ pixels send a shopper’s IP address—a sort of mailing address for a person’s computer or household internet—to social media giants and other firms. They also send cookies, a way of storing information in a user’s browser that in this case helps track a user from page to page as the user browses a retailer’s site. Cookies can sometimes also associate individuals on a site with their account on a social media platform. In addition to the IP address and cookies, the pixels often send information about what you’ve clicked or bought, including sensitive items such as HIV tests. “HIV testing is the gateway to HIV prevention and treatment services,” said Oni Blackstock, the founder of Health Justice and a former assistant commissioner for New York City’s Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control, in an interview. “People living with HIV should have control over whether someone knows their status,” she said. Many retailers shared other detailed interaction data with advertising platforms as well. Ten of the retailers we examined alerted at least one tech platform when shoppers clicked “add to cart” as they shopped for retail goods, a capacious category that included sensitive products like prenatal vitamins, pregnancy tests, and Plan B emergency contraception. Supermarket giant Kroger, for instance, informed Meta, Bing, Twitter, Snapchat, and Pinterest when a shopper added Plan B to the cart, and informed Google and Nextdoor, a social media platform on which people from the same neighborhood gather in forums, that a shopper had visited the page for the item. Walmart informed Google’s advertising service when a shopper browsed the page of an HIV test, and Pinterest when that shopper added it to the cart. A previous investigation from The Markup found that Kroger used loyalty cards to track, analyze, and sell an array of data about customers to advertisers. previous investigation Using Chrome DevTools, a tool built into Google’s Chrome browser, The Markup and KFF Health News visited the websites of 12 of the U.S.’s biggest drugstores and examined their network traffic. This monitoring tool allowed us to see what information about shopping habits and, in some cases, prescriptions were sent to third parties. Over the course of the investigation, retailers frequently changed their trackers—sometimes activating them, sometimes removing them. Some retailers appeared to be taking steps to limit tracking on sensitive items. For example, Walgreens’ website prevented some trackers from activating on the pages of some products, which included Plan B and HIV tests. This code didn’t prevent all tracking, though: Walgreens’ site continued sending Pinterest information about those sensitive items a user added to the cart. Walgreens shared a new policy after learning of The Markup and KFF Health News’s findings. Spokesperson Fraser Engerman said that while the chain already had a “robust privacy program,” it would no longer share browsing data related to reproductive health and HIV testing. Engerman also told us that “Pinterest confirmed that the data will be deleted and that it has not been used for advertising purposes.” Crystal Espinosa, a spokesperson for Pinterest, said the company “can confirm that we will be deleting the data Walgreens requested.” The Pharmacy vs. the Pharmacy Aisle In the U.S., drugstores and grocery stores with associated pharmacies are only partially covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. The prescriptions picked up from the pharmacy counter do have this protection. But in a separate section, sometimes confusingly called the pharmacy aisle, stores also often sell over-the-counter medications, tests, and other health-related products. Consumers might think such purchases have similar protections to their prescriptions, but HIPAA only covers the pharmacy counter’s clinical operations, such as dispensing prescriptions and answering patients’ questions about medication. This distinction can be confusing enough inside the brick-and-mortar location of a retailer. But the line can become even harder to make out on a website, which lacks the clarifying delineations of physical space. What’s more, descriptions about what will happen with retail data are generally in retailers’ privacy policies, which can usually be found in a link at the bottom of their webpages. The Markup and KFF Health News found them murky at best, and none of them were specific about the parts of the site that were covered by HIPAA and the parts that weren’t. In the “Privacy Notice for California Residents” part of its privacy policy, Kroger says it processes “personal information collected and analyzed concerning a consumer’s health.” But, the policy continues, the company does not “sell or share” that information. Other information is sold: According to the policy, in the last 12 months, the company sold or shared “protected classification characteristics” to outside entities like data brokers. privacy policy Kroger spokesperson Erin Rolfes said the company strives to be transparent and that “[i]n many cases, we have provided more information to our customers in our privacy notices than our peers.” Brokering of general retail data is widespread. Our investigation found, though, that some websites shared sensitive clinical data with third parties even when that information would be protected at a HIPAA-covered pharmacy counter. Users attempting to schedule a vaccine appointment at Rite Aid, for example, must answer a survey first to gauge eligibility. This investigation found that Rite Aid has sent Facebook responses to questions such as: Do you have a neurological disorder such as seizures or other disorders that affect the brain or have had a disorder that resulted from a vaccine?
Do you have cancer, leukemia, AIDS, or any other immune system problem?
Are you pregnant or could you become pregnant in the next three months? Do you have a neurological disorder such as seizures or other disorders that affect the brain or have had a disorder that resulted from a vaccine? Do you have cancer, leukemia, AIDS, or any other immune system problem? Are you pregnant or could you become pregnant in the next three months? The Markup and KFF Health News documented Rite Aid sharing this data with Facebook in December 2022. In February of this year, a proposed class action lawsuit based on similar findings was filed against the drugstore chain in California, alleging code on Rite Aid’s website sent Facebook the time of an appointment and an identifier for the appointment location, demographic information, and answers to questions about vaccination history and health conditions. Rite Aid has moved to dismiss the suit. proposed class action After the lawsuit was filed, The Markup and KFF Health News tested Rite Aid’s website again, and it was no longer sending answers to vaccination questions to Facebook. Rite Aid isn’t the only company that sent answers to eligibility questionnaires to social media firms. Supermarkets Albertsons, Acme, and Safeway, which are owned by the same parent company, also sent answers to questions in their vaccination intake form—albeit in a format that requires cross-referencing the questionnaire’s source code to reveal the meaning of the data. Using the Firefox web browser’s Network Monitor tool, and with the help of a patient with an active prescription at Rite Aid, KFF Health News and The Markup also found Rite Aid sending the names of patients’ specific prescriptions to Facebook. Rite Aid kept sharing prescription names even after the company stopped sharing answers to vaccination questions in response to the proposed class action (which did not mention the sharing of prescription information). Rite Aid did not respond to requests for comment, and as of June 23, the pixel was still present and sending the names of prescriptions to Facebook. Network Monitor Other companies shared data about medications from other parts of their sites. Customers of Sam’s Club and Costco, for example, can search names of prescriptions on each retailer’s website to find the local pharmacy with the cheapest prices. But the two websites also sent the name of the medication the user searched for, along with the user’s IP address, to social media companies. Many of the retailers The Markup and KFF Health News looked at did not respond to questions or declined to comment, including Costco and Sam’s Club. Albertsons said the company “continually” evaluates its privacy practices. CVS said it was compliant with “applicable laws.” Kroger’s Rolfes wrote that the company’s “trackers disclose product information, which is not sensitive health information unless one or more inferences are made. Kroger does not make any inferences linking the product information collected or disclosed by trackers to an individual’s health condition.” A Huge Regulatory Challenge Pharmacies are just one facet of a huge health care sector. But the industry as a whole has been roiled by disclosures of tracking pixels picking up sensitive clinical data. After an investigation by The Markup in June 2022 found widespread use of trackers on hospital websites, regulatory and legal attention has homed in on the practice. found widespread use of trackers In December, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights published guidance advising health providers and insurers how pixel trackers’ use can be consistent with HIPAA. “Regulated entities are not permitted to use tracking technologies in a manner that would result in impermissible disclosures” of protected health information to tracking technology or other third-party vendors, according to the official bulletin. published guidance If implemented, the guidance would provide a path for the agency to regulate hospitals and other providers and fine those who don’t follow it. In an interview with an industry publication in late April, the director of the Office for Civil Rights said it would be bringing its first enforcement action for pixel use “hopefully soon.” bringing its first enforcement action Lobbying groups are seeking to confine any regulatory fallout: The American Hospital Association, for example, sent a letter on May 22 to the Office for Civil Rights asking that the agency “suspend or amend” its guidance. The office, it claimed, was seeking to protect too much data. asking that the agency This year the Federal Trade Commission has pursued action against companies like GoodRx, which offers prescription price comparisons, and BetterHelp, which offers online therapy, for alleged misuse of data from questionnaires and searches. The companies settled with the agency. companies like GoodRx BetterHelp Health care providers have disclosed to the federal government the potential leakage of nearly 10 million patients’ data to various advertising partners, according to a review by The Markup and KFF Health News of breach notification letters and the Office of Civil Rights’ online database of breaches. That figure could be a low estimate: A new study in the journal Health Affairs found that, as of 2021, almost 99 percent of hospital websites contained tracking technologies. 99 percent of hospital websites One prominent law firm, BakerHostetler, is defending hospitals in 26 legal actions related to the use of tracking technologies, lawyer Paul Karlsgodt, a partner at the firm, said during a webinar this year. “We’ve seen an absolute eruption of cases,” he said. during a webinar Abortion and pregnancy-related data is particularly sensitive and driving regulatory scrutiny. In the same webinar, Lynn Sessions, also with BakerHostetler, said the California attorney general’s office had made specific investigative requests to one of the firm’s clients about whether the client was sharing reproductive health data. It’s unclear whether big tech companies have much interest in helping secure health data. Sessions said BakerHostetler had been trying to get Google and Meta to sign so-called business associate agreements. These agreements would bring the companies under the HIPAA regulatory umbrella, at least when handling data on behalf of hospital clients. “Both of them, at least at this juncture, have not been accommodating in doing that,” Sessions said. Google Analytics’ help page for HIPAA instructs customers to “refrain from using Google Analytics in any way that may create obligations under HIPAA for Google.” help page for HIPAA Meta says it has tools that attempt to prevent the transfer of sensitive information like health data. In a November 2022 letter to Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) obtained by KFF Health News and The Markup, Meta wrote that “the filtering mechanism is designed to prevent that data from being ingested into our ads.” What’s more, the letter noted, the tech giant reaches out to companies transferring potentially sensitive data and asks them to “evaluate their implementation.” November 2022 letter “I remain concerned the company is too passive in allowing individual developers to determine what is considered sensitive health data that should remain private,” Warner told The Markup and KFF Health News. Meta’s claims in its letter to Warner have been repeatedly questioned. In 2020, the company itself acknowledged to New York State regulators that the filtering system was “not yet operating with complete accuracy.” acknowledged to New York State regulators To test the filtering system, Sven Carlsson and Sascha Granberg, reporters for SR Ekot in Sweden, set up a dummy pharmacy website in Swedish, which sent fake, but plausible, health data to Facebook to see whether the company’s filtering systems worked as stated. “We weren’t warned” by Facebook, Carlsson said in an interview with KFF Health News and The Markup. set up a dummy pharmacy website Carlsson’s and Granberg’s work also found European pharmacies engaged in activities similar to what The Markup and KFF Health News have found. The reporters caught a Swedish state-owned pharmacy sending data to Facebook. And a recent investigation with The Guardian found the U.K.-based pharmacy chain LloydsPharmacy was sending sensitive data—including information about symptoms—to TikTok and Facebook. sending data to Facebook recent investigation In response to questions from KFF Health News and The Markup, Meta spokesperson Emil Vazquez said, “Advertisers should not send sensitive information about people through our Business Tools. Doing so is against our policies and we educate advertisers on properly setting up Business Tools to prevent this from occurring. Our system is designed to filter out potentially sensitive data it is able to detect.” Meta did not respond to questions about whether it considered any of the information KFF Health News and The Markup found retailers sending to be “sensitive information,” whether any was actually filtered by the system, or whether Meta could provide metrics demonstrating the current accuracy of the system. In response to our inquiries, Twitter sent a poop emoji, while TikTok and Pinterest said they had policies instructing advertisers not to pass on sensitive information. LinkedIn and Nextdoor did not respond. Google spokesperson Jackie Berté said the company’s policies “prohibit businesses from using sensitive health information to target and serve ads” and that it worked to prevent such information from being used in advertising, using a “combination of algorithmic and human review” to remedy violations of its policy. KFF Health News and The Markup presented Google with screenshots of its pixel sending the search company our browsing information when we landed on the retailers’ pages where we could purchase an HIV test and prenatal vitamins, and of data showing when we added an HIV test to the cart. In response, Berté said the company had “not uncovered any evidence that the businesses in the screenshots are violating our policies.” Editor’s Note: KFF Health News uses Meta’s pixel on its website to collect information that may be used by third-party websites to measure web traffic and performance data and to target ads on social platforms. You can read KFF’s privacy policy in its entirety. The Markup does not use Meta’s pixel or similar trackers. You can read our full privacy promise here. Editor’s Note: KFF’s privacy policy here Credits: Darius Tahir for KFF Health News, Simon Fondrie-Teitler Credits: Darius Tahir for KFF Health News, Simon Fondrie-Teitler Darius Tahir Simon Fondrie-Teitler Also published here Also published here here Photo by Amanda Dalbjörn on Unsplash Photo by Amanda Dalbjörn on Unsplash Amanda Dalbjörn Unsplash

Need to Buy Plan B or an HIV Test? Facebook Already Knows About It

LinkedIn Actually Cares About Spam and Scammers—Unlike Meta (Facebook), Who Couldn’t Care Less

LinkedIn gee eintlik om vir strooipos en swendelaars - anders as Meta (Facebook), wie kan nie minder omgee nie

LinkedIn Chiqpachans Spam ukat Estafadores ukanakat llakisi —Meta (Facebook) ukar uñtasita, khitinakatix jan juk’amp llakisipkaspati

LinkedIn kümmert sich tatsächlich um Spam und Betrüger – im Gegensatz zu Meta (Facebook), dem das völlig egal ist

A LinkedIn le importan el spam y los estafadores, a diferencia de Meta (Facebook), a quien no le importa en lo más mínimo

LinkedIn todella välittää roskapostista ja huijareista – toisin kuin Meta (Facebook), joka ei voisi vähempää välittää

LinkedIn Aktyèlman Care Sou Spam ak SCAMMERS-Kontrèman ak Meta (Facebook), Ki moun ki pa t 'kapab pran swen mwens

LinkedIn はスパムや詐欺師を本当に気にしている — Meta (Facebook) は気にしていない

LinkedIn ពិតជាយកចិត្តទុកដាក់ចំពោះ Spam និងអ្នកបោកប្រាស់ - មិនដូច Meta (Facebook) ដែលមិនអាចយកចិត្តទុកដាក់តិចជាង

LinkedIn ເປັນຫ່ວງເປັນໄຍກ່ຽວກັບ spam ແລະ scammers—ບໍ່ເຫມືອນກັບ Meta (Facebook), ຜູ້ທີ່ບໍ່ສາມາດສົນໃຈຫນ້ອຍ

O LinkedIn realmente se importa com spam e golpistas — ao contrário do Meta (Facebook), que não se importa nem um pouco

I-LinkedIn eneneni ikhathalele i-Spam kunye nabaqhatha-ngokungafaniyo ne-Meta (i-Facebook), ngubani ongakhathaleli okuncinci

I-LinkedIn Empeleni Iyabakhathalela Ugaxekile Nabakhwabanisi—Ngokungafani ne-Meta (Facebook), Ubani Obengakwazi Ukukhathalela Kancane

Suicide Hotlines Promised Anonymity - So Why Was Sensitive Data Sent to Facebook?

Facebook Ditches Fact-Checking: Time to Leave? Mark Zuckerberg just dropped a bombshell. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is abandoning its professional fact-checking program. Instead, they're moving to a "community-driven" system, putting the onus on users to determine what's true and what's not. Zuckerberg says it's about fostering "free speech," but it feels a lot like abdicating responsibility, saving money, bowing down to political pressure, and more. Frankly, it's the last straw. I'm done with Facebook. I've been wrestling with this for a while now. The endless scroll, the monetization of my life, the performative outrage, the nagging feeling that I'm being manipulated by algorithms, the blatant and widely covered manipulation... it's exhausting. But this latest move? It's a dealbreaker. Look, I get the appeal of crowdsourcing. The wisdom of the crowd, right? But when it comes to complex issues, "common sense" isn't always enough. We need experts. We need evidence. We need nuanced analysis, not just knee-jerk reactions and confirmation bias. Zuckerberg, in his infinite wisdom (read: with a healthy dose of self-preservation), has decided to throw his fact-checking partners under the bus. Possibly, those annoying truth-tellers were just too good at their jobs, exposing uncomfortable truths and generally making life difficult for the Facebook overlords. According to Zuck, these fact-checkers were "too politically biased" and, get this, "destroyed more trust than they created." It's a classic case of blaming the Messenger, wouldn't you say? Of course, the fact-checking organizations themselves aren't taking this lying down. They've fired back, pointing out the obvious: they simply flagged potentially false content. What Facebook chose to do with that information was entirely up to them. It's a bit like a chef blaming the health inspector for a dirty kitchen. "Oh, those inspectors are just too picky! They're ruining my reputation!" Never mind the fact that the kitchen's a mess and the menu is probably giving people food poisoning. Take climate change, for example. The science is clear, yet misinformation runs rampant on social media. Do we really want the veracity of climate data determined by a popularity contest? Or how about public health? Anti-vaccine sentiment is already a serious problem, fueled by conspiracy theories and misleading claims. Letting those narratives go unchecked - or chosen to be true by coordinated consortiums of community members that have an agenda and a vote - could have devastating consequences. This isn't about censorship. It's about accountability. Social media platforms have a responsibility to ensure the information they disseminate is accurate and trustworthy. They've become our primary source of news and information, and with that power comes a responsibility to combat the spread of harmful falsehoods. So where do we go from here? I, for one, am turning to platforms and tools that prioritize expert verification and rigorous fact-checking. Solutions like Factiverse, for example, which leverages a network of over 350k human-performed fact-checks from more than 100 trusted outlets globally to analyze information and provide context. Factiverse's approach gives me hope and gives me the tools to see which sources back up and contest a statement, so I can be informed and balanced. It's a reminder that truth still matters, and that there are people out there dedicated to upholding it. In a world where facts are increasingly contested, we need reliable sources of information more than ever. Maybe Zuckerberg's gamble will pay off. Maybe the "wisdom of the crowd" will prevail. But I'm not sticking around to find out. I'm logging off Facebook and investing my time in platforms that value truth and accuracy. Because in the end, facts matter. And we all deserve better than to be drowning in a sea of misinformation. Facebook Ditches Fact-Checking: Time to Leave? Facebook Ditches Fact-Checking: Time to Leave? Mark Zuckerberg just dropped a bombshell. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is abandoning its professional fact-checking program. Instead, they're moving to a "community-driven" system, putting the onus on users to determine what's true and what's not. Zuckerberg says it's about fostering "free speech," but it feels a lot like abdicating responsibility, saving money, bowing down to political pressure, and more. Frankly, it's the last straw. I'm done with Facebook. I've been wrestling with this for a while now. The endless scroll, the monetization of my life, the performative outrage, the nagging feeling that I'm being manipulated by algorithms, the blatant and widely covered manipulation... it's exhausting. But this latest move? It's a dealbreaker. Look, I get the appeal of crowdsourcing. The wisdom of the crowd, right? But when it comes to complex issues, "common sense" isn't always enough. We need experts. We need evidence. We need nuanced analysis, not just knee-jerk reactions and confirmation bias. Zuckerberg, in his infinite wisdom (read: with a healthy dose of self-preservation), has decided to throw his fact-checking partners under the bus. Possibly, those annoying truth-tellers were just too good at their jobs, exposing uncomfortable truths and generally making life difficult for the Facebook overlords. According to Zuck , these fact-checkers were "too politically biased" and, get this, "destroyed more trust than they created." It's a classic case of blaming the Messenger, wouldn't you say? According to Zuck According to Zuck Of course, the fact-checking organizations themselves aren't taking this lying down. They've fired back , pointing out the obvious: they simply flagged potentially false content. What Facebook chose to do with that information was entirely up to them. They've fired back They've fired back It's a bit like a chef blaming the health inspector for a dirty kitchen. "Oh, those inspectors are just too picky! They're ruining my reputation!" Never mind the fact that the kitchen's a mess and the menu is probably giving people food poisoning. Take climate change, for example. The science is clear, yet misinformation runs rampant on social media. Do we really want the veracity of climate data determined by a popularity contest? Or how about public health? Anti-vaccine sentiment is already a serious problem, fueled by conspiracy theories and misleading claims. Letting those narratives go unchecked - or chosen to be true by coordinated consortiums of community members that have an agenda and a vote - could have devastating consequences. This isn't about censorship. It's about accountability. Social media platforms have a responsibility to ensure the information they disseminate is accurate and trustworthy. They've become our primary source of news and information, and with that power comes a responsibility to combat the spread of harmful falsehoods. So where do we go from here? I, for one, am turning to platforms and tools that prioritize expert verification and rigorous fact-checking. Solutions like Factiverse , for example, which leverages a network of over 350k human-performed fact-checks from more than 100 trusted outlets globally to analyze information and provide context. Factiverse Factiverse Factiverse's approach gives me hope and gives me the tools to see which sources back up and contest a statement, so I can be informed and balanced. It's a reminder that truth still matters, and that there are people out there dedicated to upholding it. In a world where facts are increasingly contested, we need reliable sources of information more than ever. Maybe Zuckerberg's gamble will pay off. Maybe the "wisdom of the crowd" will prevail. But I'm not sticking around to find out. I'm logging off Facebook and investing my time in platforms that value truth and accuracy. Because in the end, facts matter. And we all deserve better than to be drowning in a sea of misinformation.

The Facebook Exodus: Why I'm Leaving and Why Expert Verification Matters More Than Ever

In recent weeks, webmasters have raised urgent concerns regarding Facebook's aggressive crawling practices, particularly highlighting the behavior of its user agent, “facebookexternalhit.” Many site owners report that these bots are creating significant strain on their web hosting servers, leading to alarming spikes in traffic that threaten site reliability. Several site owners have come forward with their experiences, describing the overwhelming impact of Facebook’s crawling activities on their websites. One webmaster recounted their situation, said, “Our website gets hammered every 45 to 60 minutes with spikes of approximately 400 requests per second from 20 to 30 different IP addresses within Facebook’s netblocks. Between these spikes, the traffic is manageable, but the sudden load is risky.” This sentiment resonates with many, as webmasters are advocating for a more balanced distribution of requests from Facebook’s bots, akin to the behavior exhibited by Googlebot and other reputable search engine crawlers. The consequences of these excessive requests extend beyond mere inconvenience; they disrupt the user experience and lead to costly resource consumption for site owners. Smaller websites, in particular, have found themselves severely impacted. In response to the relentless onslaught, some webmasters have taken proactive measures by implementing stricter rules in their robots.txt files to shield their servers from the overwhelming traffic. However, because Facebook’s bot functions as a scraper rather than a traditional crawler, it disregards these instructions, further complicating the situation. This growing issue has sparked widespread discussions within the web development community, with experts urging Facebook to reconsider its crawling strategies. The collective voice of these webmasters underscores a critical need for a more sustainable approach to web scraping and crawling practices. In a bid to manage the excessive requests, many webmasters are turning to tools like Cloudflare, which provides robust features for managing traffic and implementing rate limiting. By configuring a rate-limiting WAF rule, webmasters can effectively throttle the number of requests originating from Facebook’s bots, alleviating server strain during peak traffic periods. One webmaster expressed their perspective on the necessity of a balanced approach, stating, “I don’t want to block the bot entirely, but the current pattern is unsustainable. Using Cloudflare’s rate limiting has allowed us to protect our site while still enabling Facebook to access our content for link previews.” Concerns regarding Facebook’s crawling practices have been echoed on various platforms. In a post on Cloudflare, one user articulated their frustrations: “I am writing to express my concern about the excessive crawling activity of Facebook’s crawler. “This excessive crawling is causing significant performance issues and potential downtime for our website.” They went on to detail, “Our web server logs indicate that Facebook’s crawler (facebookexternalhit/1.1 – 2a03:2880:22ff:7::face is making multiple requests to our WordPress website every second, even during off-peak hours,” “During peak hours, the crawler’s activity spikes to tens of thousands of requests per minute. This excessive crawling is overwhelming our servers and causing them to slow down or even crash.” While webmasters recognize the necessity of Facebook’s crawler for indexing purposes and making their content accessible to users, they firmly believe that the current level of crawling is excessive and unreasonable. As a result, many remain vigilant, closely monitoring their server performance and adjusting settings to mitigate the challenges posed by Facebook’s bots. The unfolding situation highlights a critical juncture for the web development community, with potential implications for how major tech companies manage web scraping and crawling practices in the future. As webmasters advocate for a more equitable solution, the outcome of this discussion could set important precedents in the industry, influencing the relationship between webmasters and tech giants moving forward. In recent weeks, webmasters have raised urgent concerns regarding Facebook's aggressive crawling practices , particularly highlighting the behavior of its user agent, “facebookexternalhit.” Many site owners report that these bots are creating significant strain on their web hosting servers, leading to alarming spikes in traffic that threaten site reliability. Facebook's aggressive crawling practices Several site owners have come forward with their experiences, describing the overwhelming impact of Facebook’s crawling activities on their websites. Several site owners have come forward with their experiences, describing the overwhelming impact of Facebook’s crawling activities on their websites. One webmaster recounted their situation, said, “Our website gets hammered every 45 to 60 minutes with spikes of approximately 400 requests per second from 20 to 30 different IP addresses within Facebook’s netblocks. Between these spikes, the traffic is manageable, but the sudden load is risky.” This sentiment resonates with many, as webmasters are advocating for a more balanced distribution of requests from Facebook’s bots , akin to the behavior exhibited by Googlebot and other reputable search engine crawlers. Facebook’s bots The consequences of these excessive requests extend beyond mere inconvenience; they disrupt the user experience and lead to costly resource consumption for site owners. Smaller websites, in particular, have found themselves severely impacted. In response to the relentless onslaught, some webmasters have taken proactive measures by implementing stricter rules in their robots.txt files to shield their servers from the overwhelming traffic. However, because Facebook’s bot functions as a scraper rather than a traditional crawler, it disregards these instructions, further complicating the situation. This growing issue has sparked widespread discussions within the web development community, with experts urging Facebook to reconsider its crawling strategies. The collective voice of these webmasters underscores a critical need for a more sustainable approach to web scraping and crawling practices. In a bid to manage the excessive requests, many webmasters are turning to tools like Cloudflare, which provides robust features for managing traffic and implementing rate limiting. By configuring a rate-limiting WAF rule, webmasters can effectively throttle the number of requests originating from Facebook’s bots, alleviating server strain during peak traffic periods. One webmaster expressed their perspective on the necessity of a balanced approach, stating, “I don’t want to block the bot entirely, but the current pattern is unsustainable. Using Cloudflare’s rate limiting has allowed us to protect our site while still enabling Facebook to access our content for link previews.” Concerns regarding Facebook’s crawling practices have been echoed on various platforms. In a post on Cloudflare, one user articulated their frustrations: “I am writing to express my concern about the excessive crawling activity of Facebook’s crawler. “This excessive crawling is causing significant performance issues and potential downtime for our website.” They went on to detail, “Our web server logs indicate that Facebook’s crawler (facebookexternalhit/1.1 – 2a03:2880:22ff:7::face is making multiple requests to our WordPress website every second, even during off-peak hours,” “During peak hours, the crawler’s activity spikes to tens of thousands of requests per minute. This excessive crawling is overwhelming our servers and causing them to slow down or even crash.” While webmasters recognize the necessity of Facebook’s crawler for indexing purposes and making their content accessible to users, they firmly believe that the current level of crawling is excessive and unreasonable. As a result, many remain vigilant, closely monitoring their server performance and adjusting settings to mitigate the challenges posed by Facebook’s bots. The unfolding situation highlights a critical juncture for the web development community, with potential implications for how major tech companies manage web scraping and crawling practices in the future. As webmasters advocate for a more equitable solution, the outcome of this discussion could set important precedents in the industry, influencing the relationship between webmasters and tech giants moving forward.

FaceBook Bots, Crawlers And User Agents Causing Resource Drains On Websites And Hosting Accounts

Facebook. Where do I even begin with this colossal junkyard of a platform? It's like someone took the concept of social networking and doused it in a vat of incompetence. Let's talk about how Facebook has managed to mess up beyond all common sense. Firstly, their idea of content moderation seems to be more about randomly throwing darts at a board than actually using any sort of coherent logic. Legitimate posts in perfectly innocuous groups are being whisked away into the digital ether while spam proliferates like a disease. Seriously, how does a post about genuine advice or a thoughtful discussion get flagged and removed, but the umpteenth spammy post for shady sunglasses or miracle weight loss pills in totally irrelevant groups get a free pass? It's like Facebook has an algorithm that's not just broken but actively malicious. Facebook cares more about profit margins than the user experience. Instead of fostering a community where people can share meaningful ideas and connect on a genuine level, they've turned it into a virtual junkyard where the loudest, most obnoxious, spammy advertisers and paid-to-post parasites reign supreme. What happened to valuing quality over quantity? Now, it's all about how many eyeballs they can shove in front of spammy URL posts or advertisements, regardless of whether those eyeballs are seeing something worthwhile or utter garbage. It's a race to the bottom where meaningful content is drowned out by an endless barrage of clickbait. And let's not forget the privacy nightmares. Facebook has more tentacles in your personal life than an overbearing mother-in-law. They track your every move, every click, every like, and probably your wet dreams if they could. Remember when Facebook was caught red-handed with plans to sell user data and received support from Facebook’s most senior executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg? Yeah, that happened, and somehow, we're all still here, feeding the beast with our personal information. According to approximately 4,000 pages of leaked internal documents obtained by NBC News, Zuckerberg allegedly supervised strategies aimed at centralizing the social network's influence and stifling competitors by using user data as leverage. This occurred despite public assurances from the company about protecting user data. The documents primarily cover the years 2011 to 2015. Facebook’s (Meta) latest spam joke Case in point: I joined a Facebook group dedicated to blogging and guest posting. Perfect, right? Wrong. I posted a meticulously crafted message with a URL, offering insightful tips on how to craft a perfect guest post. What did Facebook do? They promptly removed my post, citing some obscure community guideline violation. Meanwhile, the same group was inundated with spam posts about irrelevant topics, worthless websites, and other scammers, hawked by individuals paid to spread digital garbage like confetti at a clown convention. Facebook has lost its way. Digital Nonsense It's crystal clear that Facebook has lost its way. They seem more interested in padding their profits than ensuring a quality user experience. Maybe they're scrimping on competent programmers because their algorithms can't tell the difference between genuine content and spammy trash. There are better options out there, folks. Platforms that actually give a damn about quality and fairness. They know how to handle spam: swiftly and decisively, with bans and suspensions flying like justice from a vigilant sheriff. Meanwhile, Facebook twiddles its thumbs, letting the spammers run amok like unruly toddlers in a toy store. It's time for a change It's time for a change. Governments should consider banning this digital travesty of a platform. We deserve better. We deserve platforms that respect our time, our data, and our intelligence. Facebook had its chance. It's time to let it fade into irrelevance, like the distant memory of a regrettable haircut or Myspace. Facebook could have been a force for good - Instead, it’s a spam-loving machine The saddest part is that Facebook could have been a force for good. It could have been a platform where people from all walks of life could come together, share ideas, and foster genuine connections. Instead, it's a bloated, soulless husk of what it could have been—a place where spam rules and meaningful interaction is a rare gem buried under layers of digital detritus. Facebook is a joke Facebook is a joke—a sad, outdated relic in the age of superior social media alternatives. Let's move on, shall we? There's a whole world of digital connectivity out there, waiting for us to embrace platforms that actually value what matters. Facebook's love affair with scammers Facebook's love affair with scammers is a textbook example of corporate greed overshadowing ethical responsibility. They don't just turn a blind eye to scammers; they roll out the red carpet for them. It's like they have a special VIP section reserved for shady operators peddling everything from fake diplomas, get-rich-quick schemes, dodgy products and digital services. It's like they're saying, "Scam away, folks! Just make sure the ad revenue keeps flowing." They rake in cash hand over fist while unsuspecting users fall victim to schemes that would make even the most seasoned con artist blush. Facebook doesn't care. And the best part? Facebook doesn't care. They're too busy counting their ill-gotten gains to bother with pesky details like vetting advertisers or ensuring the legitimacy of promoted services. Who cares if someone's promoting a Ponzi scheme or selling snake oil disguised as miracle cures? Certainly not Facebook, as long as those sweet advertising dollars keep pouring in. Facebook's revenue - Willful ignorance Let's face it: a substantial chunk of Facebook's revenue likely comes from scammers. I mean, do they even bother to check? The obvious answer is no. It's the digital equivalent of renting out billboard space to a carnival barker without asking what's under the tent. They're complicit, whether through negligence or willful ignorance. So, while the rest of us navigate the internet with caution, Facebook gleefully lines its pockets with ad click money earned from the misfortune of others. It's a disgrace, a betrayal of trust, and a stark reminder that when it comes to ethics, Facebook is MIA. Facebook's laissez-faire attitude towards scammy and spammy advertisers is not just irresponsible—it's reprehensible. They owe their users better. They owe the digital community better. It’s time our governments finally put a stop to this mayhem. Hence why I have decided to start my own movement, a reporting agency that finds, responds to and reports every scam we come across. Then, provide a database every month to my national government that reflects the reported scams Meta refuses to remove after being reported. A visionary will emerge - Sooner than you think! Someday, a visionary will emerge—someone smarter, bolder, and more ethical than Zuckerberg and his cohort of profit-driven enablers. This visionary will revolutionize social media, leaving Facebook (or Meta, as they now call it) in the dust. (Watch this space) Picture this: a platform where authenticity reigns supreme. Only real people, genuine advertisers, and vetted content are allowed. No more scams, no more clickbait, no more shady dealings. It's a place where integrity is not just a buzzword but a guiding principle. This new social media titan will prioritize user safety and privacy above all else. Children will be protected, personal data will be guarded like a treasure, and transparency will be the cornerstone of every interaction. Imagine a digital space where users can connect, share, and thrive without fear of exploitation or deception. And yes, this platform will make money. But unlike Facebook, its success won't come at the expense of its users' trust. It will be a fair exchange where value is delivered without compromising principles. Advertising will be relevant and respectful, enhancing the user experience rather than detracting from it.  It’s coming, believe me. Maybe sooner than you think. Meta, beware. The winds of change are blowing, and it's only a matter of time until you become the next Myspace—a relic of a bygone era. The future belongs to those who innovate with integrity and prioritize the well-being of their community. So, brace yourself because the revolution is coming, and when it arrives, the world will finally have a social media platform worthy of its users. So, Facebook, if you're listening (which you probably are because, let's face it, you're always listening), get your act together. Clean up your act. Start valuing quality content and user experience over your bottom line driven by spam and scams. Stop treating us like commodities to be sold to the highest bidder. Until then, I'll be over here, trying to salvage what's left of my faith in social media. And maybe, just maybe, hoping for a platform that actually gives a damn about its legitimate users instead of spammers and scammers. It's time they cleaned up their act and started prioritizing integrity over profit, and governments start handing out major penalties Until then, caveat emptor: let the buyer beware, especially when it comes to anything Facebook promotes on its junkyard of depict, spam and filth. Facebook. Where do I even begin with this colossal junkyard of a platform? It's like someone took the concept of social networking and doused it in a vat of incompetence. Let's talk about how Facebook has managed to mess up beyond all common sense. Firstly, their idea of content moderation seems to be more about randomly throwing darts at a board than actually using any sort of coherent logic. Legitimate posts in perfectly innocuous groups are being whisked away into the digital ether while spam proliferates like a disease. Seriously, how does a post about genuine advice or a thoughtful discussion get flagged and removed, but the umpteenth spammy post for shady sunglasses or miracle weight loss pills in totally irrelevant groups get a free pass? It's like Facebook has an algorithm that's not just broken but actively malicious. Facebook cares more about profit margins than the user experience. Instead of fostering a community where people can share meaningful ideas and connect on a genuine level, they've turned it into a virtual junkyard where the loudest, most obnoxious, spammy advertisers and paid-to-post parasites reign supreme. What happened to valuing quality over quantity? Now, it's all about how many eyeballs they can shove in front of spammy URL posts or advertisements, regardless of whether those eyeballs are seeing something worthwhile or utter garbage. It's a race to the bottom where meaningful content is drowned out by an endless barrage of clickbait. And let's not forget the privacy nightmares. Facebook has more tentacles in your personal life than an overbearing mother-in-law. They track your every move, every click, every like, and probably your wet dreams if they could. Remember when Facebook was caught red-handed with plans to sell user data and received support from Facebook’s most senior executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg? Yeah, that happened, and somehow, we're all still here, feeding the beast with our personal information. plans to sell user data According to approximately 4,000 pages of leaked internal documents obtained by NBC News, Zuckerberg allegedly supervised strategies aimed at centralizing the social network's influence and stifling competitors by using user data as leverage. This occurred despite public assurances from the company about protecting user data. The documents primarily cover the years 2011 to 2015. Facebook’s (Meta) latest spam joke Case in point: I joined a Facebook group dedicated to blogging and guest posting. Perfect, right? Wrong. I posted a meticulously crafted message with a URL, offering insightful tips on how to craft a perfect guest post . guest post What did Facebook do? What did Facebook do? They promptly removed my post, citing some obscure community guideline violation. Meanwhile, the same group was inundated with spam posts about irrelevant topics, worthless websites, and other scammers , hawked by individuals paid to spread digital garbage like confetti at a clown convention. spam posts other scammers Facebook has lost its way. Digital Nonsense It's crystal clear that Facebook has lost its way. They seem more interested in padding their profits than ensuring a quality user experience. Maybe they're scrimping on competent programmers because their algorithms can't tell the difference between genuine content and spammy trash. There are better options out there, folks. Platforms that actually give a damn about quality and fairness. They know how to handle spam: swiftly and decisively, with bans and suspensions flying like justice from a vigilant sheriff. Meanwhile, Facebook twiddles its thumbs, letting the spammers run amok like unruly toddlers in a toy store. It's time for a change It's time for a change. Governments should consider banning this digital travesty of a platform. We deserve better. We deserve platforms that respect our time, our data, and our intelligence. Facebook had its chance. It's time to let it fade into irrelevance, like the distant memory of a regrettable haircut or Myspace. Facebook could have been a force for good - Instead, it’s a spam-loving machine Facebook could have been a force for good - Instead, it’s a spam-loving machine The saddest part is that Facebook could have been a force for good. It could have been a platform where people from all walks of life could come together, share ideas, and foster genuine connections. Instead, it's a bloated, soulless husk of what it could have been—a place where spam rules and meaningful interaction is a rare gem buried under layers of digital detritus. Facebook Facebook is a joke Facebook is a joke—a sad, outdated relic in the age of superior social media alternatives. Let's move on, shall we? There's a whole world of digital connectivity out there, waiting for us to embrace platforms that actually value what matters. Facebook's love affair with scammers Facebook's love affair with scammers is a textbook example of corporate greed overshadowing ethical responsibility. They don't just turn a blind eye to scammers; they roll out the red carpet for them. It's like they have a special VIP section reserved for shady operators peddling everything from fake diplomas, get-rich-quick schemes, dodgy products and digital services. love affair with scammers shady operators fake It's like they're saying, "Scam away, folks! Just make sure the ad revenue keeps flowing." They rake in cash hand over fist while unsuspecting users fall victim to schemes that would make even the most seasoned con artist blush. Facebook doesn't care. And the best part? Facebook doesn't care. They're too busy counting their ill-gotten gains to bother with pesky details like vetting advertisers or ensuring the legitimacy of promoted services. Who cares if someone's promoting a Ponzi scheme or selling snake oil disguised as miracle cures? Certainly not Facebook, as long as those sweet advertising dollars keep pouring in. Facebook's revenue - Willful ignorance Let's face it: a substantial chunk of Facebook's revenue likely comes from scammers. I mean, do they even bother to check? The obvious answer is no. It's the digital equivalent of renting out billboard space to a carnival barker without asking what's under the tent. They're complicit, whether through negligence or willful ignorance. So, while the rest of us navigate the internet with caution, Facebook gleefully lines its pockets with ad click money earned from the misfortune of others. It's a disgrace, a betrayal of trust, and a stark reminder that when it comes to ethics, Facebook is MIA. Facebook's laissez-faire attitude towards scammy and spammy advertisers is not just irresponsible—it's reprehensible. They owe their users better. They owe the digital community better. It’s time our governments finally put a stop to this mayhem. Hence why I have decided to start my own movement, a reporting agency that finds, responds to and reports every scam we come across. Then, provide a database every month to my national government that reflects the reported scams Meta refuses to remove after being reported. the reported scams A visionary will emerge - Sooner than you think! Someday, a visionary will emerge—someone smarter, bolder, and more ethical than Zuckerberg and his cohort of profit-driven enablers. This visionary will revolutionize social media, leaving Facebook (or Meta, as they now call it) in the dust. (Watch this space) Picture this: a platform where authenticity reigns supreme. Only real people, genuine advertisers, and vetted content are allowed. No more scams, no more clickbait, no more shady dealings. It's a place where integrity is not just a buzzword but a guiding principle. authenticity content This new social media titan will prioritize user safety and privacy above all else. Children will be protected, personal data will be guarded like a treasure, and transparency will be the cornerstone of every interaction. Imagine a digital space where users can connect, share, and thrive without fear of exploitation or deception. And yes, this platform will make money. But unlike Facebook, its success won't come at the expense of its users' trust. It will be a fair exchange where value is delivered without compromising principles. Advertising will be relevant and respectful, enhancing the user experience rather than detracting from it.  It’s coming, believe me. Maybe sooner than you think. Meta, beware. The winds of change are blowing, and it's only a matter of time until you become the next Myspace—a relic of a bygone era. The future belongs to those who innovate with integrity and prioritize the well-being of their community. So, brace yourself because the revolution is coming, and when it arrives, the world will finally have a social media platform worthy of its users. So, Facebook, if you're listening (which you probably are because, let's face it, you're always listening), get your act together. Clean up your act. Start valuing quality content and user experience over your bottom line driven by spam and scams. Stop treating us like commodities to be sold to the highest bidder. Until then, I'll be over here, trying to salvage what's left of my faith in social media. And maybe, just maybe, hoping for a platform that actually gives a damn about its legitimate users instead of spammers and scammers. It's time they cleaned up their act and started prioritizing integrity over profit, and governments start handing out major penalties Until then, caveat emptor: let the buyer beware, especially when it comes to anything Facebook promotes on its junkyard of depict, spam and filth.

Facebook Has Managed To Mess Up Beyond All Common Sense. A Social Media Nightmare 

My relationship with Facebook has reached its breaking point, and I can no longer ignore the glaring issues that have plagued us for far too long. It's time to part ways, once and for all. The platform and its big-shot owner have become a joke. I used to believe in the potential of our connection, in the promise of staying connected with friends and family across the globe. But that promise has been overshadowed by your relentless promotion of scams and misinformation. From bogus miracle cures to get-rich-quick schemes and marketplaces selling dodgy digital services, you've become a playground for con artists and scammers, preying on unsuspecting users with impunity. And let's not forget the danger you pose to children. Instead of providing a safe and nurturing environment for young minds to explore and learn, you've become a breeding ground for predators and bullies. Your lax moderation policies have allowed harmful content to flourish, leaving children vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I can't continue to support a platform that puts profit above the safety and well-being of its users, especially its most vulnerable ones. It's clear that you've lost sight of your original purpose, becoming nothing more than a soulless machine driven by greed and indifference. The grievances I've aired so far barely scratch the surface of the multitude of issues that have tainted our relationship. It's time to address the elephant in the room: the rampant proliferation of fake profiles and the deafening silence that follows scam reports. I'm tired of scrolling through my friend requests only to be greeted by a slew of obviously fake accounts, each one more transparent in its deception than the last. It's absurd how many "Nigerian princes" and "Instagram models" I'm expected to believe are genuine. Yet, despite countless users reporting these obvious imposters, you seem content to turn a blind eye, allowing them to continue their charade unchecked. But what's even more infuriating is the utter futility of reporting scams and fraudulent activity on your platform. I've lost count of the number of times I've flagged suspicious posts or reported fraudulent advertisements only to receive automated responses or, worse yet, no response at all. It's as if my concerns fall on deaf ears, disappearing into the void without so much as a second thought. Your lackluster response to these glaring issues speaks volumes about your priorities. Instead of cracking down on fake profiles and scams, you seem more concerned with maximizing engagement and profits, regardless of the cost to your users. It's a betrayal of trust on the highest order, and I refuse to be complicit any longer. I'm done playing this game of cat and mouse, where you pretend to care about the safety and well-being of your users while turning a blind eye to the very real harm being inflicted. Deleting my account is the only logical course of action, a necessary step in reclaiming control over my digital life and distancing myself from your negligence and indifference. It's time to prioritize the safety and well-being of myself and others over your insatiable appetite for profit. I can no longer be a part of a platform that actively contributes to the erosion of trust and the spread of harm The Z Factor - A Pasty Face Joke Ugh, where do I even start with Zuckerberg? That guy embodies everything I can't stand. His smug face is plastered everywhere, acting like he's some kind of tech messiah, but all he does is ruin lives and invade privacy. Remember when Facebook started out as this fun little way to connect with friends? Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984), the relatively unknown and pale-faced tax avoider, owns a rather obscure media platform humorously dubbed "Arsebook" (using the British term). Should this platform ever gain popularity—highly unlikely, given its intent to collect vast amounts of personal data—Zuckerberg will certainly make his mark on history. People might even ponder his peculiar surname and eventually learn that in German, it translates to "sugar mountain." .Just hearing his name makes my blood boil. He acts like he's some kind of visionary genius, but all I see is a power-hungry, greedy opportunist. Facebook, or should I say Meta now? What a joke. It's like he can't even stick to one idea and perfect it. Instead, he’s always jumping on the next big thing to make more money, no matter the consequences. His obsession with controlling everything is infuriating. Look at how he’s bought up Instagram, WhatsApp, and who knows what else. It's like he wants to monopolize every aspect of our digital lives. And what about his so-called commitment to free speech? It’s laughable. He talks a big game about connecting people, but he’s created one of the most toxic environments on the internet. Facebook is a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, and divisiveness. Does he care? Of course not. As long as it drives engagement and keeps the ad dollars flowing, he's happy to let the chaos continue. And then there's his creepy obsession with virtual reality and the metaverse. It's like he's trying to trap us all in some dystopian nightmare where he controls everything. The way he tries to paint it as the future of human interaction is just laughable. It's clear he's only interested in furthering his own power and wealth, no matter the cost to society. Zuckerberg's arrogance is off the charts. He thinks he knows what's best for everyone and acts like he's above the law. His testimony in front of Congress was a joke – dodging questions, giving vague answers, and pretending to be clueless about Facebook's impact. It's infuriating how he gets away with it all. It's like watching a malfunctioning android. Mark Zuckerberg epitomizes everything wrong with Silicon Valley. He’s the poster boy for corporate greed, ethical bankruptcy, and the unchecked power of tech giants. I despise everything he stands for and the toxic impact he's had on our society. Goodbye, Facebook. You won't be missed. My relationship with Facebook has reached its breaking point, and I can no longer ignore the glaring issues that have plagued us for far too long. It's time to part ways, once and for all. The platform and its big-shot owner have become a joke. I used to believe in the potential of our connection, in the promise of staying connected with friends and family across the globe. But that promise has been overshadowed by your relentless promotion of scams and misinformation. From bogus miracle cures to get-rich-quick schemes and marketplaces selling dodgy digital services, you've become a playground for con artists and scammers, preying on unsuspecting users with impunity. And let's not forget the danger you pose to children. Instead of providing a safe and nurturing environment for young minds to explore and learn, you've become a breeding ground for predators and bullies. Your lax moderation policies have allowed harmful content to flourish, leaving children vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I can't continue to support a platform that puts profit above the safety and well-being of its users, especially its most vulnerable ones. It's clear that you've lost sight of your original purpose, becoming nothing more than a soulless machine driven by greed and indifference. The grievances I've aired so far barely scratch the surface of the multitude of issues that have tainted our relationship. It's time to address the elephant in the room: the rampant proliferation of fake profiles and the deafening silence that follows scam reports. I'm tired of scrolling through my friend requests only to be greeted by a slew of obviously fake accounts, each one more transparent in its deception than the last. It's absurd how many "Nigerian princes" and "Instagram models" I'm expected to believe are genuine. Yet, despite countless users reporting these obvious imposters, you seem content to turn a blind eye, allowing them to continue their charade unchecked. But what's even more infuriating is the utter futility of reporting scams and fraudulent activity on your platform. I've lost count of the number of times I've flagged suspicious posts or reported fraudulent advertisements only to receive automated responses or, worse yet, no response at all. It's as if my concerns fall on deaf ears, disappearing into the void without so much as a second thought. Your lackluster response to these glaring issues speaks volumes about your priorities. Instead of cracking down on fake profiles and scams , you seem more concerned with maximizing engagement and profits, regardless of the cost to your users. It's a betrayal of trust on the highest order, and I refuse to be complicit any longer. fake profiles scams I'm done playing this game of cat and mouse, where you pretend to care about the safety and well-being of your users while turning a blind eye to the very real harm being inflicted. Deleting my account is the only logical course of action, a necessary step in reclaiming control over my digital life and distancing myself from your negligence and indifference. It's time to prioritize the safety and well-being of myself and others over your insatiable appetite for profit. I can no longer be a part of a platform that actively contributes to the erosion of trust and the spread of harm The Z Factor - A Pasty Face Joke Ugh, where do I even start with Zuckerberg? That guy embodies everything I can't stand. His smug face is plastered everywhere, acting like he's some kind of tech messiah, but all he does is ruin lives and invade privacy. Remember when Facebook started out as this fun little way to connect with friends? Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984), the relatively unknown and pale-faced tax avoider, owns a rather obscure media platform humorously dubbed "Arsebook" (using the British term). Should this platform ever gain popularity—highly unlikely, given its intent to collect vast amounts of personal data—Zuckerberg will certainly make his mark on history. People might even ponder his peculiar surname and eventually learn that in German, it translates to "sugar mountain." .Just hearing his name makes my blood boil. He acts like he's some kind of visionary genius, but all I see is a power-hungry, greedy opportunist. Facebook, or should I say Meta now? What a joke. It's like he can't even stick to one idea and perfect it. Instead, he’s always jumping on the next big thing to make more money, no matter the consequences. His obsession with controlling everything is infuriating. Look at how he’s bought up Instagram, WhatsApp, and who knows what else. It's like he wants to monopolize every aspect of our digital lives. And what about his so-called commitment to free speech? It’s laughable. He talks a big game about connecting people, but he’s created one of the most toxic environments on the internet. Facebook is a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, and divisiveness. Does he care? Of course not. As long as it drives engagement and keeps the ad dollars flowing, he's happy to let the chaos continue. And then there's his creepy obsession with virtual reality and the metaverse. It's like he's trying to trap us all in some dystopian nightmare where he controls everything. The way he tries to paint it as the future of human interaction is just laughable. It's clear he's only interested in furthering his own power and wealth, no matter the cost to society. Zuckerberg's arrogance is off the charts. He thinks he knows what's best for everyone and acts like he's above the law. His testimony in front of Congress was a joke – dodging questions, giving vague answers, and pretending to be clueless about Facebook's impact. It's infuriating how he gets away with it all. It's like watching a malfunctioning android. Mark Zuckerberg epitomizes everything wrong with Silicon Valley. He’s the poster boy for corporate greed, ethical bankruptcy, and the unchecked power of tech giants. I despise everything he stands for and the toxic impact he's had on our society. Goodbye, Facebook. You won't be missed.

Stories, News & Mentions about FACEBOOK

Trending Topics

Classic

Neon Noir

Minty

Newspaper

HN StartUps