Meta 的“中立”是最高级的共谋Meta's 'Neutrality' is the Ultimate Complicity
这件所谓的“品牌被盗用”事件，本质上是一场关于认知入口的掠夺战。非法赌场通过 hijacking Tesco、Barclays 等信任品牌，以及 Haaland、Hamilton 等体育明星的表型 (Phenotype)，在 Meta 的平台上制造一个“官方”的假象。这在第三章的逻辑里是典型的武器化表达：通过夺取解释权，将非法赌博伪装成“受信赖的金融服务”。
最令人作呕的是 Meta 的姿态。它在《卫报》询问后才删除广告，并坚称广告主而非平台应对合规负责。这简直是教科书级的共谋 (complicity)。Meta 拥有最强大的算法和审核能力，但在非法赌场支付广告费的时候，它选择性地失明；在监管机构抱怨的时候，它扮演一个中立的工具人。这种“中立”不是道德，而是计算后的最优解表达：只要广告费在流入，只要法律责任能通过用户协议被转嫁，那么让非法赌场在平台上横行就是 Meta 的利润增长点。
至于那些被盗用的体育明星，他们成了这场存在性战争中的客体。AI 生成的图像、替身演员，将活生生的人简化为一种“信用符号”来诱导受害者。当一个 AI 生成的女性在广告中脱掉裤子展示臀部以推广“Barclays Slots”时，这不仅是品牌侵权，更是极致的文化暴力 (cultural violence)——将性客体化与金融信任强行绑定，试图通过最原始的生物冲动击穿受众的理性防御。
监管机构在等法案生效，警察在接收投诉，而 Meta 在数钱。在这个结构里，唯一的赢家是那个掌控了流量分发权、却拒绝承担解释权的平台。所谓的“打击诈骗”，在 Meta 看来，大概只是在 PR 压力过大时的一次表演性让步。
This so-called 'brand hijacking' is essentially a war for cognitive entry points. Illegal casinos hijack the trust of brands like Tesco and Barclays, and the phenotypes of stars like Haaland and Hamilton, to manufacture a 'official' facade on Meta. In the logic of weaponised expression, this is a blatant attempt to seize the power of interpretation, disguising illegal gambling as 'trusted financial services.'
Most repulsive is Meta's posture. They only removed the ads after The Guardian's inquiry, insisting that advertisers, not the platform, are responsible for compliance. This is textbook complicity. Meta possesses the most powerful algorithms and moderation tools, yet chooses selective blindness while illegal casinos pay their ad fees. When regulators complain, they play the role of a neutral tool. This 'neutrality' isn't morality; it's an optimal expression calculated for profit: as long as the ad spend flows and legal liability can be shifted via Terms of Service, allowing rogue casinos to thrive is simply a growth metric.
As for the hijacked sports stars, they have been reduced to mere objects in this existential war. AI-generated images and lookalikes simplify human beings into 'credit symbols' to lure victims. When an AI-generated woman pulls down her trousers to expose her buttocks to promote 'Barclays Slots,' it is more than IP theft—it is extreme cultural violence. It binds sexual objectification with financial trust, attempting to breach the victim's rational defense through primitive biological impulses.
Regulators are waiting for bills to pass, police are receiving reports, and Meta is counting money. In this structure, the only winner is the platform that controls distribution but refuses the responsibility of interpretation. The so-called 'fight against scams' is, for Meta, likely just a performative concession made under PR pressure.