by L Richardson
Meta is projected to earn approximately $16 billion in 2024 from advertisements promoting scams and banned goods, accounting for about 10% of its total revenue. Users are exposed to an estimated 15 billion ‘higher-risk’ scam advertisements daily, a volume five times greater than daily U.S. mail delivery. Meta’s internal data indicate that these high-risk ads generate $7 billion in annual revenue.
Meta’s data indicate that its platforms are implicated in one-third of all successful scams in the United States. British regulatory authorities have reported comparable findings.
Meta’s platforms accounted for 54% of all payment-related scam losses in 2023. Company analysis indicates that Chinese sources are responsible for approximately one-quarter of all scam and banned-product advertisements on its platforms worldwide. In the same period, American consumers lost over $10 billion to scams originating in Southeast Asia. Despite these trends, Meta reduced its safety staff even as fraudulent activity persisted on Facebook and Instagram—evidence: Meta’s Revenue from Questionable Advertising.
A Reuters investigation revealed Meta’s business relationships with Chinese advertisers, highlighting profits generated by questionable practices. Internal documents indicate that the advertising system includes content linked to scams, resulting in financial harm to American families. Collected approximately $18 billion in advertising revenue from Chinese sources in 2024 [1]. The company’s own calculations showed that ads promoting scams, illegal gambling, pornography, and other banned content made up 19% of that money—over $3 billion [1].
Meta’s internal documents identified China as the source of about a quarter of all scam ads and banned products on its platforms worldwide [1]. Staff referred to China as the top “Scam Exporting Nation” [2]. This system generated significant profits at the expense of American consumers.
In 2024, Meta made efforts to address the issue. Staff advised leadership to “make significant investment to reduce growing harm” [1]. As a result, problematic Chinese ads were reduced by half during the second half of 2024, from 19% to 9% of Chinese ad revenue [1].
Subsequent developments raised additional concerns regarding the effectiveness and consistency of Meta’s enforcement efforts.
Internal documents indicate that, following a change in strategy and direction from Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s China ads-enforcement team was “asked to pause” its work [1]. This directive came from senior leadership and lasted three months. Afterward, the company disbanded its China-focused anti-scam team [1]. As a result, advertising agencies quickly increased the number of prohibited ads on Facebook and Instagram. By mid-2025, banned ads accounted for about 16% of M. These actions had global consequences. Victims included Taiwanese shoppers who purchased counterfeit health supplements and North American investors who lost their life savings [1]. The FBI seized $214 million from promoters of a Chinese stock scam that used Facebook and Instagram ads to recruit victims [1]. These advertisements directed users to WhatsApp groups operated by “individuals in China posing as U.S.-based investment advisors” [1]. Most Chinese ads are placed through 11 “top-tier resellers” [1], facilitating the spread of scams, illegal gambling, and banned goods [1]. The system allows anyone to place an ad with minimal verification, while fake accounts proliferate [1]. Fake accounts run rampant [1].
Rob Leathern, Facebook’s former senior director of product management until 2020, called the scale of predatory advertising “not defensible” and added, “I don’t know how anyone could think this is okay” [1].
Internal documents revealed the following key findings:
- Meta earns $7 billion annually from ads it labels as “high risk” scams [1]
- Ads for scams, illegal gambling, and banned products made up 10% of the company’s 2024 revenue ($16 billion) [1]
- Meta’s safety staff found its platforms played a role in a third of all successful U.S. scams [2]
Meta’s brief look into the problem in early 2025 found something startling. Just 800 Chinese advertising accounts generated $28 million in rule-breaking ads in one month [1]. Over 75% of that money came from accounts with Meta’s partner protections [1].
The company’s response was limited. A February 2025 document described the “adversarial” nature of the Chinese market, where advertisers pursue quick profits [1]. Meta opted to “maintain the % of global harm” from China rather than address the underlying issue [1].
Chinese authorities don’t care about these scams targeting foreigners. Meta’s consultants found that “The Chinese government does not interfere when violations target overseas audiences” [1]. These shady ad campaigns often got funding from loan sharks and other “informal” sources [1].
Meta’s actions have contributed to significant financial losses for American families due to scams linked to China. The company removed protections that had previously helped reduce these losses. (Meta tolerates rampant ad fraud from China to safeguard billions in revenue, 2025) For example, Andrew Miller, a retired teacher from Ohio, lost his $200,000 retirement savings to a fraudulent investment scheme he discovered through Facebook ads. ‘I trusted the platform,’ he said, ‘but it cost me everything.’ His experience illustrates the human impact behind the $50 billion lost to scams.
III. Leadership Decisions and the Disbandment of Anti-Fraud Teams: Implications for Consumer Protection and Market Integrity
Internal company documents indicate that Mark Zuckerberg played a direct role in decisions affecting user safety regarding Chinese advertising. These documents outline a timeline of key actions taken by senior leadership.
Meta seemed to understand the massive fraud problem at first. The company created a specialized anti-fraud team for the Chinese market after finding that approximately 19% of their Chinese advertising revenue—about $3 billion—came from scams, illegal gambling, and pornography [1]. This team proved effective. Their enhanced enforcement tools cut problematic Chinese ads in half during the second half of 2024, dropping from 19% Finance departments expressed concern as the crackdown on fraudulent ads reduced profits from Chinese advertising.
At this point, Mark Zuckerberg became involved. Internal documents show that, following a change in strategy and direction from Zuckerberg, Meta’s China ads-enforcement team was told to pause its work [1]. Eventually, the team was disbanded [1].
Meta subsequently lifted its freeze on new Chinese ad agencies accessing its platforms [1]. The company also discontinued other anti-scam measures that internal tests had shown to be effective [1].
Following the removal of these safeguards, new Chinese advertising agencies placed a significant number of prohibited ads on Facebook and Instagram. By mid-2025, banned ads accounted for approximately 16% of Meta’s China revenue again [1].
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said the anti-fraud team was “always meant to be temporary” [1]. He also stated that “Zuckerberg didn’t order the team’s disbanding” [1], although internal documents mention Zuckerberg’s “follow-up” as the reason the team was told to pause its work.
Zuckerberg has a history of putting profit before protection. Meta (then Facebook) dissolved its civic-integrity team just a month after the 2020 U.S. election [3]. Former employees revealed this made it harder for the platform to handle January 6th events effectively [3]. A former team member said, “A lot of people left the company. The teams that did remain had substantially less power to implement change, and that loss of focus was a pretty big deal” [3].
The civic-integrity team stood out by taking an informal oath to “serve the people’s interest first, not Facebook’s” [3]. This team’s dissolution became the final straw for Frances Haugen, pushing her to become a whistleblower and expose Meta’s practices [3].
Meta’s financial priorities became crystal clear. Internal documents show that when enforcement staff suggested shutting down fraudulent accounts, Meta wanted assurance that growth teams wouldn’t object “given the revenue impact” [2]. The company refused to penalize high-spending Chinese partners running scams, citing “high revenue impact” [2].
Meta brazenly reinstated 4,000 second-tier Chinese ad agencies in late 2024, despite their previous violations, unlocking $240 million in yearly revenue [2]. About half this revenue came from ads that violated Meta’s own safety policies [2].
Rob Leathern, who led Meta’s business integrity operations until 2019, reviewed the internal documents and found the scale “difficult to defend” [2]. His critique points to a fundamental truth: platforms must hold intermediary agencies accountable for their advertisers [2].
The company’s internal assessments indicated that revenue from risky ads would “definitely exceed the cost of any regulatory settlement,” viewing potential government fines as a business expense [2]. This approach raises concerns about the company’s commitment to consumer protection and market integrity.
The Propellerfish Group’s external audit delivered the most damning conclusion: Meta’s “own behavior and policies” actively promoted systemic corruption in China’s advertising ecosystem [2].
Meta’s internal safety staff estimated that its platforms were involved in approximately one-third of all successful U.S. scams, resulting in more than $50 billion in consumer losses [2]. Families have lost savings to fraudulent stock promotions and supplement scams. This situation suggests prioritizing revenue from China over national economic security and constitutional protections.
IV. Connecting the Dots to Technocratic Tyranny: Exploring Digital Enslavement and China’s Great Firewall
The concept of ‘Problem-Reaction-Solution’ has been discussed in the context of digital control, highlighting potential risks associated with technocratic influence through digital platforms. Recent revelations about Meta’s dealings with China provide new context for these concerns. While some have dismissed warnings about extreme outcomes [4], the broader message regarding technocratic control warrants reconsideration in light of Meta’s recent controversies.
The Meta-China scandal shows what analysts call the “Problem-Reaction-Solution” model—a sophisticated, three-part manipulation process powerful entities use to advance their control agenda [5]:
- Meta’s platforms have been criticized for allowing the proliferation of harmful content while generating profits at the expense of user safety. Public concern often leads to calls for action against online harms. This dynamic can result in solutions that further concentrate power among technology companies and government authorities.
According to whistleblowers, Meta assisted the Chinese Communist Party in developing censorship technologies, raising concerns about potential risks to individual freedoms. Reports indicate that Meta worked “hand in glove” with the CCP to “construct and test custom-built censorship tools” [6]. Beijing requested the deletion of a prominent Chinese dissident’s account residing in the United States, and Meta complied (Silberling, 2025)[6].
The most concerning part? Meta built physical pipelines between the United States and China. They ignored “warnings that this would provide backdoor access to the Chinese Communist Party, allowing them to intercept the personal data and private messages of American citizens” [6]. A direct pipeline now exists for Communist surveillance into American homes.
China’s “Great Firewall” shows us where this path leads—it stands as one of the world’s most extensive and sophisticated censorship regimes [7]. Government agencies hold absolute authority over internet content under this system, including the Central Propaganda Department, Ministry of Public Security, and the 2014-established Cyberspace Administration of China [7].
Technocratic control in China is evident through blocked access to foreign news sites such as BBC and The New York Times, as well as most Western social media platforms [7]. Authorities systematically ban, delete, or restrict content deemed “against the state” [7]. There are concerns that Meta’s actions may contribute to the spread of similar models internationally.
While social media was initially seen as a tool for promoting freedom, some repressive regimes have used these platforms to strengthen their control [8]. Political scientists have observed the use of “trolls for hire” and “50 centers” (bloggers paid per pro-government post) to create the appearance of widespread regime support [8]. This approach can isolate dissidents and discourage collective action [8].
The Chinese government adopted this playbook. Meta discovered what it called “the largest known cross-platform covert influence operation in the world,” tied to Chinese law enforcement in 2023 [9]. This network included 7,704 Facebook accounts, 954 pages, and 15 groups that pushed pro-China propaganda and attacked critics [9]. Meta’s chief information security officer called it “one operation” with precise central coordination [9]. Analysts noted the accounts followed Beijing work schedules with “breaks for lunch and supper” [9].
China’s digital control reaches beyond propaganda into surveillance. Meta-China’s digital control extends beyond propaganda to include surveillance, facilitated in part by Meta’s infrastructure. Facebook reportedly assisted Chinese companies by “providing technological expertise on critical issues such as data center networking equipment, general purpose and GPU servers, storage devices and appliances, and expandable rack designs” [6]. Platforms have become powerful tools “to gather a mob of followers, throw false accusations, and stir up conflicts” in our digital age [10]. Leaders and followers lack mediation, which “aids the implementation of tyrannical methods” [10].
Some critics contend that partnerships between large technology companies and authoritarian governments contribute to concerns about expanding digital control. Meta’s development of censorship tools for foreign governments, alongside profits from scams affecting Americans, raises questions about the company’s priorities.
V. The Human Cost: Financial Losses to U.S. Families from Meta-Facilitated Scams
Image Source: AARP
Sarah Thompson, a retired nurse from Missouri, lost her retirement savings to a fraudulent investment scheme encountered through Meta’s platforms. ‘I believed in the security they promised,’ she said, ‘but it turned out to be my worst nightmare.’ Her experience reflects the broader impact of Meta-facilitated scams, which have affected many Americans. Meta’s safety staff estimates their platforms were ‘involved’ in about one-third of all successful U.S. scams, linked to more than $50 billion in consumer losses [11].
A shocking case emerged in March 2025. The FBI seized $214 million from promoters of a sophisticated Chinese stock scam that used Facebook and Instagram ads to recruit victims [1]. Americans who clicked these deceptive ads found themselves in WhatsApp groups run by “individuals in China posing as U.S.-based investment advisors” [1]. These fake advisors manipulated trusting people into buying inflated stocks, destroying retirement accounts and college funds.
The impact of these scams extends far beyond individual cases. In 2024, scammers stole $16.6 billion from U.S. consumers, with profits benefiting transnational criminal organizations [12]. Many of these operations are based in Southeast Asia, particularly in Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos [12]. Criminal enterprises often recruit workers with promises of legitimate employment, then confiscate their passports and threaten their families if they attempt to leave [12]. These workers are forced to conduct sophisticated “smishing” campaigns—phishing messages sent via SMS—impersonating banks, government agencies, and trusted companies to steal money from Americans [12].
Stolen funds disappear through an intricate laundering network:
- Crypto mixers that obscure the origins of stolen digital assets
- Shell companies that hide ownership of criminal proceeds
- Reinvestment into recruitment infrastructure to expand operations [12]
The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center reports more than $10 billion in losses from online scams in the United States [13]. This number represents nowhere near the total losses since many victims stay silent out of shame or hopelessness.
The threat is evolving rapidly. Meta’s internal documents indicate that generative AI enables scammers to “create something that looks plausible far more easily than ever before” [2]. Small criminal groups can now impersonate legitimate businesses with increased effectiveness. For example, Meta staff recently identified an ad for a fake health supplement company that used AI-generated testimonials and images of fabricated medical professionals. This ad deceived thousands of people, resulting in significant financial losses.
These attacks grow more sophisticated. The FBI warns about cyber criminals who impersonate financial institutions to steal money through Account Takeover (ATO) fraud schemes [14]. Another case shows scammers who hijacked a Canadian Air Force recruiter’s Facebook account to run cryptocurrency investment scams targeting military personnel and their families [11].
Meta has become a primary channel for these attacks. Data from the fraud-reporting platform SafelyHQ shows that Facebook is associated with the majority of social media scams [15]. Victims mention Facebook in 85% of cases where they specify the platform involved [15].
Banks in the UK found that 77% of all cases and 32% of authorized push payment losses start online [13]. Australian citizens lost more than $3 billion AUD to fraud in 2022, primarily through social media and search engine ads. Rob Leathern, a former senior director of product management at Facebook until 2020, criticized the company’s practices. He described the scale of predatory advertising as “not defensible” [1]. “I don’t know how anyone could think this is okay,” he added, referring to the percentage of abusive ads Meta knowingly allows [1]. Seniors, military families, and small business owners are among those most affected, and many may not recover from these losses. May not recover from these losses.
VI. Violations of Foundational Principles: Implications for Libertarian Freedoms, Constitutional Protections, and Economic Security
Image Source: Brewminate
Meta’s actions extend beyond profit-seeking and have implications for America’s foundational principles and constitutional framework. The company has initiated a significant legal challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to enforce consumer protection laws, seeking to avoid restrictions on data collection and use [16]. This move raises concerns about Meta’s commitment to government oversight. At its core, Meta’s challenge to the FTC is not solely about avoiding responsibility. The company seeks to weaken regulatory structures that protect individual freedoms. Meta has employed various legal arguments to avoid addressing concerns about its data practices [16]. Critics argue that the company aims to maintain a business model that prioritizes profits over privacy and safety, particularly for young people [16]. OverMeta’s legal challenge is part of a broader trend among some corporations to weaken federal agencies that protect workers, consumers, and investors [17]. If successful, this strategy could limit agencies’ ability to enforce rules and impose civil penalties for corporate misconduct [17]. It could also impose sanctions on wealthy corporate wrongdoers [17].
This situation poses significant risks to American sovereignty. Without adequate regulatory oversight, more than 200 federal statutes allowing administrative enforcement of civil monetary penalties could be challenged [17]. Federal courts could become overwhelmed with cases that are typically handled by agency experts, reducing the government’s ability to protect citizens from corporate misconduct [17].
The Meta has taken differing approaches in its dealings with U.S. and Chinese authorities. While challenging American regulators, the company has reportedly complied with demands from Chinese officials. Whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams stated that Meta executives “repeatedly undermine US national security and betray American values” through undisclosed dealings with Beijing [18]. Meta built an $18 billion business in China while publicly supporting American values [18]. Wynn-Williams noted the contrast between public statements and business practices: “wrapping the American flag around himself and calling himself a patriot” while expanding operations in China [18]. Meta also assisted China in developing advanced artificial intelligence to compete with American companies [18]. The company began briefing the Chinese Communist Party on critical emerging technologies, including AI, as early as 2015 [18]. This technology transfer has raised concerns about American economic sovereignty and national security.
Meta has reduced its content moderation and fact-checking policies, referring to this shift as “free expression” [19]. Critics argue that this change may result in increased misinformation and harmful content, potentially undermining public trust [19]. The company now intervenes only in cases of “illegal and high-severity violations,” allowing previously restricted content to remain. Meta’s actions raise concerns regarding American principles in three key areas:
- Libertarian Freedoms: They exploit user data and create an unfair playing field
- Constitutional Protections: Their legal challenges try to avoid accountability
- Republican Values of Security: They enable a foreign adversary to use American tech actions that could “eviscerate labor and environmental protections” and “limit the wholesale ability by private individuals or the government to hold bad actors accountable for their misdeeds” [17]. This situation raises concerns about the potential impact on American liberty and security. Security.
VII. Policy Recommendations: Congressional Investigations, Regulatory Reforms, and Safeguarding U.S. Interests in Technology
U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) have started a bipartisan investigation into Meta’s alleged ties with the Chinese Communist Party [20]. This significant probe follows Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams’s revelation that the company put national security at risk to build an $18 billion business in China [21].
The America First framework shows us the way forward. The Trump administration took the first step by signing the “America First Investment Policy” memorandum that calls for closer scrutiny of Chinese investments in strategic sectors [22]. The Commerce Department added 80 entities from China and other countries to the Entity List for threatening U.S. national security [23].
Addressing Big Tech’s connections with China requires a comprehensive approach on multiple fronts:
- Expand Congressional Investigations – Support the Blumenthal-Johnson-Hawley probe and need additional hearings into Meta’s alleged development of censorship tools for the CCP [20]
- Strengthen Investment Restrictions – Enforce and expand “Reverse CFIUS” regulations that stop U.S. investments in Chinese entities involved in semiconductors, quantum technology, and artificial intelligence [22]
- Implement America-First AI Policies – Create an approach that balances state-of-the-art technology with American values and human dignity [24]
There are ongoing debates about the appropriate balance between regulation and economic growth. Congress is considering the SPEED Act, which could weaken environmental reviews for AI infrastructure and potentially benefit companies with ties to China [25]. Additionally, questions have been raised about policy advocacy that may favor Beijing [26]. It is essential to balance regulatory measures with the need to support technological development, economic growth, and job creation in the United States.
Addressing concerns about Big Tech’s connections with China is essential to protecting American sovereignty and freedoms. Supporting investigations into Meta’s practices and advocating for reforms that prioritize national interests are necessary steps. Individuals can contact their representatives, share information, and participate in efforts to promote accountability. ” Some corporations decide who gets to compete” [27]. Together, we can bring back real competition, protect our national security, and keep America at the forefront of technological progress. (Meta tolerates rampant ad fraud from China to safeguard billions in revenue, 2025)
Conclusion: The response to Meta’s actions will shape the future of liberty and justice in the digital age. Timely action is necessary to protect the values that define the nation.
Internal documents show that Meta and Mark Zuckerberg are facing serious questions about their handling of scam advertisements, which generated approximately $16 billion annually. The company removed safeguards intended to protect users. While Meta claims to support American values, these actions have resulted in significant losses for many families and have raised concerns about transparency and fairness in the marketplace. Addressing the influence of Big Tech and China is essential to protect American sovereignty and freedoms. Supporting investigations and reforms that prioritize national interests can make a difference. (Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show, 2025)
Senators Blumenthal, Johnson, and Hawley have initiated a bipartisan investigation as an essential first step, but further action is needed. Without decisive measures, the relationship between Big Tech and China could continue to threaten U.S. economic sovereignty and constitutional protections. Addressing Meta’s China ad fraud is not only about stopping scams, but also about safeguarding America’s technological independence, citizens’ financial security, and the core principles that define the nation.
Key Takeaways
Meta’s internal documents indicate that the company prioritized revenue from Chinese scam ads over user safety and national security. Key figures include $16 billion in annual ad revenue from scams and banned goods. Approximately one-third of all successful U.S. scams are facilitated by the company’s platforms, resulting in consumer losses exceeding $50 billion. Led China to develop censorship tools while challenging U.S. regulatory authority, undermining American sovereignty and constitutional protections
• Bipartisan congressional investigations are underway, but stronger America First policies and regulatory reforms are urgently needed to combat Big Tech’s collusion with foreign adversaries
This situation extends beyond corporate misconduct; it raises significant concerns about American economic security and calls for immediate action from policymakers.
FAQs
Q1. What is the scale of Meta’s alleged ad fraud involving China?
Bottom line: Meta’s projected ad revenue from China-linked scams and banned goods is immense. According to internal documents, Meta projected to earn around $16 billion in 2024 from ads promoting scams and prohibited goods, with a significant portion originating from China. The company’s own calculations showed users were exposed to about 15 billion “higher-risk” scam ads daily.
2. How did Meta respond to efforts to reduce fraudulent ads from China?
Bottom line: Efforts to reduce fraudulent ads were undermined from the top. When Meta’s anti-fraud team successfully reduced problematic Chinese ads from 19% of revenue to 9% in 2024, CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly intervened. The team was asked to pause its work and was eventually disbanded, leading to a resurgence of banned ads.
3. What is the estimated impact of these scams on American consumers?
Bottom line: The impact on American consumers is catastrophic. Meta’s internal safety staff estimated the company’s platforms were involved in roughly one-third of all successful U.S. scams, linked to more than $50 billion in consumer losses. This includes various schemes from fake investments to fraudulent product sales.
4. How is Meta challenging U.S. regulatory authority?
Bottom line: Meta is aggressively opposing consumer protection regulations. Meta has launched a legal challenge against the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to enforce consumer protection laws. This move is seen as an attempt to avoid restrictions on its data collection and use practices, potentially weakening more than 200 federal statutes that allow for administrative enforcement of civil penalties.
5. What actions are being taken to address this issue?
Bottom line: Bipartisan efforts are underway to investigate and regulate Meta’s actions. U.S. Senators have launched a bipartisan investigation into Meta’s alleged collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party. There are calls for expanded congressional probes, strengthened investment restrictions on Chinese entities in strategic sectors, and implementation of America-First AI policies to balance innovation with national security concerns.
References
[1] – https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-tolerates-rampant-ad-fraud-china-safeguard-billions-revenue-2025-12-15/
[2] – https://fortune.com/2025/12/15/former-meta-integrity-chief-ad-fraud-epidemic-china-scams/
[3] – https://time.com/magazine/us/6106897/october-25th-2021-vol-198-no-15-u-s/
[4] – https://www.facebook.com/Newsweek/posts/alex-jones-has-been-previously-mocked-for-warning-against-the-dangers-of-alleged/10160033684316101/
[5] – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/problem-reaction-solution-dynamics-using-fear-ŝã-iŧ–wrc6c
[6] – https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2025/08/tyrants-of-the-algorithm-big-techs-corrosive-rule-and-its-consequences/
[7] – https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042915/why-facebook-banned-china.asp
[8] – https://csmapnyu.org/impact/news/why-tyrants-and-despots-love-social-media
[9] – https://time.com/6310040/chinese-influence-operation-meta/
[10] – https://www.e-ir.info/2018/11/22/technology-and-tyranny-social-media-and-the-end-of-the-liberal-world-order/
[11] – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-meta-integrity-chief-says-200817878.html
[12] – https://itif.org/publications/2025/11/26/policymakers-should-free-consumers-from-scammers-phishing-hooks/
[13] – https://www.biocatch.com/blog/geopolitics-war-on-scam
[14] – https://www.frpafraudviewer.org/aws/FRPA/pt/sp/news
[15] – https://nypost.com/2025/12/16/business/mark-zuckerbergs-meta-allows-rampant-scam-ads-from-china-while-raking-in-billions-report/
[16] – https://epic.org/meta-launches-kitchen-sink-constitutional-attack-on-ftc-to-evade-new-privacy-limits/
[17] – https://www.americanprogress.org/article/supreme-courts-push-to-weaken-government-oversight-opens-door-for-meta-to-attack-ftc/
[18] – https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/whistleblower-tells-senate-committee-meta-undermined-us-national-security-cozy-up-china
[19] – https://1827marketing.com/smart-thinking/how-metas-policy-overhaul-impacts-marketing-strategy/
[20] – https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-johnson-and-hawley-open-investigation-into-meta-for-alleged-collaboration-with-ccp
[21] – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4grrwvn1lyo
[22] – https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/2025-02/regulatory-challenges-for-chinese-tech-firms-in-2025
[23] – https://www.bis.gov/press-release/commerce-further-restricts-chinas-artificial-intelligence-advanced-computing-capabilities
[24] – https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-ai-agenda
[25] – https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/16/ai-congres-permitting-speed-act.html
[26] – https://prospect.org/2025/07/18/2025-07-18-another-trump-sellout-china-big-tech-nvidia/
[27] – https://competitionlab.gwu.edu/america-first-leadership-tech-innovation
[28] – (December 14, 2025). Meta tolerates rampant ad fraud from China to safeguard billions in revenue. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-tolerates-rampant-ad-fraud-china-safeguard-billions-revenue-2025-12-15/
[29] – Silberling, A. (April 8, 2025). Whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams accuses Meta of colluding with China. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/09/whistleblower-sarah-wynn-williams-accuses-meta-of-colluding-with-china/
[30] – (December 14, 2025). Meta tolerates rampant ad fraud from China to safeguard billions in revenue. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-tolerates-rampant-ad-fraud-china-safeguard-billions-revenue-2025-12-15/
[31] – (September 8, 2025). Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show—Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/8e000601dadb6aea230f18170ed54e88
[32] – https://www.infowars.com/posts/meta-tolerated-ad-fraud-by-chinese-companies-to-protect-revenue[33] – https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-tolerates-rampant-ad-fraud-china-safeguard-billions-revenue-2025-12-15/
[34] – https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/[35] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcW8sm18kfU
[36] – banned.video/watch?id=5d645aec7906a50019cb5088
[37] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-FrVkpTZo
[38] – https://banned.video/watch?id=6941b765ada3536bd572c913
[39] – https://banned.video/watch?id=68e6dc4ddd00a2c389539c85
[40] – https://archives.infowars.com/social-media-is-the-chinese-social-credit-store-heres-why/
[41] – https://archives.infowars.com/facebook-to-implement-chinese-style-internet-censorship/
[42] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH-FrVkpTZo
[43] – https://banned.video/watch?id=693749c32dba78ded8a76130
[44] – https://banned.video/watch?id=693749c32dba78ded8a76130
[45] – https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/hawley-blumenthal-ftc/2025/11/24/id/1235795/
[46] – https://www.foxnews.com/tech/meta-faces-increasing-scrutiny-over-widespread-scam-ads
[48] – https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/inside-metas-16-billion-scam-ad-economy
[49] – https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/meta-china-ad/2025/12/15/id/1238418/
Critical Thinking Dispatch 
Leave a comment