Facebook reported fake numbers to advertisers

Why? Wouldn't the people working on fake accounts only care about their own metrics? How would it affect them if some other team's metrics are affected?

There may be clickfarms that have their interests (accidentally) aligned with FB's in specific cases, which would mean FB has no interest in cracking down on them. And I wouldn't put it past FB to even indirectly operate such clickfarms if this means they can offer some support for the overinflated promises they make to advertisers.

You misunderstand me. You speak of Facebook as a large amorphous blob. But think of it in terms of people working on these problems. Why should the fake accounts team care about the metrics of the ads team? They will be rewarded based number of fake accounts caught, presumably. Not ad spend. So why would they not do their jobs?

> Why should the fake accounts team care about the metrics of the ads team?

Ok, now I understand what you meant. In this case it's because the strategy comes from high up and (putting plausible deniability of individuals like FB's CEO aside) the manager of the "fake accounts" team got some instructions from above to focus "here" not "there", and this just happens to be in the best interest of the "ads" team.

The employees themselves may be individuals but they're there working for the vision of the company and CEO (because it's usually the CEO who sets the course and is aware of all these directives). They're not doing it for the other team, they're doing it because whoever set the strategy decided it's in the best interest of the company.

So, the fake accounts team does its job and identifies a huge group of accounts that it alleges are fake. It goes up the chain and nope, we won't shut them down, this isn't clear-cut, we need more evidence, etc.

Right right. But according to public statements, the fake accounts team detects and takes action on tens of millions of fake accounts a day. So ... maybe such a directive doesn't exist?

> focus "here" not "there"

What does this mean? Are they removing fake accounts or not?

You started with a presumably correct statistic but then drew the wrong conclusion. The police catches thousands of criminals daily. So there must be no corruption whatsoever at higher levels or else, presumably, the police would catch them.

Say you and I both have a shop selling shoes online. If I use fake accounts to click on your ads I "burn" your budget by driving less sales to your bottom line, since the traffic to your site is all fake. Assuming that you have a limited budget that can make a lot of difference to your bottom line versus mine.

This is a tactic broadly used in AdWords in the past, and I assume that it's also used on FB too.

Both? We don't live in a binary world my friend. They are removing some fake accounts and not others. I have worked in plenty of companies who were doing such a selective job (I'd say all companies do this when it comes to defending their interests) to know this isn't at all far fetched.

Some departments are routinely instructed to turn a blind eye to the actions of some but not others. Sexual harassment is one topic that rubs me the wrong way since I worked (and quit from) companies who were pursuing these cases only if they were below a certain level in the hierarchy. Above that it was "blind eye" all around.

You could easily imagine that team being understaffed because of decisions made at the organizational level.

Right, but if I track ROI I will notice and the value of the ad spend goes down. I may decide not to buy the next round of FB ads - there are other places to place ads, and I'll keep trying until I find the ones that work. If someone else gives a better ROI because while they have less reach they prevent your click-fraud I'll go with them. Sure I lose the FB only customers, but I may be able to get enough to grow my business, particularly if I target repeat customers well and so I don't need to constantly attract new customers my smaller ad spend (including word of mouth) may make me more profitable in the long run which is what counts.

The above gets even worse when I tell my brother-in-law that he shouldn't bother with FB ads for his new pet food store, this other platform is a better value.

Thus it is long term to FB's advantage to make their numbers real. I can't say if they will or not, but it would be to their advantage.

Well, realistically speaking there is no alternative to Facebook. If you want to target individuals by interests FB is the only platform that allows it. Sure, there are other places where you could place your ads, and depending on the market if you can find niche sites, or even better communities, you might even get an order of magnitude better ROI, but the great thing about FB is that it's too easy to utilize as an advertiser.

As for click-fraud is pervasive in the online world. I don't think there's any major platform that doesn't have a fraud problem, and I can't realistically think of a solution that's not too much of a problem to work it out. Google is supposedly on top of it for more than a decade, but I haven't met a single person advertising on AdWords who doesn't think that they get fake traffic. I've even read reports that state that one third of global ad traffic is fraudulent.