
Publishers stop Facebook ads over policy treating them as political advertisers - nafizh
https://digiday.com/media/financial-times-stops-facebook-ad-spending-policy-treats-publishers-political-advertisers/
======
coolbreeze
News articles should be treated as political. They always have a built in
narrative and bias. Including this article.

~~~
untog
By that logic shouldn't any post anyone makes on Facebook be treated as
political?

~~~
MichaelBurge
"Buy more Coca-cola" or "10 reasons why Coca-cola is actually good for you"
are examples of advertisement posts and articles that aren't political.

~~~
untog
Of course they are. Don't you know that Coca Cola created Fanta for Nazi
Germany because trade embargos meant they couldn't make Coke? Why, they're
practically Nazi collaborators!

...my point is that politics is everywhere, whether you like it or not.

------
reaperducer
_> The Financial Times and New York Media — have suspended their paid media
spending on Facebook in response to the policy_

I only read the FT in printed form, so I'm not aware if its online stories
lean one way or the other.

But New York Media's imprints absolutely harbor an agenda. Even if that agenda
is intended to mirror its audience, I can understand Facebook flagging its
stories. Or at least NYMedia's fear of Facebook flagging its stories.

I saw one of those Facebook political flags this morning for the first time,
and it was worthless. When I clicked the little link that was supposed to tell
me who was paying for the ad, all it did was show me the name of the PAC,
which was already displayed on the ad. No link to the PAC's website, or a list
of people who are financially responsible or anything.

So Facebook's new political flagging system is all heat, no light.

~~~
foota
In this case isn't the PAC the group financially responsible? I'm confused
here.

------
ENGNR
Why are publishers buying ads anyway? They should have their own distribution

Or at the very least not have to pay Facebook, or Facebook should make it
clear that's not the kind of content they want if it's so off mission that
they're charging money to boost it. Facebook is trying to play all sides here,
getting between publishers and readers and then charging for the privilege

