Nurovaxis App platform offering £250 welcome bonus on first deposit

UK celebrities are once again being used as lure to sign-up for dangerous trading accounts across social media. Here are the facts you need to know:

• No celebrity or politician is going to start giving away free money using an online app
• The UK government do not suddenly appear online offering tax relief
• The BBC does not advertise anywhere - any adverts you see mentioning the BBC are a scam
• Online articles claiming to be the Mirror News or the BBC or the Guardian must have the correct internet address name:
  • BBC.co.uk is where BBC articles appear, any other address is a scam
  • Mirror.co.uk is where The Mirror is located, any other internet address in the address bar at the top of your browser indicates a scam
  • Guardian.co.uk is where articles from the Guardian are placed. Any other address in your browser indicates it is a scam.
• Adverts on Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Alphabet (Google etc.) or X.com are placed by AI (Artificial Intelligent Computer) systems and are not vetted by human beings and as a result cannot be trusted. Never assume an advert online to be genuine without taking a deep breath and checking the following:

You can see that Facebook, with all of their profit making AI make no effort whatsoever to prevent scams by doing something as simple as checking for ads with 'bbc.co.uk in the URL:

We have enlarged these ads slightly to accentuate the preposterous nature of the proliferation of these scams. They are more than obvious, they are clearly labelled! Facebook is definitely in the business of defrauding the weaker people using their platform and the AI ad placement system will keep chipping away at everyone else until they are vulnerable. Young people looking at Facebook their entire lives will be far more trusting of these ads in the future than we are now, and so something has to be done in the short term to dissuade Facebook from displaying these deliberately misleading advertisements. 

Why aren't False BBC Ads Detected?

The BBC does not typically advertise in the traditional sense, especially not through commercial or social media ads. If you see ads on Facebook or other platforms claiming to be from the BBC, they are highly likely to be scams or misleading attempts to impersonate a trusted organization.

If you come across such ads, it's best to:

1. Report the ad: Use Facebook's reporting tools to flag the ad as suspicious or misleading.
2. Verify the source: Go to the official BBC website or other trusted news sources to confirm if they are associated with the ad.
3. Be cautious of links: Avoid clicking on links or sharing personal information, as they may lead to phishing sites or malware.

The bbc.co.uk part of the advert is in clear text and so could be detected by the most simple programming rule. The presence of a clear-text URL like "bbc.co.uk" in an ad, especially if it is not an actual link to the official BBC site, could be easily detected by a basic rule in an ad filter or scam detection algorithm.

A simple programming rule could check for URLs displayed as text in the ad content and verify whether they are legitimate. If not, the ad could be flagged as suspicious. For instance, the rule could:

1. Extract the URL: Detect any text in the ad that resembles a URL (e.g., "bbc.co.uk").
2. Check authenticity: Compare the URL against a database of known legitimate URLs, such as the official BBC domain.
3. Block or flag: If the URL does not match or is used in an unusual context (like advertising), the system could block the ad or flag it for further review.

Such a system could be implemented to enhance ad safety, especially since many scams rely on the trustworthiness of established institutions like the BBC. 

The concerning part is that these ads are placed and monitored for performance by an AI that has not been programmed to check for any attempt at defrauding the users. 

It's worrying that the ads  are likely positioned and optimized by an AI system, which raises concerns about the ability of AI-driven platforms to prevent the spread of misleading or fraudulent ads. While AI can optimize ad placement based on user data, engagement patterns, and other metrics, it may not always have the necessary safeguards to detect fraudulent content if not properly trained or regulated.

Here are some points to consider regarding AI-driven ad optimization and detection of scams:

1. AI's Focus on Engagement: Most AI systems used for ad placement prioritize engagement, such as clicks and interactions. This means that ads, even fraudulent ones, may be shown if they appear to meet certain engagement metrics. Without a dedicated check for authenticity, AI could inadvertently promote scammy ads.

2. Lack of Contextual Understanding: AI may have limited ability to understand the context or intent behind an ad. For example, an ad with the text "bbc.co.uk" might be flagged only if certain patterns are detected, but if the system isn't trained to recognize impersonation tactics, it could miss such scams.

3. The Need for AI Regulation: Improving AI's ability to detect scams involves incorporating more sophisticated filters and rules into the training data. This includes:

   • Flagging common signs of impersonation (like the clear text "bbc.co.uk").
   • Cross-referencing with known databases of legitimate sources.
   • Analyzing user feedback to refine detection algorithms.

4. Human Oversight: AI-driven ad optimization should be coupled with human oversight, especially for high-trust brands like the BBC. Human reviewers can ensure that ads follow guidelines and prevent fraudulent ones from slipping through.

This is a pattern of human behaviour, not AI. They do not care about anything other than profit. The AI has not been trained to look at the ad. The ad should be tested when it is being submitted.

You're absolutely right—AI, in many cases, is primarily used to maximize profit by optimizing engagement rather than scrutinizing the content of ads. The responsibility for detecting and preventing scams often lies with the system managing ad submission, not the AI used for optimization. This means that if there's no rigorous ad review process during submission, fraudulent or misleading ads can easily slip through.

Implementing content validation at the point of submission is critical, and here's how it could work:

1. Ad Review at Submission: Before an ad is approved, the system should:

   • Scan for clear-text URLs: As you mentioned, something as simple as clear text "bbc.co.uk" could be flagged if it's not an official link.
   • Check for impersonation cues: AI or manual checks could verify if the ad content is attempting to impersonate well-known brands or organizations.
   • Content Analysis: Analyze text, images, and links to ensure they are not misleading and comply with advertising standards.

2. Manual Oversight for High-Risk Ads: Ads promoting sensitive topics, or those involving trusted organizations, should be reviewed manually to ensure that scammers can't exploit AI's engagement-driven logic.

3. Training AI for Content Review: Though the current AI may not care about content, it could be trained to detect patterns of scammy behavior, even at the ad submission stage, by looking for common fraudulent markers.

Shifting the focus to ad submission rather than engagement-based optimization would greatly reduce the number of scams that reach users. 

The question is, what has to be done to change their ways. As younger audiences question these platforms less and less, everyone will become vulnerable to the rich defrauding the poor using these scammers as their mechanism.

You're absolutely right to focus on the larger issue: it's not about individual suggestions for improving the technology, but rather what needs to be done to change the behavior of major platforms like Meta. The core of the issue is that these platforms are prioritizing profit over protecting users, which creates an environment where scammers can operate with relative ease.

For meaningful change to occur, several actions must be taken:

1. Regulation and Oversight:

   • Stronger Regulation: Governments and regulatory bodies need to enforce stricter rules on platforms like Meta. These rules should mandate thorough ad reviews at submission to protect users from fraudulent content. Just like laws that hold financial institutions accountable for fraud prevention, social media platforms should face penalties if they allow scams to proliferate.
   • Consumer Protection Legislation: Laws should be updated to recognize the scale and influence of social media platforms in spreading fraudulent ads, holding these companies accountable for enabling such scams.

2. Transparency and Accountability:

   • Public Accountability: There needs to be transparency in how these platforms manage ads, including disclosure about how they prioritize profit over user safety. Public pressure and campaigns could highlight the real-world consequences of unchecked scam ads and hold them accountable.
   • User Education: Younger audiences, as you pointed out, may not question these platforms as much. A push for better digital literacy, where users are taught how to recognize scams and report them, is essential. But platforms also need to be proactive in educating users.

3. Financial Incentives for Reform:

   • Penalties for Hosting Fraud: Large fines or penalties could force platforms to care about the quality of ads they host. If they are held financially liable for every fraudulent ad that slips through, the platforms would likely rethink their approach to ad submission and review.
   • Incentives for Ethical Behavior: Offering tax breaks or other incentives to platforms that implement strong fraud prevention systems could encourage companies to take user protection more seriously.

4. Public Pressure and Awareness Campaigns:

   • Boycotts and Advocacy: Collective action from users and organizations through boycotts or social campaigns could pressure Meta and similar platforms to reform. If enough users demand safer ad practices or leave the platform, it could force change.
   • Media Coverage: Media plays a critical role in exposing the impact of these scams, especially when backed by powerful platforms. Investigative journalism that reveals the scope of the fraud and connects it to the platform’s negligence can build momentum for change.

Ultimately, changing the behavior of these platforms requires a mix of regulatory pressure, public awareness, and financial consequences. I think litigation will grab their attention far more quickly.

Is it Time to Sue Facebook?

Litigation can be one of the most powerful and immediate ways to get the attention of large corporations like Meta. Legal action can force these platforms to take responsibility for the harm caused by allowing fraudulent ads to proliferate. Here’s how litigation could play a significant role:

1. Class Action Lawsuits:

• Victims of Scams: Individuals or groups who have fallen victim to scams facilitated by platforms could band together in a class-action lawsuit. By proving that platforms failed to adequately prevent or mitigate harm, these cases could lead to significant financial penalties.
• Focus on Negligence: These lawsuits would likely hinge on proving negligence—that Meta or similar platforms knew, or should have known, that scams were being advertised but failed to act responsibly. If a court finds that the platform prioritized profit over user safety, it could lead to heavy fines and force policy changes.

2. Precedent from Similar Cases:

• Previous Legal Precedent: There are cases where platforms have been sued for their role in enabling harmful content or behavior. These cases often result in settlements or reforms to avoid future liability. High-profile cases and successful lawsuits could set legal precedents that compel platforms to introduce stricter ad review processes.
• Consumer Protection Laws: Platforms could be sued under consumer protection laws if they knowingly allow fraudulent ads to target vulnerable people. If it’s shown that Meta profited from fraudulent ads while ignoring warning signs, they could face legal action on behalf of defrauded users.

3. Regulatory Enforcement Through Litigation:

• Enforcement by Government Agencies: Government bodies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S., or the equivalent in other countries, could sue platforms for failing to protect consumers from scams. These agencies have the power to impose fines, demand changes to business practices, and enforce more rigorous oversight.
• Data Protection Violations: In cases where scammers gain access to user data through deceptive ads, platforms could also face lawsuits for violations of data protection laws like the GDPR in Europe, especially if they fail to prevent scams that exploit personal information.

4. Shareholder Lawsuits:

• Investor-Led Litigation: Shareholders could file lawsuits if they believe the platform’s failure to address scams is damaging the company’s reputation or financial stability. Investor pressure for reform can also be a powerful force, especially if they argue that allowing scams harms long-term profitability.
• Focus on Corporate Governance: These lawsuits can target company executives and demand changes in corporate governance to prioritize ethical behavior over profit-driven engagement metrics.

5. Forcing Public Settlements and Reforms:

• Settlement Agreements: Large corporations often settle lawsuits rather than risk a long trial, especially if the potential damages are high. These settlements often include not only financial compensation but also agreements to reform business practices—like enforcing stricter ad review policies.
• Legal Pressure for Transparency: As part of litigation, platforms may be required to disclose internal communications, shedding light on the extent to which they knowingly allowed scams to persist. Publicizing this information can force platforms to make meaningful changes.

Litigation is a fast and highly effective way to hold platforms accountable, especially when regulatory action alone is slow. Do you think there are specific areas of law or types of lawsuits that would be most effective in this case?

It means them giving up some of their money..

Exactly! Litigation forces platforms like Meta to face the prospect of losing money, which is often the most effective motivator for corporate change. Once the financial stakes become real—whether through massive fines, settlements, or judgments—these companies are far more likely to take proactive measures to avoid further legal and financial exposure.

Here's why this financial impact is such a powerful driver:

1. Direct Financial Penalties: Lawsuits can lead to hefty fines or compensation payouts. The fear of ongoing litigation, especially if class action lawsuits become frequent, can create enough pressure for companies to implement stricter controls on scam ads to avoid further financial loss.

2. Reputation Damage and Share Price Impact: Even the threat of litigation can harm a company’s reputation, leading to a loss of user trust and a drop in stock prices. This kind of financial pressure can force companies to change their ways, especially when shareholders demand reforms to protect long-term profitability.

3. Cost of Compliance vs. Cost of Lawsuits: At a certain point, companies realize that it’s more cost-effective to improve compliance (e.g., better ad review processes) than to face repeated lawsuits. The cost-benefit analysis tips in favor of reform when the financial damage from legal cases outweighs the profits from scams.

4. Settlements and Legal Fees: Large corporations typically settle lawsuits rather than let them go to court. These settlements often include agreements to change business practices. Legal fees alone can pile up, which motivates companies to invest in prevention mechanisms to avoid future litigation.

Financial consequences drive real action, as they hit at the heart of what these platforms value most—profit.