Reply With QuoteAbout time the likes of Facebook are held accountable for their actions, I can't help wondering thought that they'll simply say theyre powerless to stop all adverts and will somehow get away with it.
It was only a matter of time before someone with the resources to do it had enough.
Considering if you report a fake advert, all they do is stop serving it to you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43857921
About time the likes of Facebook are held accountable for their actions, I can't help wondering thought that they'll simply say theyre powerless to stop all adverts and will somehow get away with it.
I think this is brilliant. Facebook let too many shady business etc advertise on their site and don’t take enough responsibility .
Pretty good anti-Facebook tirade from him on R4 Today this morning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not great if you are invested in it though, directly or indirectly.
Fantastic news. I hope Trading Standards go after them for all the fake tat peddled in their Marketplace as well.
“causing reputational damage to him.”
Hard to quantify, and when you compare to the likes of Carol Vordemann who got paid to endorse pay-day lenders - it could be argued that Martin Lewis is in much the same situation, other than his name was used without payment.
I don’t see him succeeding, to be honest
I see those as completely different scenarios. She willingly and knowingly took money to endorse a product. His name is falsely and without his permission used to promote dodgy products.Originally Posted by blackal
Interesting times. Not particularly a fan of the guy, but as has been said, it has to be someone with significant resources to even start to take on the tech giants and the attitude that “we just provide the platform, we’re not responsible for the content” (but happy to take the money).
Truth is, control of these companies needs to legislated at a national level, as in reality Facebook, Google and eBay out-resource even very wealthy individuals. (Even better, they should be controlled at a supranational level, but there’s a good chance Brexit will bugger that up for us in the UK)!
Same on R5.
If what he says is true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, then I'm fully behind him. The excuse of 'we just provide the platform' is not enough imo, especially when they take the money.
Saying that, if I put an advert on TV promoting a scam with his face... would BBC / ITV / Babestation stop it?
Wouldn't get approval to be aired. TV advertising (and radio) is very well policed
I do feel that Facebook and the like have basically been quite content to create a monster, and completely fail to police it in any reasonable way - and something like this was only a matter of time. Power to him, and I hope he absolutely hammers them.
You couldn't do it because advertising on TV/print media is highly, highly regulated. You'd have to prove you have image rights to the person, approval of the quote etc. Right now the law is playing catch up with the digital platforms...
Thanks for the quick replies - I had presumed that would be the case, but have little knowledge about these areas (aka, no knowledge).
Imo, if you can't do it in one type of media, you shouldn't be able to do it in another. Fairly simple really and the best of luck to Martin with this!
The problem has always been that Facebook et al claim that they aren’t a media company, they are a just platform for others people’s content.
A totally spurious and disingenuous argument in my view, and the same one that they and other ‘platforms’ like Google have used to justify abuse of copyright. Good luck to him, he has the money, knowledge and support to give them a run for their money I think.
If facebook are taking money for the adverts, they do have some responsibility for the content of those adverts - no excuse.
On the BBC radio this morning the statement from facebook reportedly was that they don't host fake adverts. A very strange statement in the circumstances given the evidence of hosting 50+ adverts over the last couple of years concerning claimed Martin Lewis endorsement.
Last edited by BadgerUK; 23rd April 2018 at 16:14.
I personally don't use facebook anymore and consider it the instrument of the devil.
No fan of facebook but they all do this for a very specific legal reason - it's do with what are know as safe habour laws - under no circumstances do you want to suggest you do anything that provides a platform because them you can claim a safe habour exemption from stuff like libel and the like.
That’s precisely what is wrong. They make money like a publisher but want legal exemptions that should only apply to a public interest platform (government agencies, whistleblowers etc.).
ASA claims to cover social media also... not too sure how well it works in practice tbh...
It's about time someone gave Mark Zuckerberg a wake up call over Facebooks lack of accountability. Simply saying 'we're not responsible' is a crappy response.
While I'm mocking Zuck, I present for your consideration this (really good) Bad Lip Reading of the Senate Hearing: "INTERROGATING ZUCKERBERG"
Posting Permissions
