Gambling Ads: Trust Sports to Be Fair and Honest Competitions? Yeah, Sure
February 26, 2026
Gambling is a problem that many countries don’t want to handle. Gambling brings addiction, crime, and other unpleasant situations. Online casinos are a way around strict laws in anti-gambling countries, but they’re fighting back by banning online gambling ads. Yet Meta isn’t obeying the letter of laws and continues to display gambling ads. Rest of the World details how Meta is skirting the lawn in: “Countries Are Outlawing Online Gambling Ads. Meta Is Selling Them Anyway.”
In efforts to curb illegal gambling operations, the Indian government met with Meta and Google in summer 2025 to discuss online gambling advertisements. That meeting was followed up by the Indian government banning online gambling and advertising. India is one of many countries in South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East that ban gambling.
This didn’t prevent Meta from gambling ads in India and twelve other countries where gambling is illegal. In official documentation and verbal agreements, Meta follows the law:
“Last summer, Meta outlined its policies for online gambling and gaming-related ads on its platforms, including the prohibition of such ads in 18 countries it called “unsupported markets” across Asia and the Middle East. Months later, these ads continued to run in at least 13 of the 18 countries where Meta restricts them.”
The ads prove otherwise. The ads follow a pattern where they use a fake address, then run for a short period of six to eight hours. Many of the gambling businesses claim to be based in the United States, but are really in Southeast Asia. Meta claims:
“In its policy outlining the 18 countries where running these ads is prohibited, Meta asks that advertisers ensure they adhere to local laws, and that the platform is "not responsible for how authorized ad accounts comply with local gambling laws and regulations.’”
Reuters investigated the gambling ads and discovered that Meta earned $16 billion or 10% off its revenue from illegal ads that promote gambling, scams, and illegal items.
Now we know why Meta turns a blind eye. Hey, how about those last minute football wins? Hey, penalties? Definitely warranted. And those multi-team draws? Absolutely fair and honest. Figure skating scores? Pristine, folks, pristine. Do bad actors gamble? Just with the games they own, rig, and allow others to use.
Whitney Grace, February x, 2026
Great Stuff: Synthetic Undead or Hi, Grandma
February 24, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
One of my team sent me a patent to look at. The document is US12513102B2.pdf, “Simulation of a User of a Social Networking System Using a Language Model.” The USPTO patent server was dead on February 17, 2026. But I had a couple of urls, one official and one unofficial. You can, however, look at what appears to be the full text of the patent using Google’s patent service. View the Google version of the patent using this hot link: US12513102B2. If you want a copy, it may be findable online when you poke around.
(By the way, Google Patents did not display a download PDF option in either Opera or Edge for me on February 17, 2026. To be candid, locating US government information is quite an adventure. If anyone reading this post wants to be part of an informal group focused on finding US government information, please, write kentmaxwell @ proton dot me.)
If you don’t want to fool around with the techno-legal lingo of a real US patent, you can read “Meta Patents AI That Takes Over a Fead Person’s Account to Keep Posting and Chatting” yourself.
I am not going to pass judgment on the novelty of the Meta patent. The USPTO okayed the uniqueness of the Meta innovation. Syfarth Shaw LLP did its job.
In a nutshell, a dead person posts online. Meta ingests the info and crafts a large language model representing the deceased’s utterances. Then the LLM allows a person who wishes to converse with the departed spouse, friend, colleague, etc. to enter a prompt and then the system outputs what the LLM predicts the unalive entity would say.
Will the system allow the presentation of audio in the unalike’s voice? Will the system allow synthetic video of the unalive? I think so. Here’s the relevant passage from the patent document:
“According to an embodiment, the bot 150 performs direct interactions with specific users, for example, a chat or direct messaging. According to an embodiment, the responses generated by the language model are converted to audio signal to perform an audio call with a user. According to an embodiment, a video generation model generates a video of the target user combined with audio signal generated from text generated by the language model to simulate a video call with the target user.”
Will an implementation of this make money and permit advertising? My view is that this will be a winner, assuming the deceased left behind sufficient digital dust, artifacts, and Facebook posts.
Who will pay to talk to a representation of a formerly living person? Here’s a rundown my team and I worked up at lunch:
- Grieving family members
- Co-dependent colleagues
- Abandoned lovers
- Clients of an expert who want the deceased person’s point of view
- Funeral homes offering this as a “day of the visitation” service.
The advertising would slot into the stateful user’s online profile.
What could go wrong? My hunch is that careful filtering of the synthetic unalive will not be included in Version 1.0 of the system. What if the formerly living had a bit of a sporty life in Meta’s online properties? Yeah, well, that might be interesting.
Meta is fresh in my mind. One of its professionals suggested that a young person spending 16 hours of a 24 hour day exploring Instagram is not addicted. Interesting idea just like this nifty idea.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2026
Poor Meta! Allegations about Accepting Scam Advertising
December 19, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
That well managed, forward leaning, AI and goggle centric company is in the news again. This time the focus is advertising that is scammy. “Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Allows Rampant Scam Ads from China While Raking in Billions, Explosive Report Says” states:
According to an investigation by Reuters, Meta earned more than $3 billion in China last year through scam ads for illegal gambling, pornography, and other inappropriate content. That figure represents nearly 19 percent of the company’s $18 billion in total ad revenue from China during the same period. Reuters had previously reported that 10 percent of Meta’s global revenue came from fraudulent ads.
The write up makes a pointed statement:
The investigation suggests Meta knew about the scale of the ad fraud problem on its platforms, but chose not to act because it would have affected revenue.
Guess what happens when senior managers at a large social media outfit pay little attention to what happens around them? Thanks, ChatGPT, good enough.
Let’s assume that the allegations are accurate and verifiable. The question is, “Why did Meta take in billions from scam ads?” My view is that there were several reasons:
- Revenue
- Figuring out what is and is not “spammy” is expensive. Spam may be like the judge’s comment years ago, “I will know it when I see it.” Different people have different perceptions
- Changing the ad sales incentive programs is tricky, time consuming, and expensive.
The logical decision is, based on my limited understanding of how managerial decisions are made at Meta simple: Someone may have said, “Hey, keep doing it until someone makes us stop.”
Why would a very large company adopt this hypothetical response to spammy ads?
My hunch is that management looked the other way. Revenue is important.
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2025
Guess Who Will Not Advertise on Gizmodo? Give Up?
December 8, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I have
I spotted an interesting write up on Gizmodo. The article “438 Reasons to Doubt that David Sacks Should Work for the Federal Government” suggests that none of the companies in which David Sacks has invested will throw money at Gizmodo. I don’t know that Mr. Sacks will direct his investments to avoid Gizmodo, but I surmise that the cited article may not induce him to tap his mobile and make ad buys on the Gizmodo thing.
A young trooper contemplates petting one of the animals. Good enough, Venice.ai. I liked that you omitting my instruction to have the young boy scout put his arm through the bars in order to touch the tiger. But, hey, good enough is the gold standard.
The write up reports as actual factual:
His investments may expose him to conflicts of interest. They also probably distort common sense.
Now wait a Silicon Valley illegal left turn: “Conflicts of interest?”
The write up explains:
The presence of such a guy—who everyone knows has a massive tech-based portfolio of investments—totally guarantees the perception that public policy is being shaped by self-dealing in the tech world, which in turn distorts common sense.
The article prances forth:
When you zoom out, it looks like this: As an advisor, Trump hired a venture capitalist who held a $500,000-per-couple dinner for him last year in San Francisco. It turns out that guy has a stake in a company that makes AI night vision goggles. When he writes you an AI action plan calling for AI in the military, and your Pentagon ends up contracting with that very company, that’s just sensible government policy. After all, the military needs AI-powered night vision goggles, doesn’t it?
Several observations:
- The cited article appears to lean heavily on reporting by the New York Times. The Gray Lady does not seem charmed by David Sacks, but that’s just my personal interpretation.
- The idea that Silicon Valley viewpoints appear to influence some government projects is interesting. Combine streamlining of US government procurement policies, and I wonder if it possible that some projects get slipstreamed. I don’t know. Maybe?
- Online media that poke the tender souls of some big time billionaires strikes me as a risk-filled approach to creating actionable information. I think the action may not be what Gizmodo wants, however.
Net net: This new friskiness in itself is interesting. A thought crossed my mind about the performance capabilities of AI or maybe Anduril’s drones? But that’s a different type of story to create. It is just easier to recycle the Gray Lady. It is 2025, right after a holiday break?
Stephen E Arnold, December 8, 2025
Meta: Flying Its Flag for Moving Fast and Breaking Things
December 3, 2025
Another dinobaby original. If there is what passes for art, you bet your bippy, that I used smart software. I am a grandpa but not a Grandma Moses.
Meta, a sporty outfit, is the subject of an interesting story in “Press Gazette,” an online publication. The article “News Publishers File Criminal Complaint against Mark Zuckerberg Over Scam Ads” asserts:
A group of news publishers have filed a police complaint against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg over scam Facebook ads which steal the identities of journalists. Such promotions have been widespread on the Meta platform and include adverts which purport to be authored by trusted names in the media.
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough, the gold standard for art today.
I can anticipate the outputs from some Meta adherents; for example, “We are really, really sorry.” or “We have specific rules against fraudulent behavior and we will take action to address this allegation.” Or, “Please, contact our legal representative in Sweden.”
The write up does not speculate as I just did in the preceding paragraph. The article takes a different approach, reporting:
According to Utgivarna: “These ads exploit media companies and journalists, cause both financial and psychological harm to innocent people, while Meta earns large sums by publishing the fraudulent content.” According to internal company documents, reported by Reuters, Meta earns around $16bn per year from fraudulent advertising. Press Gazette has repeatedly highlighted the use of well-known UK and US journalists to promote scam investment groups on Facebook. These include so-called pig-butchering schemes, whereby scammers win the trust of victims over weeks or months before persuading them to hand over money. [Emphasis added by Beyond Search]
On November 22, 2025, Time Magazine ran this allegedly accurate story “Court Filings Allege Meta Downplayed Risks to Children and Misled the Public.” In that article, the estimable social media company found itself in the news. That write up states:
Sex trafficking on Meta platforms was both difficult to report and widely tolerated, according to a court filing unsealed Friday. In a plaintiffs’ brief filed as part of a major lawsuit against four social media companies, Instagram’s former head of safety and well-being Vaishnavi Jayakumar testified that when she joined Meta in 2020 she was shocked to learn that the company had a “17x” strike policy for accounts that reportedly engaged in the “trafficking of humans for sex.”
I find it interesting that Meta is referenced in legal issues involving two particularly troublesome problems in many countries around the world. The one two punch is sex trafficking and pig butchering. I — probably incorrectly — interpret these two allegations as kiddie crime and theft. But I am a dinobaby, and I am not savvy to the ways of the BAIT (big AI tech)-type companies. Getting labeled as a party of sex trafficking and pig butchering is quite interesting to me. Happy holidays to Meta’s PR and legal professionals. You may be busy and 100 percent billable over the holidays and into the new year.
Several observations may be warranted:
- There are some frisky BAIT outfits in Silicon Valley. Meta may well be competing for the title as the Most Frisky Firm (MFF). I wonder what the prize is?
- Meta was annoyed with a “tell all” book written by a former employee. Meta’s push back seemed a bit of a tell to me. Perhaps some of the information hit too close to the leadership of Meta? Now we have sex and fraud allegations. So…
- How will Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp innovate in ad sales once Meta’s AI technology is fully deployed? Will AI, for example, block ad sales that are questionable? AI does make errors, which might be a useful angle for Meta going forward.
Net net: Perhaps some journalist with experience in online crime will take a closer look at Meta. I smell smoke. I am curious about the fire.
Stephen E Arnold, December 3, 2025
Google Is Really Cute: Push Your Content into the Jaws of Googzilla
November 4, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Google has a new, helpful, clever, and cute service just for everyone with a business Web site. “Google Labs’ Free New Experiment Creates AI-Generated Ads for Your Small Business” lays out the basics of Pomelli. (I think this word means knobs or handles.)
A Googley business process designed to extract money and data from certain customers. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The cited article states:
Pomelli uses AI to create campaigns that are unique to your business; all you need to do is upload your business website to begin. Google says Pomelli uses your business URL to create a “Business DNA” that analyzes your website images to identify brand identity. The Business DNA profile includes tone of voice, color palettes, fonts, and pictures. Pomelli can also generate logos, taglines, and brand values.
Just imagine Google processing your Web site, its content, images, links, and entities like email addresses, phone numbers, etc. Then using its smart software to create an advertising campaign, ads, and suggestions for the amount of money you should / will / must spend via Google’s own advertising system. What a cute idea!
The write up points out:
Google says this feature eliminates the laborious process of brainstorming unique ad campaigns. If users have their own campaign ideas, they can enter them into Pomelli as a prompt. Finally, Pomelli will generate marketing assets for social media, websites, and advertisements. These assets can be edited, allowing users to change images, headers, fonts, color palettes, descriptions, and create a call to action.
How will those tireless search engine optimization consultants and Google certified ad reselling outfits react to this new and still “experimental” service? I am confident that [a] some will rationalize the wonderfulness of this service and sell advisory services about the automated replacement for marketing and creative agencies; [b] some will not understand that it is time to think about a substantive side gig because Google is automating basic business functions and plugging into the customer’s wallet with no pesky intermediary to shave off some bucks; and [c] others will watch as their own sales efforts become less and less productive and then go out of business because adaptation is hard.
Is Google’s idea original? No, Adobe has something called AI Found, according to the write up. Google is not into innovation. Need I remind you that Google advertising has some roots in the Yahoo garden in bins marked GoTo.com and Overture.com. Also, there is a bank account with some Google money from a settlement about certain intellectual property rights that Yahoo believed Google used as a source of business process inspiration.
As Google moves into automating hooks, it accrues several significant benefits which seem to stick up in Google’s push to help its users:
- Crawling costs may be reduced. The users will push content to Google. This may or may not be a significant factor, but the user who updates provides Google with timely information.
- The uploaded or pushed content can be piped into the Google AI system and used to inform the advertising and marketing confection Pomelli. Training data and ad prospects in one go.
- The automation of a core business function allows Google to penetrate more deeply into a business. What if that business uses Microsoft products? It strikes me that the Googlers will say, “Hey, switch to Google and you get advertising bonus bucks that can be used to reduce your overall costs.”
- The advertising process is a knob that Google can be used to pull the user and his cash directly into the Google business process automation scheme.
As I said, cute and also clever. We love you, Google. Keep on being Googley. Pull those users’ knobs, okay.
Stephen E Arnold, November 4, 2025
A Meta Believe It or Not: No Spying on Our Users. No, No, No
October 24, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Why worry about the data big tech collect about users. The grannies at the European Union wring their hands. In the US, it’s no problemo. Therefore, social media companies, cellphone and Internet providers, Kroger-like grocery chains, and even the local utility monopolies harvest data and sell it to advertisers. Case in point: I was speaking with a friend about a particular coffee brand I enjoy on a private text. When I turned on my TV, I saw a commercial for that exact same coffee brand. Coincidence? Sure, just like those ads for puffy jackets on Web sites after I buy a nifty blue puffer on Amazon. Yeah, I am going to buy another puffy after I just bought one.
That’s scarier than a R-rated horror movie and dumber.
Big Tech companies like Meta assure consumers they aren’t spying on them, but The Verge suspects otherwise: “Adam Mosseri’s ‘We’re Totally Not Spying On You’ Video Is Raising A Lot Of Questions."
Meta announced it will soon use AI chats to personalize ads. In poor timing, Adam Mosseri released a myth breaking video that attempted to assure users that Meta is not listening in on their conversations or reading their messages.
Meta’s ad system, however, is precise to the point of paranormal activity. Mosseri did offer explanations that reads like digital cookies and lies:
One, maybe you actually tapped on something that was related or even searched for that product online on a website, maybe before you had that conversation. We actually do work with advertisers who share information with us about who is on their website to try to target those people with ads. So if you were looking at a product on a website, then that advertiser might have paid us to reach you with an ad.
Two, we show people ads that we think that they’re interested in, or products we think they’re interested in, in part based on what their friends are interested in and what similar people with similar interests are interested in. So it could be that you were talking to someone about a product, and they, before, had to actually looked for or searched for that product, or that, in general, people with similar interests were doing the exact same thing.
Three, you might have actually seen that ad before you had a conversation and not realized it. We scroll quickly, we scroll by ads quickly, and sometimes you internalize some of that, and that actually affects what you talk about later.
Four, random chance, coincidence, it happens.”
Yeah, coincidence. Humans are programmed to notice patterns in their environment. It’s a survival instinct. Many of these patterns have transformed into odd conspiracy theories and rampant paranoia. Back in the day, these “coincidences” could have been chalked up to odd circumstances. Now it’s because Big Tech is watching. Anyone want a cup of coffee?
Whitney Grace, October 21, 2025
Google Deletes Political History. No, Google Determines Political History
September 30, 2025
I read “Google Just Erased 7 Yers of Our Political History.” I want to point out that “our” refers to Ireland and the European Union. I don’t know if the US data about political advertising existed. Those data may lurk within the recesses of Google. They may be accessible via Google Dorks or some open source intelligence investigator’s machinations.
The author of the write up interprets Google’s making some data unavailable as a bad thing. I have a different point of view, but let’s see what has over-boiled one Irish person’s potatoes. The write up says:
Google appears to have deleted its political ad archive for the EU; so the last 7 years of ads, of political spending, of messaging, of targeting – on YouTube, on Search and for display ads – for countless elections across 27 countries – is all gone.
What was the utility of this separate collection of allegedly accurate data? The write up answers this question:
The political ad archive – now deleted? – allowed people like me (and many others) to understand what happened in elections, like this longer piece I was able to write during the European & Local elections last year on the use of YouTube by a far right party, Sinn Féin’s big push on search result ads, and the growth of attacks ads in Ireland. Now you need the specific name of an advertiser, and when I looked for, for example, “Sinn Fein”, it (a) only gave me the option of searching for their website, and (b) showed zero results. This is despite Sinn Fein spending upwards of €10k a day during some of the elections last year.
The write up concludes:
But the ad archives were introduced 7 years ago for a reason – in no small part because of the chaos of the Brexit and Trump 2016 votes, and our own advocacy here in Ireland about interference in the 2018 8th amendment referendum. They were introduced to allow for scrutiny of campaigns, and also to provide a historical record so we could go back and look at what had been promised, and what had been spent, and to see if this lined up with what happened later. This erasure of our political past feels dangerous, for scrutiny, for accountability, for shared memory, for enforcement of our rules – for our democracy.
I think I understand. However, I have a different angle on this alleged deletion:
- Google may just clean up, remove a pointer, or move a service. To a user, the information has disappeared. My experience with the Google is that the data remain within the walled garden. A user has to find a way into that garden. Therefore, try those OSINT investigator tricks or hire Bellingcat to help you out
- Google is a large and extremely well-managed outfit. However, it is within the realm of possibility that a team leader allowed an intern or contract worker to be a “decider.” When news of the possible and usually inadvertent or inexplicable deletion floats upward to leadership, the data may reappear. Google may not post a notice to this effect unless it has a significant impact on advertising revenue. There is a small possibility that a big political advertiser complained about the data about political advertising. In that case, there is a teenie tiny possibility that someone just killed the pages with the data to make a sale. I am not saying this happened. I just want to suggest there are some processes that may occur and not be known to the estimable leadership of the outstanding firm.
- Criticizing Google is a good way to never be considered truly Googley. Proof of Googliness may be needed if one or one’s children wish to be employed, hired, or otherwise engaged in a substantive manner with the Google. Grousing about the Google is proof one is not Googley. End of story.
My personal take on this is that Google does not delete history. Google wants to control history. How many Googlers do you know who can recount the anecdote about Yahoo taking the estimable Google to court over the advertising technology Yahoo alleged Google emulated? Yeah, ask that question of Google leadership and see how much of an answer your receive. Believe me this is a good bit of color for Google’s business methods. Too bad it has disappeared to some degree.
If something is not in Google, that something doesn’t exist. That’s the purpose of history.
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2025
Grousing Employees Can Be Fun. Credible? You Decide
September 4, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I read “Former Employee Accuses Meta of Inflating Ad Metrics and Sidestepping Rules.” Now former employees saying things that cast aspersions on a former employer are best processed with care. I did that, and I want to share the snippets snagging my attention. I try not to think about Meta. I am finishing my monograph about Telegram, and I have to stick to my lane. But I found this write up a hoot.
The first passage I circled says:
Questions are mounting about the reliability of Meta’s advertising metrics and data practices after new claims surfaced at a London employment tribunal this week. A former Meta product manager alleged that the social media giant inflated key metrics and sidestepped strict privacy controls set by Apple, raising concerns among advertisers and regulators about transparency in the industry.
Imagine. Meta coming up at a tribunal. Does that remind anyone of the Cambridge Analytica excitement? Do you recall the rumors that fiddling with Facebook pushed Brexit over the finish line? Whatever happened to those oh-so-clever CA people?
I found this tribunal claim interesting:
… Meta bypassed Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) rules, which require user consent before tracking their activity across iPhone apps. After Apple introduced ATT in 2021, most users opted out of tracking, leading to a significant reduction in Meta’s ability to gather information for targeted advertising. Company investors were told this would trim revenues by about $10 billion in 2022.
I thought Apple had their system buttoned up. Who knew?
Did Meta have a response? Absolutely. The write up reports:
“We are actively defending these proceedings …” a Meta spokesperson told The Financial Times. “Allegations related to the integrity of our advertising practices are without merit and we have full confidence in our performance review processes.”
True or false? Well….
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2025
Google Advertises Itself
May 16, 2025
- The signals about declining search traffic warrant attention. SEO wizards, Google’s ad partners, and its own ad wizards depend on what once was limitless search traffic. If that erodes, those infrastructure costs will become a bit of a challenge. Profits and jobs depend on mindless queries.
- Google’s reaction to these signals indicates that the company’s “leadership” knows that there is trouble in paradise. The terse statement that the Cue comment about a decline in Apple to Google search traffic and this itty bitty ad are not accidents of fate. The Google once controlled fate. Now the fabled company is in a sticky spot like Sisyphus.
- The irony of Google’s problem stems from its own Transformer innovation. Released to open source, Google may be learning that its uphill battle is of its own creation. Nice work, “leadership.”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
