Section 230 should have never applied to ads. Ads are a commercial relationship. Facebook and YouTube gets paid by these scammers so why would they want to accurately police them? The incentives are broken. Newspapers had to invent all sorts of ways to make sure that they had clear markers between ads, editorial content, and sponsored editorial content. Such things were enforced by lawsuits and a couple of Ad Bureaus. All of those rules should have applied to Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram) and Google (YouTube). Just as it was a sign that you were reading a bad/unreliable tabloid when you couldn't tell what was an ad and what was an article, Meta and Google should have that reputation already as vendors accepting payments for bad ads and whitewashing them as other sorts of content and it is still sometimes surprising to me that they don't.

Section 230 doesn't say the advertiser can't go to jail or Facebook doesn't have to tell the police who the advertiser is.

In my case I wasn't even reporting ads. These are plain old Facebook accounts and groups using very obvious AI-generated slop images of pets for 'adoption' or 'rehoming', so Facebook isn't even making money on this directly. They are participating in the fraud purely out of the malice (more realistically, incompetence spiced with greed) in their own hearts.

It's been a very well known problem on Facebook for years[1][2], and the pathetic part is that its so obvious. It really tells you how bad Facebook is with AI, because even I as a regular 1x engineer could wire up some very cheap inference that would lay waste to this fraud pattern as a part-time weekend project.

[1] https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/05/looking-buy...

[2] https://www.bbb.org/scamtracker/lookupscam/807274