Today we have a special edition of our program. Our guest is Rafał Brzoska, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and founder of InPost. Good morning, Mr. President.
Good morning. A warm welcome to everyone.
Let's start with a somewhat biblical theme, namely the battle of David and Goliath. Why did you decide on this dispute with Meta, and what is the latest from the frontline in this dispute?
Well, we are slugging it out on the frontline, to start with that. But quite seriously, indeed over two years ago this situation hit me and my wife personally. As a reminder, according to Meta, my wife was supposedly killed, beaten by me, and I was arrested. And that was the beginning of a matter that I hoped would end quickly. I thought I was dealing with an isolated incident where both my name and our likeness were used by criminals and simply published. However, the deeper we started looking into it, the more it turned out to be Meta's entire operating model, not only in Poland, but around the world. This was confirmed recently by the famous investigation by Reuters journalists, who, based on Meta's internal documents—the owner of Facebook and Instagram—determined that 10% of the revenue and profits of this group, which is $16 billion, comes from scam advertisements.
So in short, it wasn't a system vulnerability they overlooked, but a systemic operation.
A systemic operation—an operation in which criminals advertise financial products on Facebook, attracting user attention with drastic headlines, scenes, and photos, primarily targeting public figures. The second method is superimposing deepfakes over voices that sound like a given person, whether it is President Nawrocki, the Marshal of the Sejm, or Prime Minister Donald Tusk. They sound just like them, convincing Poles to put money into super safe, fantastic investments that yield above-average returns. Thousands of people lose their life savings every year. Especially considering that two years ago the technology was different than today, where it is far more advanced and far more capable of imitating a specific figure. What's more, this technology will only get better, meaning distinguishing truth from falsehood will be practically impossible. And seeing that Meta accepts these types of ads, takes money for them, and indeed, as Reuters journalists established, when algorithms detect that these ads are most likely deepfakes or scams, the cost per impression actually increases—so tell me, what is that if not complicity in this crime?
All right, we have diagnosed the problem, but the question is whether it is really possible to defeat this problem—this practice, if we call it that. We see that certain actions have already been taken, but when initiating this action, did you truly believe it was possible to win against such a gigantic company, or in any way dent this massive firm with such immense capital and global reach?
An example comes from the United States. A record lawsuit for $1.5 trillion, which is essentially what all of Meta is worth, very quickly led to a settlement on day one. Why? Because the founder and CEO of the company, Mark Zuckerberg, was supposed to be questioned in court under oath. He was afraid of it. He was afraid of it. Why? Because all the people who left Meta, plus the journalistic investigation for which Reuters journalists received a Pulitzer—the highest form of award for investigative journalism—clearly indicated that, A, he and his people knew about it; B, it is deliberate action; and C, they realize they are taking part in criminal activity. That is why they agreed on day one to a settlement worth $17 billion.
Exactly. In this context, I wanted to ask you about the actions of the Polish government as well. When you initiated this action, you probably didn't expect it to escalate to such a much higher level, although perhaps it was part of the strategy. In any case, Poland is also drawing attention to this. In the European Union, we are also demanding a financial penalty for Meta, but the proportions seem skewed. There we talk about $17 billion, while here we talk about—
—a billion zlotys, so roughly 250 million euros.
First of all, that amount is definitely too low. Various estimates say there are days when Meta can earn over 20 million zlotys daily from fraudulent ads in Poland alone. Daily. That means 250 million euros really isn't an excessive amount. If you multiply it by the number of EU countries, then it becomes a figure worthy of attention. But what would be far more painful would be a very serious warning that if scams do not disappear from Facebook, Facebook's domain will simply be shut down in Poland, Germany, France, and the UK. And I guarantee you that the next day, there would be no scams.
As I understand it, the problem today is that the company, speaking of Meta, can easily pay these fines.
It is a bit like driving and getting a fine without receiving penalty points, right? A wealthy person can exceed the speed limit, pay the fines, and nothing happens to them other than paying a bit more money.
The question now is whether the path is open to introduce regulation. This is a somewhat provocative question to ask someone who has dealt with deregulation, but some regulation that will actually protect web users. In your case, it was the misuse of your image, and in the case of many other famous people as well, but that image is used to rob the average citizen, speaking broadly.
Yes, there are multiple layers. We are not just talking about scams aimed at extorting personal data, credit card details, and effectively stealing money. What we see after launching Scamwatch on our website together with Sebastian Kondraciuk, co-creator of Bielik, terrifies us.
The scale, first of all. Secondly, the content. It turns out that financial scams are advertised in equal measure on the Polish web alongside hard pornography. These are advertisements for apps to undress teenage girls. These are ads for apps that effectively promote pedophilia. Today we are talking about the heaviest criminal offenses imaginable. This is not a matter of a minor penalty, some gentle regulation, or wagging a finger. The cybercrime police and the prosecutor's office should step in immediately ex officio. Ex officio. And we are gathering this evidence. Can you guess who the payer and advertiser is in these pornographic ads? Do you think there is a real first and last name with a provided credit card number?
I assume it is well-camouflaged.
Often in that field there is the digit '1' or three 'H' letters.
So there is a flaw in the system that allows—
A systemic operation designed to maximize profits from criminal sources.
Okay. But having said that, one could argue that essentially nothing is being done about this—that such a situation has been allowed to occur.
Exactly so. You are right. The state is not functioning. While I can imagine someone downplaying an obvious deepfake claiming Brzoska beat his wife, when on a platform accessible by terms of service from age 13 we are dealing with hardcore pornography and pedophilia, I ask: where is the state?
True, but we hear from the Ministry of Digital Affairs, for example, that every day thousands of hacking attempts, acts of subversion, and sabotage—primarily on the internet—are being thwarted. So I ask: where is the breakdown? Maybe the services are focused solely on state security, but not on our safety as citizens and consumers of content.
