Joe Rogan is completely speechless when investigative journalist Mariana van Zeller reveals that META internally projected $16 BILLION in revenue from scams and banned ads so they charged suspected scammers more money to advertise instead of banning them: ROGAN: “This means they’re in on it then. They're making money.” CONTEXT: The numbers come from Meta's OWN internal documents obtained by Reuters, not simply accusations from an angry former employee. According to the November 2025 investigation, Meta internally estimated that approximately 10% of its total 2024 revenue which is roughly $16 BILLION, could come from advertisements promoting scams and prohibited goods. Another internal estimate suggested Facebook and Instagram users were being shown approximately 15 BILLION higher-risk scam advertisements EVERY DAY. Those were estimates based on Meta's classifications, not 15 billion independently verified scams. But the most disturbing revelation wasn't the amount of money. It was what Meta reportedly did when its own systems suspected an advertiser was fraudulent. According to Reuters, Meta's automated enforcement system generally required at least 95% confidence that an advertiser was committing fraud before banning the account. What happened when the system suspected fraud but didn't reach that threshold? In certain cases, Meta charged the advertiser MORE MONEY to compete for advertising space. The company called these higher costs “penalty bids.” Meta's explanation was that making advertising more expensive would discourage suspicious advertisers from purchasing ads. But think about the financial contradiction. If the suspected scammer gives up because advertising becomes too expensive, the system potentially prevents fraudulent ads. If the suspected scammer can still afford the increased price, Meta can continue earning revenue from that advertiser. And here's an even stranger possibility: Scammers running the most profitable operations may be the ones best positioned to absorb the higher advertising costs. That is an economic concern about the policy's incentives, not proof that Meta deliberately designed it to reward successful fraudsters. But the internal documents reportedly went further. Some large advertisers designated as “High Value Accounts” could accumulate MORE THAN 500 enforcement strikes without being shut down, according to Reuters. And employees were reportedly producing internal summaries identifying the week's “Scammiest Scammer.” Reuters checked five accounts highlighted in one such report. TWO were still active more than six months later. Then there's the part that makes the entire system particularly troubling for ordinary users. According to the documents, someone who CLICKED on a scam advertisement could become MORE likely to see additional scam advertisements. Why? Because Meta's recommendation systems attempt to identify what users are interested in and deliver more relevant advertising. So a vulnerable person engaging with a suspicious investment opportunity might inadvertently signal to the system that similar advertisements are worth showing them. That's not necessarily a conscious decision to target victims. It's a potential consequence of optimizing advertising around engagement without sufficiently eliminating fraudulent advertisers. And the real-world losses are enormous. IMPORTANT NOTES: The Federal Trade Commission reports that consumers lost approximately $2.1 BILLION in 2025 to scams that began on social media. Those losses cover social media broadly, not Meta alone. New development: On October 1, 2026, the FTC opened a rulemaking inquiry asking whether digital platforms should face greater legal responsibility for advertising systems that facilitate government and business impersonation scams. The agency explicitly raised the problem of platforms collecting advertising revenue while consumers bear the financial consequences of fraud.