Meta throttles 404media investigation on drug ads, continues to advertise drugs
404media.co
404media.co
Edit: Looks pretty real. He posts vids from his customers showing successful deliveries. Appears to be operating out of Toronto? Maybe one day the cops will figure out how to use a computer and do some actual detective work.
Here's an ad for a Bitcoin doubling scam, complete with "Tesler" instead of "Tesla", and including a pic of Elon Musk: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=308770845058112
Plenty of other scams are freely advertised as well: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/16/crypto-sc...
Also, oxycodone is still legal, and probably kills more than the illegal stuff mentioned in the article.
So, while the “this is obviously illegal behavior” is a nice smoking gun, it’s nothing compared to the legal stuff they do that should be illegal.
If you suspect a shill or astroturfing, send an email to dang so he can investigate and actually do something if it is happening.
This media company was launched like a month ago and they're already taking the spotlight by doing censor-worthy or ban-worthy stuff.
Take notes. This is how it's done these days. You want attention? You want to grow your anything? Start fights, call names, and make sure you get kicked out, censored. It's like the Streisand Effect or something.
They are writing and publishing compelling investigative content, I think that's why they are getting the traction they have (plus the team has a proven track record from previous work).
So on the timeline of journalism, it is not rare for this to happen, it's just increasingly rare in recent times. And I think a correction is coming, with for example this kind of more independent and self-funded projects.
Hint: it’s before the printing press
As I did say, it has been getting worse and more concentrated in the last few decades.
And I guess combined with the loss of commercial viability of local news due to the Internet, a point I didn't include but is certainly relevant.
Edison literally electrocuted a horse with AC to promote it as a preferred power source for electric chairs[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents#Associatin...
Just my two cents, though, but as we look back on these types of moments in history, it is easy to skew the accepted values of the time and write them off as barbaric.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...
In the about us section they state their reporting is “exploring the ways technology is shaping–and is shaped by–our world.”
I’d say this reporting falls squarely in those crosshairs.
The article has details and examples of their own experience (and it's titled "my feed", not "instagram in general"), they interviewed researchers/experts on the topic, reached out to Meta for comment, waited to see what happened after doing so, etc.
Even direct marketing to physicians is somewhat questionable, except for the distribution of the results of clinical trials and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the efficacy of drugs, and even these can suffer from conflict-of-interest if the research reports are being generated with funds from the pharmaceutical entity that will benefit from increased sales of those drugs.
Most countries ban social media / cable television / print media etc. advertisements of prescription-only drugs for these reasons.
I will say that from direct family and friends experience, a lot of family doctors are not aware of everything that's out there, particularly older doctors who may not be keeping up with new developments, and even more specifically women's health advancements..
Do your own research and find products or drugs that might work for you and then bring that to your doctor for a conversation about whether or not it could work for you.
That's where the marketing comes in for the public. Yes it works for the drug companies too, but if there was some law that meant no one could advertise or talk about these, we would be counting on our doctors to be always aware of all the newest things, and that's just not the reality.
If you sit around waiting for your doctor (who has hundreds, maybe thousands of patients) to bring all the right solutions to you, you're not going to get the best care you can.
So yeah, I agree there's challenges with marketing these products, but it's not a clear cut situation.
I feel like, as a computer professional, if someone came up to me and said "A really loud commercial told me that I need an app with AI and Blockchain in it! Can I pay you to write one for me?" I'd be... annoyed?
Some people do good research, some people do bad research. Generalize at your own risk I guess.
All I know is that when it comes to my own health, I don't leave things only in the hands of my doctor. If I can bring research or information - or even just questions about potential treatments I may have seen advertised - to the table about my own situation, why wouldn't I?
I absolutely trust their professional capacities, but I certainly don't assume they are able to give me dedicated attention or put in the research I can if there's something I need to sort out.
I know for a fact I am one of thousands of patients at my local clinic, so I am realistic about the level of care I receive. You may be in a better situation than me though.
I have a bridge to sell you.
Succinctly, it's okay to want to change the law, and also favor rule of law.
Drugs are a complex and nuanced topic, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be pro drugs and also wary of how Instagram is vetting their drug advertisers.
Black market goods vary in quality and ethics and safety, it's absolutely reasonable to say, "ok, you advertise for these, how are you ensuring safety?"
MDMA is an interesting one because its far along in the official legalization path as a prescription drug but it doesn't fall into the decriminalization statues typically because it is synthetic (most of them make an exception for naturally derived psychedelics -- so even something very powerful like DMT is covered).
In practice, however, MDMA is widely available via the same channels as other psychedelics which are typically not the same distribution channels for much more habit forming and harm causing drugs like heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine.
That just wreaks of alarmism, especially when they use less informed language like "silencer" instead of "suppressor". If there was something about it that is actually illegal they should mention it.
https://www.404media.co/instagram-ads-illegal-content-drugs-...
It is, at the very least, a violation of Instagram’s terms. They don’t permit gun sales on any Meta platform.
Like, yes, it's a magazine, but colloquially it's a clip. Pop culture has given these objects two names.
It's not a mark of failure to use the term most people are familiar with.
People know what a "silencer" is because that's what it's called in movies and TV. Much fewer people know that it's actually called a "suppressor".
Meet the audience where they are.
Even if we didn’t, it’s a journalist’s job to inform. Using “clip” isn’t just a colloquialism — it refers to a different thing entirely, and is incorrect.
If they genuinely believe the public is not familiar with “magazine”, they can and should explain the terminology.
However, I sincerely doubt these individuals — especially given their Vice/Motherboard background — knew the correct terminology in the first place.
The last thing I want to do is contribute traffic to vapid outrage-bait Vice/Motherboard-style journalism, and HN has been spammed with their articles for days now.
edit: If Tom's Hardware ran an article about a laptop that has 2TB of "memory", I'd be skeptical of their ability to give me the proper information. If I read an article about welfare that calls Medicaid "handouts", I'm going to realize they aren't being objective.
So no, you are incorrect.
Calling a suppressor a "silencer" is just incorrect.
A lack of precision is only really a problem when it would cause confusion. In the context of the article, nobody is confused about what they mean by "silencer". A good example of this is that, even while complaining about calling them "silencers" rather than suppressors, the top comment still didn't have any confusion about what was being discussed.
People are confused as to believing the idea that any device which makes a gun silent exists.
Movie hackers don't work like that because nobody involved knows how computers work, even NCIS had dedicated Computer Consultants for that kind of stuff, but real "hacking" is boring AF, and most people are willing to put that kind of "reality" aside for a better narrative.
"Throw me a clip!" Or picking up "clips" of ammo in FPS games.
Yes, mag is becoming more common now, but clip was absolutely common.
"Full clip, do you wanna mess with this?" (Guru and Premier, 1999)
"I'm like two magazines fully-loaded to your one" (ibid.)
But that is not even remotely relevant to the topic. The original article don't even use the word "silencer", nor "suppressor", let alone "clip".
This is precisely the point. Perhaps there is something illegal about these sales but why should I assume this is the case when the author incorrectly implies the existence of gun ads itself is illegal and use video game and movie terminology to talk about them?