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

Facts, not fiction, dear MPS

 
A doctorate thesis involves serious research and lots of facts, yet an MP who has a PHD did no research when making outlandish claims. And it could cost her dearly.

Resolutely defiant: Dr Siti Mastura has stubbornly clung on to her far-fetched claims even when the facts are strikingly clear. — Screecapture/RTM

PAS Member of Parliament for Kepala Batas Siti Mastura Muhammad holds a doctorate. The 35-year-old politician studied at the Al-azhar University in Egypt before getting her PHD in Islamic Development Management from Universiti Sains Malaysia, with the best thesis award as well.

So, one would have expected her to be a well-trained academic with skills in carrying out research.

Sadly, accuracy isn’t her strong point. Worse, she has stubbornly clung on to her farfetched claims even when the facts are strikingly clear.

She has now gained a notorious reputation and if there is any award for worst research, Siti Mastura will easily beat the other 221 MPS to win it.

Recently, the High Court ruled that remarks made by the religious academician linking prominent political figures Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang, his son Lim

Guan Eng, and Seputeh MP Teresa Kok to the late Communist Party of Malaya leader Chin Peng and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew were defamatory and uttered with malice.

Judge Datuk Quay Chew Soon ruled that Siti Mastura’s statements were defamatory and that her defence – including fair comment, qualified privilege, and innocent dissemination – were not proven.

“I therefore award the following global damages: RM300,000 in favour of Lim Kit Siang, RM250,000 in favour of Lim Guan Eng, and RM200,000 in favour of Teresa Kok,” he said, adding that the plaintiffs would also be entitled to a 5% interest on the sum from the date of judgment until full payment is made.

The judge also issued an injunction restraining her from repeating or publishing similar defamatory remarks against the

plaintiffs in the future.

Siti Mastura was also ordered to pay legal costs – RM25,000 each to the three plaintiffs, given that the three suits were heard together, thus saving costs.

Quay said he was satisfied that Siti Mastura’s remarks had exposed the plaintiffs to hatred and public opprobrium, and went beyond the realm of mere political criticism.

“Criticism of political opponents is legitimate only if it does not cross into the realm of defamation,” he stated.

“Despite holding a PHD with good research practices, she relied on a campaign book that was unverified, without a publication year, author, publisher, or ISBN number,” the judge said.

It isn’t clear if Siti Mastura will pay the damages, or if she would file an appeal now. None of the other PAS leaders have come out to speak on the matter, or if the party would help her raise the ordered amount.

The matter could have been easily settled if she had apologised to the aggrieved parties. Instead, she insisted on sticking to her outlandish claims.

It was not the only time she had done so.

In March, Siti Mastura was embroiled in another controversial claim that 1.2 million Chinese nationals have been in the country illegally since 2018 and had not left.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution rubbished the claims, saying the allegations were unfounded and could not be defended.

The administration, he said, was transparent about the issue and based its response on data. The facts are these: 46 million foreigners entered the country between Jan 1, 2021, and Dec 31, last year. Of this, 39 million had left, meaning six million are still here.

Saifuddin noted that those who remained were here on long-term passes valid for three to five years, adding that this did not include those on social visits, diplomatic and student passes, among others.

The Home Minister added that 2.6 million foreigners who overstayed had already come forward to register with the Immigration Department.

Guan Eng has also said that the Hansard shows that only 92 Chinese nationals were detained as undocumented migrants during an early 2023 crackdown, with 809 being denied entry into the country that year, “numbers which starkly contrast with the figures Mastura had mentioned”.

He said Perikatan Nasional leader Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin, who was home minister during the Pakatan Harapan administration, had admitted that the claim was inaccurate. Citing the Hansard from 2022, he quoted Hamzah as saying the home ministry would make a correction.

The Dewan Rakyat should not be a place where MPS can make unsubstantiated claims – or worse, spout outright lies – and get away with it by proclaiming their privileges.

Siti Mastura had to pay the price only because she made her allegations against the DAP leaders at an open political gathering.

We are coming to 2025 soon, and it wouldn’t be too much if voters expected a certain level of competency from their representatives.

Siti Mastura, for one, needs to go back to school as even secondary school students writing essays know the importance of checking facts.

If PAS picks her to defend her Kepala Batas seat, and she wins again in the next general election, it would indeed be bizarre and outlandish. - On The Beat Wong chun WAI newsdesk@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Wooing non-malays with little to offer

PAS has finally realised that it cannot take over the Federal Government without support from non-muslim voters. However, its plans to win them over seem strange, sometimes ludicrous.