01 Jan 2026

An old Spider-Man comic panel has achieved meme status.

Spider-Man: You can rewrite DNA on the fly, and you’re using it to turn people into dinosaurs? But with tech like that, you could cure cancer!

villain: But I don’t want to cure cancer. I want to turn people into dinosaurs.

Somehow the recent news from Meta reminds me of that. Meta doesn’t want to fight scams, they want to keep growing their share of the advertising business. When scams are a part of that, not just because of the money they bring in, but because scam advertisers drive up rates paid by the legit advertisers, then Meta would rather turn you into a dinosaur than leave money on the table. The purpose of a system is what it does, and the scam load that’s optimal for Meta revenue is higher than the scam load that’s optimal for everybody else.

An old computer programmer trick (one that I have been on both the giving and receiving side of) is that if you don’t want to do something, come up with the most time-consuming, expensive version of that thing. Then your argument against doing it looks more reasonable. Meta’s approach to avoiding anti-fraud is to turn it into a two-option problem where they pick both options. Either

  • status quo (scam-heavy)

  • Verify official documents for all advertisers (expensive and time-consuming for legit advertisers)

In reality, though, Meta could substantially reduce their scam problem by taking a few actions that would either cost a little, require some paperwork but add no per-advertiser cost, or actually save money. Some examples:

Seed accounts. Meta bans fake accounts with a few exceptions for software testing purposes. Why won’t they extend the exception to allow legit advertisers to make seed accounts (in the direct mail “seed record” sense)? Minimal storage costs if the seed account info is not misused, and a smoking gun scam report if the advertiser sees someone else targeting one of their seeds. (The continued absence of seed record functionality is the strongest evidence that Meta management predicts that the company will do better in a low-trust economy, so is actively promoting fraud.)

Populate advertiser contact info. Right now an advertiser can not only get by without being verified—they don’t even have to supply the kind of minimal contact info that would enable a customer to contact them. (Try a “download your information” on Facebook, and see how many advertisers are identified adequately.)

Ad Library links. People who search Ad Library should be able to get a list of other advertisers using the same landing page domains or contact info. This would be easy. It’s one database query.

Ad Library visibility and notifications. Today, a legit advertiser doesn’t get a notification when someone else uses their trademarks. This would be relatively easy for Meta to provide, and most of the scam-fighting cost would be covered by the legit advertiser after they get the notification. (Today, Meta lets fraudulent advertisers pop up, run ads, and disappear.)

Don’t block crawlers from Ad Library. Legit advertisers who want to search for infringing uses of their product photos should be able to. And trademark monitoring firms would take on much of the work of spotting scam ads if Meta let them.

Let’s not pretend that the only anti-fraud option available to Meta is a heavy verification program. Some minor changes to rules or software would have a lot of impact, fast. (Politicians and regulators, if you have a meeting with Meta about their scam problem and need someone to either sit in and yell bullshit! at the appropriate times or send you notes afterward, please let me know.)