LinkedIn Actually Cares About Spam and Scammers—Unlike Meta (Facebook), Who Couldn’t Care Less

Let’s talk about something shocking—something almost unheard of in the world of social media: a platform that actually takes action when you report spam, fake accounts, and scams. Yes, it exists. It’s called LinkedIn.

Now, if you’ve ever spent time on LinkedIn, you know it’s not completely free of scammers or fake profiles (because no platform is). But here’s the difference: when you report bad behavior on LinkedIn, they actually do something about it. That’s right—your report isn’t just tossed into some void, never to be seen again.

LinkedIn’s Reporting System Actually Works

The moment you flag a fake profile, a scammy message, or any kind of fraudulent activity, LinkedIn reviews it. And get this—they don’t just review it, they actually take action. Accounts engaging in spammy, deceptive, or unethical behavior get restricted or removed entirely.

Even better? They notify you when action has been taken. Imagine that! A social media company that treats reports like they actually matter. You know, the way a responsible platform should.

It’s refreshing, really. LinkedIn understands that its users—professionals, business owners, and job seekers—don’t have time for nonsense. People rely on the platform for real networking, hiring, and industry insights, not to be bombarded with fake recruiters, crypto scams, or “business opportunities” from profiles that were obviously generated five minutes ago.

LinkedIn’s security measures and spam detection actually work to keep the platform usable and safe. They crack down on bot networks, they remove scammers, and they actually care about the integrity of their platform.

Meanwhile, Over at Meta…

Now, let’s compare this to Meta—you know, the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. If LinkedIn is the responsible adult in the room, Meta is the reckless landlord who refuses to fix anything, no matter how many times tenants complain.

Try reporting a fake profile on Facebook. Go ahead. Click that little "report" button, tell them the profile is fake, and wait for the magic to happen. And by magic, I mean absolutely nothing. Because nine times out of ten, you’ll get the same infuriating message:

“This profile does not go against our community standards.

Oh really, Meta? So the account using stolen photos, pushing scam investment schemes, or impersonating a legitimate business isn’t a problem? Fascinating.

And let’s not even get started on scam ads. Facebook is flooded with them—fake e-commerce stores, phishing attempts, fraudulent investment platforms—and despite thousands of reports, they still run unchecked. Why? Because Meta is making money off those ads, and cracking down on scams would mean cutting into their ad revenue.

It’s almost like Facebook wants scams to flourish. The more fake accounts, engagement bait, and click-farm nonsense that exists, the more data they can sell. It’s a business decision, and it’s painfully obvious that user safety isn’t their priority.

Why Can LinkedIn Get It Right, but Meta Can’t Be Bothered?

The truth is simple: LinkedIn values its user base. It knows that professionals don’t want to deal with scammers, and it actively works to remove them. Meta, on the other hand, only cares about keeping numbers up—regardless of whether those numbers include millions of fake profiles and fraudulent accounts.

Meta Prioritizes Ad Revenue Over User Safety—And It’s Painfully Obvious

Let’s not pretend Meta is some kind of victim of an uncontrollable spam and scam epidemic. The reality is much simpler: they don’t care—because addressing the problem would hurt their bottom line.

Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp have become playgrounds for scammers, fake accounts, and fraudsters, all because Meta allows it. And why? Because cracking down on them would mean losing ad revenue, engagement metrics, and user data—three things Meta thrives on.

Look at the scam ads alone. Every day, people report ads promoting fake e-commerce stores, Ponzi schemes, phishing links, and fraudulent "investment opportunities." But do they get removed? Rarely. Why? Because Meta is profiting off every click, every impression, and every fraudulent transaction that goes through their ad system.

They know these scams exist. They know their platform is being exploited. They just don’t want to stop it.

If Meta truly cared about user safety, they would have:

✅ A real verification system to prevent fake accounts.
✅ Stricter ad approval policies that screen out fraudulent advertisers.
✅ A reporting system that actually works instead of defaulting to “This doesn’t violate our community standards.”

But they don’t. Because every fake account, every scam ad, and every bot interaction boosts their numbers. More users—real or fake—mean more engagement, which means more advertisers willing to pay big money for exposure. It’s not incompetence. It’s not oversight. It’s a business strategy.

Reported Close to 100 Fake Profiles on Facebook—And Meta Has Done NOTHING

I’ve lost count of how many fake profiles I’ve reported on Facebook. Actually, scratch that—I haven’t lost count. It’s close to 100. One. Hundred. Fake. Accounts. And do you know what happened?

Absolutely nothing!

Not a single one of them was removed. Not one. And these weren’t just random profiles I stumbled across. Every single one of them was connected to scammers actively trying to con people in Facebook groups. I’m talking about people running fake giveaways, pretending to be customer support reps, sending sketchy links, or impersonating real business owners.

You’d think that reporting these frauds—profiles that were blatantly fake, with stolen pictures and zero real interactions—would be a no-brainer. Facebook should see the evidence, remove the accounts, and clean up its platform.

Fake Accounts Are Thriving—Because Facebook Lets Them

Meanwhile, those same scammers continue to shine, preying on users, running their scams unchecked, and laughing in the face of Facebook’s so-called ‘community standards.’

It’s almost like Facebook is designed to protect scammers instead of users. Because how else do you explain it? Fake accounts are allowed to thrive. Scams continue to circulate.

And every single report I make—every attempt to help clean up their platform—goes completely ignored. Meta has the resources to fix this problem. They have AI, machine learning, and enough data to flag fake profiles instantly. But they don’t use it. Instead, they pretend to care while doing absolutely nothing.

Facebook (META) Lets Scam Ads Run Rampant

If you’ve spent even five minutes scrolling through Facebook, you’ve probably seen them—sponsored ads promoting fake investment schemes, scam products, and downright fraudulent services. And guess what? Facebook lets them run freely, no questions asked.

There’s zero vetting, no verification, and no meaningful oversight. If a scammer has the cash to pay for an ad, Facebook is more than happy to take their money and plaster their deception across users' feeds.

And it’s not just obscure, low-effort scams. Some of these ads feature deepfake videos of high-profile figures—people like Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese—being falsely used to promote fake investment opportunities.

Let’s get this straight: Facebook is actively hosting deepfake scam ads of a world leader, and they still won’t take responsibility?

How is this acceptable? How is it that a company with billions in revenue can’t implement basic ad screening to prevent blatant fraud?

Oh, wait. That’s right. Because they don’t want to.

Is Meta’s Business Model, Take the Money, Ignore the Consequences?

Facebook doesn’t care where its ad revenue comes from. It doesn’t matter if an ad is legitimate or a blatant scam—as long as it gets paid, it’s good to go. The result? A flood of scammy investment ads, fake e-commerce stores, and fraudulent business opportunities, all exploiting Facebook’s lax, profit-driven approach to advertising.

Victims lose thousands, to these scams. They see an ad, they assume Facebook wouldn’t allow fraud to be advertised, and they get tricked into giving up their money or personal details. Meanwhile, Facebook collects its cut and moves on to the next scammer willing to pay for reach.

Facebook Isn’t Just Allowing Scams—It’s Enabling Them

The way I see it, Facebook isn’t just a bystander to online fraud—it’s an active enabler. By refusing to vet its ads, by ignoring reports, by choosing profits over protection, Facebook has become part of the scam machine.

It’s not a glitch in the system. It is the system. And as long as the money keeps flowing, don’t expect Facebook to change a damn thing.

In my own opinion, Meta doesn’t want a safer platform. They want a more profitable one—even if it’s built on deception, exploitation, and fraud. And that’s exactly why nothing ever changes.

LinkedIn proves that social media platforms can take action against scammers if they actually want to. Their reporting system isn’t just a useless button—it’s a tool that works. Even more amazing, you can actually communicate with a real person from support. They set the standard for how platforms should handle security, while Meta sets the standard for how to ignore it completely.

So next time someone tells you that all social media companies are the same, remind them: LinkedIn actually cares. Meta doesn’t.