What many fail to realize is that Facebook employees who approve/disapprove of ads are not high up and also do so at a very fast pace. They follow the guidelines and are humans, thus subject to some subjectivity. Any advertiser who has done a lot of advertising on Facebook knows that one day an ad can get approved and the next day a duplicate ad is not. The decision was overturned in Warren's case. This is just making FB out to be much more nefarious than they probably are (in this particular scenario).
Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
131–140 of 215 posts
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#132some of the things we have had censored by fb (even after appealing)
1. illustrations of cupid on valentines day, genitals covered, for nudity.
2. illustrations of a (non sexually provocative) mouth when the logo of our product was a mouth.
3. illustrations (not photos) of people of various body types and ethnicities, not sexually provocative, showing skin but no genitals, nipples or buttocks, with flowers and boxes of chocolates, as a 'love comes in all shapes and sizes' valentines campaign.
4. essentially any image that might insinuate that a woman is capable of feeling pleasure.
5. a friend's ig project intended to promote education & wellness about women's bodies, in a non-sexual way (e.g. did you know that a clitoris has x thousand nerve endings?), with no images.
6. pixelated images on red backgrounds with a 'censored' stamp on them (put up after others were censored)
...
the list goes on and on, to the point where we have considered launching a website just to showcase the stuff fb (and other faangs) censor.
...
meanwhile ig is filled with essentially soft porn (not to mention images of guns together with bags of money, which in my value system is much worse).
...
so I, for one, am laughing my head off at all this. they more than had it coming.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#133What many fail to realize is that Facebook employees who approve/disapprove of ads are not high up and also do so at a very fast pace. They follow the guidelines and are humans, thus subject to some subjectivity. Any advertiser who has done a lot of advertising on Facebook knows that one day an ad can get approved and the next day a duplicate ad is not. The decision was overturned in Warren's case. This is just makin…
Without a doubt. Plus, the rule of "You can't use FB's logo" is not to stop people criticizing FB. It's to stop fraudulent advertisers from pretending to BE Facebook.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing. There are strong reaso…
I strongly disagree. Political advertisement successfully worked long before internet existed yet alone Facebook. Voters still live in houses, walk on streets, drive cars on roads, use public transit, watch TV/Netflix/YT/whatever. There are still many ways to reach them. Even if other channels are more expensive it doesn't make Facebook a monopolist.
Standard oil was still a monopoly even though the cart and buggy was still around.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#135Serious question(s), not trolling. Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company? How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing? Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of…
If the "store" was a newspaper, and it refused to report parliamentary debate on its impartiality... It's not illegal, but does prove its partiality.
This is a paid advertisement. More like if a newspaper refused to run an ad encouraging you to boycott the newspaper. Which they probably would. A good newspaper would then report on the refusal to run the ad, and the recriminations that followed.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#136For everyone claiming that Facebook is a monopoly, I have two questions:
1. What do they have a monopoly on? 2. How would Warren’s plan (forcing FB to divest WhatsApp and Instagram) eliminate that monopoly?
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. > They all hook into the same ad backend anyways Hence the call to break them up.
How in the world is that enforceable, or legal?
[deleted]
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#138Breakup Facebook rhetoric is so counterproductive. It achieves nothing. It solves no problem. The country has real problems. “I don’t like Facebook” isn’t even remotely one of them. I won’t be voting for her, that’s for sure.
This is a very short-sighted interpretation of the "break up Facebook & co." campaign. It is not about Facebook per se, but about the surprising power of tech giants - do you use Google? How about the internet? Don't think this is a real issue? How about looking at some of the other "real" problems she's addressed in her platform before outright dismissal? The kind of impulsive, single-issue voting you're implicitly…
Yes, I use Google and the Internet. What's the problem?
To contrast this with healthcare. I can understand diabetics not being able to afford medication for example, or people without the means to afford life sustaining treatments.
Facebook buying Instagram? I don't understand what's wrong with that.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world has changed, but not that much. People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc. The real life still here, far not everything has moved online. And even for that online part Facebook is not a monopoly. Influential online company? Absolutely. Monopoly? No.
> People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Nothing they receive in their mailbox holds their attention long, the attention market is dominated by digital media. > Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc With headphones in or bluetooth paired. Who the hell reads a billboard? Who pairs their cellphone with their car, or owns headphones? Damn near…
I don't pay any more attention to ads on facebook than I do to ads on billboards, or flyers in the mail. It all goes in the trash figuratively or literally.
My brain has been effectively trained to pattern recognize advertising and filter it out, as it is so ubiquitous and so very rarely actually useful.
Old propaganda distribution channels might be dead men walking, but the new ones are just as much (anecdotally).
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you actually seen the proposal? It's not specifically about Facebook, they just happen to be a good example of market failure that she wants to prevent.
I read her blog post. I don't see anywhere in her post that gives one concrete example of a negative impact on consumers. She gives the example of Amazon.com forcing diapers.com to sell diapers at a lower price as a reason for why we need to prevent acquisitions. But getting products for cheaper prices benefits consumers... The small business founders got rich and consumers got cheaper diapers. I'm not seeing any pro…
You might find a problem with that arrangement when you need to buy something that Amazon doesn't or won't carry, and there's nobody else in town (because they can't survive on such products alone). Or as a manufacturer who makes a new and better product compared to something that they have, but who can't find a sales channel for it. Or as someone who is unhappy with some of Amazon's practices - say, how they treat their employees.
And competition doesn't just show up out of thin air - you need a healthy free market for companies to get to the point where they can challenge the market leader. If you allow the monopolist to dominate the market, they will never get there, and there won't be anything for consumers to easily choose from.
In general, concentration of power is dangerous. Few people dispute this with governments - it's not like we wait for them to become authoritarian, we write constitutions that have arrangements that deliberately cripple their ability to do so (separation of powers etc). Why should it be any different for large corporations, when we know from history that monopoly abuse is the most likely outcome?