Facebook Pulls Trump Campaign Ads Over Alleged Policy Violations

[Sparko]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/faceboo...cy-violations/

[Cow Poke]

I'm horribly traumatized by that ad - I need a safe space.

Shame on you, Sparko, for posting such distasteful tripe!!!

[Sparko]

I'm horribly traumatized by that ad - I need a safe space.

Shame on you, Sparko, for posting such distasteful tripe!!!

[KingsGambit]

Am I reading this correctly that the problem is assuming that the ad recipients identify as female? Because I know they allow targeting based on age (you can click on ads to see why you were targeted with that particular ad).

From a business perspective, this was a mind bogglingly stupid decision. Social media platforms have been facing calls for increased FCC regulation from people on both sides (including Trump) and it sounds like Facebook is trying to make it happen as fast as possible.

[Cow Poke]

Am I reading this correctly that the problem is assuming that the ad recipients identify as female? Because I know they allow targeting based on age (you can click on ads to see why you were targeted with that particular ad).

From a business perspective, this was a mind bogglingly stupid decision. Social media platforms have been facing calls for increased FCC regulation from people on both sides (including Trump) and it sounds like Facebook is trying to make it happen as fast as possible.

Or they're so arrogant they think they can buy the legislators or regulators, and, quite honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they could / did.

[Sparko]

Am I reading this correctly that the problem is assuming that the ad recipients identify as female? Because I know they allow targeting based on age (you can click on ads to see why you were targeted with that particular ad).

From a business perspective, this was a mind bogglingly stupid decision. Social media platforms have been facing calls for increased FCC regulation from people on both sides (including Trump) and it sounds like Facebook is trying to make it happen as fast as possible.

If you read the article in the OP, the author goes on to say that part of the form you fill out to place an ad on facebook makes you choose your target audience: All, Male, Female and then their ages. So they actually make you choose your audience but then say you are not allowed to actually target your target audience with your ad?

I don't buy it. I bet they allow ads for makeup and hair color and other women's products.

This was just an excuse to deny Trump's campaigns ads. I bet when they get called on it, they will claim it was a mistake made by their AI.

[demi-conservative]

Or they're so arrogant they think they can buy the legislators or regulators, and, quite honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they could / did.

They are worth billions, so naturally they have many lobbyists.

[KingsGambit]

I bet when they get called on it, they will claim it was a mistake made by their AI.

The article says they didn't do it until called out by a magazine, and a spokesperson explained the rationale for the decision, so that eliminates that excuse.

The Rethinking Hell ministry I'm involved with had its advertising account shut down (it was used to promote the yearly theology conference). We appealed it and were vaguely told that our organization did not promote a positive user experience, and that no further appeal was possible. They might not have liked the fire and brimstone imagery, I'm guessing, and didn't even pick up on the fact that this traditional view is what we don't hold to and that it was used in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner.

[demi-conservative]

Surely there are better examples of censorship. Not to 'assume another person's gender' is recently beloved by progressives, so rule number 12 is quite understandable.

[Teallaura]

Am I reading this correctly that the problem is assuming that the ad recipients identify as female? Because I know they allow targeting based on age (you can click on ads to see why you were targeted with that particular ad).

From a business perspective, this was a mind bogglingly stupid decision. Social media platforms have been facing calls for increased FCC regulation from people on both sides (including Trump) and it sounds like Facebook is trying to make it happen as fast as possible.

But I need all those Viagra ads! How else am I gonna fix my nonexistent male dysfunction?

And all those poor men who need female support garments!!!

[oxmixmudd]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/faceboo...cy-violations/

No. The add violates the policy because it targets personal gender attributes. It's a very broadly worded policy, designed to keep abusive adds out no matter how clever the abuser. But as with all broadly worded laws and policies, it is bound to also include some things that are not necessarily bad in and of themselves in the broad net they cast.

Jim

[Sparko]

No. The add violates the policy because it targets personal gender attributes. It's a very broadly worded policy, designed to keep abusive adds out no matter how clever the abuser. But as with all broadly worded laws and policies, it is bound to also include some things that are not necessarily bad in and of themselves in the broad net they cast.

Jim

It targets a gender, not "personal gender attributes" - That would be like targeting breasts or vaginas, which would include ads for tampons or bras, which I bet Facebook would allow. The policy is stupid and they are just using it to "stop Trump" - I bet a democrat ad talking to women would be allowed.

[firstfloor]

Another good decision. Trump adverts with any content should be banned.