Hacker News Reader

Comment by codelord | Hacker News Reader

It's funny that if you look at the background of the image Signal posted you see pretty clearly their account was disabled due to some unusual account activity not ad violation.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lx59fWEAI9HcX?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lx59bXIAMn5hr?format=jpg&name=...

View on HN

> if it's not clear exactly why the account is disabled, it is irresponsible of Signal to create a blog post blaming it on Facebook

I trust HN’s opinion on this. But speaking as a layman, nothing in those images screams “easy solution here” to me.

Facebook isn’t Google when it comes to service. But I can totally see someone well meaning at Signal interpreting that messaging, and the lack of any call to action other than “see details” in the error box, as a permanent and irrevocable (without a Twitter or front-page-on-HN tantrum) ban. Hell, the second image even calls out "not complying with [their] Advertising Policy or other standards."

Right, but when your ad campaign shows no rejected ads and you don't actually know if it was due to the ad campaign.

Then I would be reluctant to spread Twitter posts and Blog posts regarding that being the reason. If signal investigated and came back with a legitimate Facebook response, then absolutely.

It's not the benefit of the doubt, its conjecture. Based on the information I can see I have no reason to believe that the campaign was rejected by Facebook, the screenshots show that the campaign did not even run, nor were any of the ads rejected.

I'm not trying to defend anyone however the profession I work in, I cannot raise observations unless they're validated and I don't think Signal have validated enough the reason why the account was disabled. I also don't think the photos they have provided directly point to it either as it is highly plausible that the deactivation is related to something completely legitimate.

You are assuming that people would know that your ad account on FB will only get banned when they have some "rejected ads". I, for once, learned that from your comments here.

You seem to be familiar with FB's terminology and UI, which most of the people are not. That's not on the people, but instead on FB to fix.

Sure, Signal is not doing themselves any favour by jumping the gun, but there is no reason to defend FB's UI when it can be higely improved too.

I’m not assuming that at all, that is my point and I’m not familiar with FB’s terminology nor have I ever used their ad platform. However Signal have said on Twitter that their ads were rejected and the screenshots show that they weren’t.

My point is that Signal have jumped the gun and made some serious claims against Facebook when their account may have simply been deactivated for any number of reasons. There is no evidence based on the images provided to show that FB deactivated the account because they didn’t agree with the campaign. Now that doesn’t mean that isn’t the case, but it’s a big overstep by Signal to then go and assume that.

I could setup an ad account tomorrow and and run a campaign and find that the account has been deactivated. Do I then assume that it is deactivated because FB didn’t like my platform? Do I create a blog post and share it on Twitter also assuming it was because FB didn’t like my campaign? No, I investigate and if it comes out that I wasn’t in compliance with their policy that may or may not be easily interpreted, then I write the posts. Until then all you know and all you’ve shown the public is that your account was deactivated for some reason.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for facebook here. If you disable people's account you need to be clear about why or you are going to suffer blowback.

Is anyone else getting concerned about Signal's trustworthiness lately?

Why? Can you please elaborate more. I recently started using Signal and like it very much. It seems that more and more of my contacts are also starting to use Signal.

They've been doing some weird stuff recently. Like this stunt and the reverse-hack thing, and they also run a cryptocurrency now. That last point alone is a huge red flag for me.

Frankly stunts like this are comforting. If Moxie had been bought, I'd expect a much more subtle hand.

He's running a cryptocurrency, doesn't need to be bought.

The "reverse-hack-thing" is a big trustworthyness bonus.

Even though Signal does seem like a step in the right direction, the fact that Signal is still a centralized platform makes it less trustworthy than say, Element. I must say this nonsense with the ad campaign isn't helping either.

Trust doesn't get easier when you are decentralized.

I rather like the idea of this ad campaign. If it shakes up a handful of people to be more aware of how much data is gathered and used against them, I consider that a win.

Once they started adding shitcoins you know they’re going the way of keybase

No.

And you can see that the screenshots are from March 4th.

It's irresponsible unless they were waiting for the ban and purposely orchestrated it for publicity

The screenshots literally showed their were no rejected ads.

smh signal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com