If you knowingly distribute something fraudulent you should be liable even if someone else is paying for it and you automated everything.
Ethically it's not much different than knowingly selling goods someone else stole.
Ethically it's not much different than knowingly selling goods someone else stole.
That's why they "automate" everything. So that they can claim no knowledge.
There is not one single legal definition of "knowingly" that applies to all laws and claims in the US.
Furthermore, even under this specific law, you need to prove the accused acted in "deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information", which has its own standard of evidence which is not exactly trivial.
Bottom line: companies like Meta build in plausible deniability because it's legally more effective versus the alternative, even if it's not bulletproof.
“I didn’t know my automated lawn mower was running over children!”