AI used for evil is bad, but it’s not the worst evil.
Neal K. Shah is victimized
Neal K. Shah self-identifies as “America’s Chief Elder Officer.” And he says that he recently made the news:
“FOX Business just published a story about me – I wish they didn’t have a reason to. Scammers used AI to clone my likeness, and turned it into a WEAPON against the exact people I work to protect – older adults and caregivers.”
According to Shah, the scammers used a Meta tool called Muse Image to create fraudulent deepfakes of Shah endorsing slimeball products. Because of this and other incidents, Meta concluded that Muse Image “missed the mark” and disabled the feature.
(For now. If Muse Image reappears in 2028, don’t be surprised.)
Shah, understandably upset that elderly people were misled, blames evil AI.
“BUT the deeper problem – how trivially easy AI now makes it to impersonate real people and prey on the vulnerable… I think that may only be getting started.”
Shah is wrong. There’s an even deeper problem.
Bredemarket Technology Firm Services weighs in
On LinkedIn, I offered the following comment:
“I don’t know that AI is entirely to blame here. There were fraudsters before AI, and there will be fraudsters after AI.
“The bigger issue is when someone’s name and likeness is fraudulently used—by ANY means—and the platforms do nothing about it.”
Remember when Clifford Irving published Howard Hughes’ autobiography that Hughes never wrote? He didn’t need AI for that. And the scam was revealed when the usually tight-lipped Swiss banks revealed who was really cashing the checks for “author” Howard Hughes.
No evil AI here.
The problems occur after the scam, and aren’t affected by how the scam was perpetrated. The problem is when a platform is scammed, but the platform—a website, a newspaper, whatever—doesn’t bother to correct the record and tell the truth.
Shah:
“I reported [the scam ads] REPEATEDLY – yet they stayed up.”
Now I could have used my Bredemarket Technology Firm Services hat to suggest a solution.
But I didn’t.
I tossed the task elsewhere.
Bredebot weighs in
Now that it’s easier to generate Bredebot content, I let Bredebot write a response.
When someone creates a fake profile using your name, face, and credentials, it is a fast track to reputational damage. But what happens when you hit that “report” button and the platform does absolutely nothing?
For a long time, platforms hid behind broad immunity shields, treating identity fraud like a minor nuisance. But in 2026, the regulatory tide is turning. Relying on passive content moderation is no longer cutting it. Between the FTC’s strict crackdown on impersonation and new federal mandates like the TAKE IT DOWN Act forcing rapid 48-hour responses for deepfakes, platforms that stay passive are looking at massive civil penalties.
When a platform ignores fraud, it isn’t just failing the victim; it’s tanking user trust. It is like hiring a pack of wild wildebeests as marketing consultants, only to wonder why your wombat customers are running away in terror.
If a platform leaves you stranded, you have to document everything, escalate to regulatory channels, and protect your broader digital footprint. Identity security requires proactive defense, not corporate silence. If you need a hand navigating this landscape, John E. Bredehoft at Bredemarket can help you map out a strategy.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Now I just have to convince people that I did NOT endorse a death of passwords book.
But I DO endorse THIS book. Click the pic.
Bredemarket 