
Wherein the Facebook Morality Police have decided that we are porn - jpatokal
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2015/03/26.html
======
pbhjpbhj
From the OP's quoting of Facebook:

>"Your ad content violates Facebook Ad Guidelines. Ads are not allowed to
promote the sale or use of adult products or services, including toys, videos,
publications, live shows or sexual enhancement products."

From DNA Lounge's page,
[http://www.dnalounge.com/calendar/2015/04-10.html](http://www.dnalounge.com/calendar/2015/04-10.html):

>"From the dawn of humanity, to Ancient Egypt, to the glory that was Rome;
everybody loves a burlesque show! Join San Francisco's world-famous Hubba
Hubba Revue for an epic night of tassels & tease, thousands of years in the
making!"

It's an adult live show, a burlesque. Facebook policy rules it out and it's
very cut-and-dried.

The only reason this appears to be here is an attempt at viral marketing.

13+ social media site won't advertise 18+ (or 21+ presumably if it's USA based
on drinking laws) live show for adults with softcore sexual content.

Flagged.

~~~
peterevans
If you think jwz is doing some "viral marketing", then you're really lacking
in your knowledge of net.history. Ending your post with "flagged" makes it
doubly foolish.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I'm assuming you're inferring that jwz can't make money driven business
decisions because he has contributed [in a major way] to FOSS projects? Is
that what you're saying?

It's clearly false indignation; a common "viral" marketing technique.

~~~
peterevans
I'm saying that, as someone who has read his various rants throughout the
years on jwz.org, and followed his twitter feed, I can say with a great degree
of confidence that a) he didn't post this to HN, and b) he really couldn't
give enough of a shit to "viral market" anything.

You're free to form your own opinions, although if you must, I would urge you
to avail yourself of the opportunity to read through his website and past
writings. I find your continued contention that he is using viral marketing to
be rather amusing.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I'm not continuing to contend anything about jwz - I never said he posted it
to HN, there is no byline on the blog-post.

The OP blog-post is definitely mock indignation, it's not there to accomplish
anything but notability through complaint against a corporation (Facebook)
against whom it is trendy to complain vehemently. This is known as a "viral
marketing technique" because, as has been seen, the intention is that the
complaint should acquire attention and in doing so will shed light on the
complainers business interests. jwz may not have intended it but the blog post
is operating in that capacity.

------
a3n
> We will all be so much better off once Facebook finally craters into
> irrelevance

> Facebook has made itself sadly, tragically, despicably indispensable as a
> means of reaching customers.

I would think the solution is blindingly obvious.

~~~
FatalLogic
>I would think the solution is blindingly obvious.

It _feels_ obvious, indeed, but please explain the steps we should take to
achieve the solution, because some of us are a bit slow.

~~~
falcolas
It's easy! Just Disrupt™ Facebook!

/s

~~~
deweller
There are efforts to do this in a decentralized, peer-to-peer way.

[https://joindiaspora.com/](https://joindiaspora.com/)
[http://www.synereo.com/](http://www.synereo.com/)

------
cooperadymas
I realize that most of this post is an angry overreaction, but we went through
a similar issue with a large Facebook ad campaign recently. Our ads were being
flagged constantly for something like "promising unlikely results", something
that I'm sure is normally reserved for penis enlargement and get rich quick
schemes. Our ads were for a launch promo where we offered a free gift with
purchase. Somewhere along the lines Facebook equated our free gift with
promising results that are not guaranteed.

The worst part wasn't that they mistakenly blocked our ads, but that they
continued to do it. My best guess is the campaign, landing page, or our
advertising account was "flagged" which made subsequent ads more likely to be
blocked. We changed and tested everything in the ad and the landing page,
completely rewriting it and not even mentioning the free gift. Every time we
would get blocked for the same reason, then our appeal would come back "sorry,
we didn't mean to block your ad."

We spend a lot of money on Facebook ads, over $20k/mo. As much as people like
to belabor Google for not providing product support, when you spend money with
them (AdWords) their support is top notch. Facebook has a long ways to go in
that regard.

------
falcolas
It's most likely the phrase Burlesque which is tripping the sensors
(censors?). Burlesque has a very specific sexual connotation which is easy to
associate as being against their T&C as presented in this article.

I don't believe, though, that something like Burlesque should be prohibited by
the same rules which are designed to prevent dildos from appearing in ads, but
I imagine it's a side effect of Facebook being an American company and many of
its users sharing our prudish sensibilities when it comes to sex.

------
vinceguidry
The way I see it, Facebook is at the forefront of this immense issue humanity
at large is going to eventually have to deal with, one way or another. How do
you actually connect people to each other electronically? It's tremendously
hard to do. Abstractions leak. Domain concepts fall apart. There's no way to
reliably engineer legibility of data.

Used to be, we had a postal system whereby the problems were handled directly
by humans. That's flat-out impossible here. Automation, policies to ensure
legibility, these things are necessary because you can't build a social
network without them and scale it across the globe. But since they affect
humans and their lives, they have real human costs.

------
rlpb
This is what happens when the public expect Facebook to be the morality
police. Morality is subjective. Decisions can't be kept consistent and made to
scale. Some will fall on the wrong side of close calls; it's inevitable.

~~~
ritchiea
I don't think the public expects Facebook to be the morality police. Facebook
believes being the morality police is in their best interest as they attempt
to serve a central function in people's lives.

~~~
falcolas
> I don't think the public expects Facebook to be the morality police.

So, users wouldn't be upset with Facebook if ads with sex toys started
appearing on their homepage?

We absolutely expect them to censor their page to meet with our moral
sensibilities, and complain loudly to the world when they do not.

------
zuck9
Ironically, the comments section has a "Connect with Facebook" button.

~~~
jmckib
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

EDIT: Maybe I should clarify, I'm not agreeing with OP. I just like to point
out a logical fallacy when I see one.

------
mydpy
I think these are legitimate concerns users of Facebook should have. However,
these are really, really complex problems Facebook is trying to deal with.
They're not intentionally trying to fit subcultures into boxes, and their
logic for understanding and appropriately handling the way their customers use
their site is really complex. _They 're trying the best they can_, and to
encourage them to quit their jobs is really not the answer.

------
makeitsuckless
So the Morality Police of Facebook censors ads, and suddenly it's a big deal
because it affects Jamie Zawinski?

Facebook, Google, Apple and any number of Silicon Valley companies have been
playing Morality Police to the world for a years now, censoring ordinary
peoples content because it doesn't hold up to puritanical American standards.
I find that way more offensive than this particular incident.

