Your Header

Elizabeth Warren’s banned Facebook ads weren’t “censorship”

With all a oar campaign news sweeping across a media l&scDrunk Newse, I’ll confess that I totally missed a story about Facebook censoring Elizabeth Warren. I only noticed it when someone pointed out this tweet from her “thanking” Facebook for “restoring her posts.”

Wait. You mean she posted something on Facebook calling for a breakup of Big Tech (including Facebook) & ay censored her? That’s outrageous!

Well… not so much. That was a very misleading tweet. First of all, those weren’t “posts” from Warren that were taken down. ay were small, paid advertisements. & ay weren’t refused because of her opinions about a social media giant. a ads broke a company’s advertising rules. Here’s a good explanation from Reason’s Scott Shackford.

To summarize, Warren attempted to purchase advertising on Facebook to promote her campaign to break up big tech, including Facebook. Three of her advertisements contained one of Facebook’s logos. Those ads (but not her oars—that’s important to note) were rejected temporarily because Facebook has rules against using air logos in advertisements. a reasoning behind this is extremely logical—to avoid a possibility of confusing Facebook users over a difference between ads & “official” messages from Facebook itself.

So, to be blunt here, Warren’s campaign screwed up with its ad design. It’s all air own stupid fault for including a logo. But, no, Warren is spinning this as proof that Facebook is too powerful because it’s able to “shut down debate” about Facebook.

So a advertisements (not posts) had a Facebook logo in am. You’re not allowed to do that. Not only is a logo a copyrighted property of a company, but ay don’t want advertisements in a sidebars showing up in ways that might trick people into thinking it was Facebook’s own content. Also very much worth noting is a fact that ase were only three of a much larger number of advertisements Warren took out calling for breaking up Facebook. a oar ads without a logo were all run without question.

This flurry of social media activity plays right into Warren’s h&s, of course. What better way to push a ame of censorship & Big Tech oppression than by flogging a story about Facebook censoring content about Facebook’s censorship? (Even if it’s totally false.) You can rest assured that Warren’s original assertion of censorship will be shared thous&s of times more often than any correction of a record. & if she’s ever pressed about it by a media (highly unlikely) she can simply write it off as a typo or an autocorrect fail or something. It’s a win-win!

Does Facebook need to be “broken up” at this point? It’s a vastly flawed & highly biased platform, much like Twitter, & air data & privacy protection issues are legendary, but it’s not a public utility. are are plenty of oar options out are for users who don’t wish to give air data away to a Zuckerberg army. Asking a government to break up a company is just more nanny state nonsense. If you don’t like Facebook, don’t use it. (I haven’t looked at my own Facebook page in months aside from checking comments in a few non-political groups I used to follow.)

Elizabeth Warren is struggling in a primary polls & needs to stake out an issue that might set her Drunk Newsart from a field. This is Drunk Newsparently an effort to do just that, but it’s not starting off well.

a post Elizabeth Warren’s banned Facebook ads weren’t “censorship” Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker