Eigkkinvestor.digital is being heavily advertised in social media and through online advertising platforms (Google, Apple etc).
It is a investment scam that claims one can turn hundreds of dollars into many tens thousands of dollars within a month using its proprietary AI investment platform.
It is a scam run by scammers.
Pages on its website fraudulently indicates it is approved by the Australian government, the Australian government provides security for investment through the platform…example of which is:
It’s moments like these one might ask Google etc to be held to a billion dollar fine for not managing what they facilitate. To ask if the same appeared on a page of the Australian Paper or as an advert -would it firstly ever get to be published, and secondly what would be the public/legal recourse under current law?
Just one of many such scams - the good news being PM’s carry less positive images and credibility than well known media personalities and famous sporting figures.
You can also say: Ultimately it is the ISP that delivers the scam to you. So they should be fined a billion dollars.
In the specific case of ads arranged by Google, it is more complicated because: the ISP delivers the web page, the web site operator (which could be any ad-funded web site) makes choices that impinge upon the situation, Google tries to match surveillance that it has performed on you with advertising that it has accepted in order to send you appropriate ads via the web site, and then there’s you know … the actual scammer.
And that’s without even considering
a role for personal responsibility i.e. rando ads aren’t the best way to make investment decisions,
the usual punching bags i.e. the banks, without whom this scam couldn’t function,
any network infrastructure used by the scammer beyond the original ad (because typically they are going to need e.g. a plausible web site).
To suggest that it should be you who is fined a billion dollars for failing to block all Google ads?
(I only block ads at home and so I am always shocked if I read a web site when I am out and about where I also frequently read the same web site at home.)
I wouldn’t ask AI the time of day and feel confident of having been given the right answer
Been having fun asking a few questions and found that AI copies what I have said and/or makes up answers, and when challenged gives a seemingly sensible but untrue response
Looking to Google AI’s suggestion re “Better Ads Standards” - it appears assessing honesty or integrity of the material provided is not part of the standard. Politely a Clayton’s response to a more serious concern. In respect of SCAM content the standard is silent.
META - open to discuss how the META community policy stacks up and whether it effectively prevents similar SCAMS to the one headlining this topic. If META is successful (mostly) why not Google etc.
I would guess that the point of having it in the “community standard” is so that if someone reports it / complains about it then grounds exist. It will be right there in the menu hierarchy as one possible ground. But someone still has to make such a report. And it might be that someone actually has to be scammed before a watertight case exists.
It is unlikely that anything in an investment ad will in and of itself be fraudulent or a scam. The aim is lead generation and to get the would-be victim off the platform.
I reported it to a number of online scam advisory websites and LifeLock. It appears that the website has either been blocked or domain has been removed by its host. It can no longer be accessed, but, expect the site to be phoneix-ed in the future.
If only I had or could?
