How is the following not possible?
>Facebook disabled their account because of their ad content, but chose to put up a message that was more ambiguous.
46 karma · joined December 7, 2022
>Facebook disabled their account because of their ad content, but chose to put up a message that was more ambiguous.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> The only way it makes sense is
I don't think you've provided convincing evidence of that.
Are the following all not possible?
1. They are unable to access that account or page any longer
2. Facebook chose to lie about this in a way that is not easily disproved by a screenshot.
3. Facebook disabled their account because of their ad content, but chose to put up a message that was more ambiguous.
*edit: formatting & make messaging more polite
> We absolutely did try to run these. The ads were rejected, and Facebook disabled our ad account. These are real screenshots, as Facebook should know.
I don't think your logic about companies lying really tracks with the historical record. Companies, when they believe they can get away with it, lie all the time.
Again, I'm not saying that one organization was certainly lying or not-lying; I'm just challenging your presupposition that Signal was lying.
> We absolutely did try to run these. The ads were rejected, and Facebook disabled our ad account. These are real screenshots, as Facebook should know.
From the article (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/facebook-and-signal-are-figh...):
> Signal countered on Twitter that it “absolutely did” try to run the ads. “The ads were rejected, and Facebook disabled our ad account. These are real screenshots, as Facebook should know.”
I'm not saying Signal's side is necessarily true, but you're making an affirmative claim that Signal is performing a "misleading publicity stunt", by taking faith on Facebook's narrative as true.
*edit: posted the wrong link