Facebook (Meta) facing criminal charges over crypto scams

[poochyena]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your comment is both wrong and makes no logical sense.

explain

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, poochyena said:

explain

Facebook were told that the ads were both a scam and that they did not have permission to use his likeness.  2 years later they had done nothing.   A very simple investigation would have shown at the very least that using his image was illegal, and most likely that the ad was for fraud.

 

It take s an extremely large and unhinged assumption to believe that it wasn't a fraud and that he lied about them having permission to use his image. 

 

At best your claim that they could not know if it was a scam is moot because the request was to remove the ads that use his image.  At worst it is wrong because they were told not only was the image infringing but that they were for an alleged scam to which  even a precursory investigation would have uncovered.  

 

But instead they left the ads up and did not investigate the complaint.  

 

EDIT: which by the way, by leaving the ads up constitutes supporting a fraudulent activity as regardless if the actual product was illegal or not,  using Forrests image in the advertising suggests Forrest endorses the production. That is fraud under Australian law.  

[poochyena]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

At best your claim that they could not know if it was a scam is moot because the request was to remove the ads that use his image.

Did you not read the article? The lawsuit is about scam ads, not about his likeness being used in an ad.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Did you not read the article? The lawsuit is about scam ads, not about his likeness being used in an ad.

 

 

Quote

In the proceedings lodged in the Western Australia Magistrates Court, Mr Forrest alleges the company repeatedly failed to take down posts by scammers that use his image to promote cryptocurrency investments,

pretty self explanatory.

 

 

 

 

[poochyena]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

pretty self explanatory.

The premise is that the ads are scams. The fact some include an image of him isn't particularly relevant to the case and just mentioned in the article to explain why he is involved.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

The premise is that the ads are scams. The fact some include an image of him isn't particularly relevant to the case and just mentioned in the article to explain why he is involved.

well done, you have successfully steered the discussion from posting something that was  wrong to arguing misinterpreted semantics. please enjoy the last word, I don't care to debate irrelevant semantics in order to defend a shit company being irresponsible.

[Elijah Kamski]

YouTube's scam ads: We are not the imposter here, you are! Vote Zuck out!

 

XD