Facebook permanently locks conservative children books publisher

[Harpy Eagle]

Censorship is censorship, regardless of who does it. Your political allies suppressed children's books, which is ugly. You are so happy that your political opponents took a hit, that you do not care about suppression of speech. You are here to defend censorship, that is your only intent on this thread.

I am here to defend a private company making a business decisions just as I defended the right of a baker to say "no, I will not make that cake". I suppose you attacked the guy for saying that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You would defend the baker, photographer or florist who refused services to a same sex couple, wouldn't you?

100%. I did so on this very forum.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, FB shut them down for breaking their rules.

What rules? What about their advertisements broke Facebook rules that allowed Facebook to arbitrarily decide AND keep the money?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

100%. I did so on this very forum.

Facebook kept a years worth of advertising funds.

 

[EvMetro]

I am here to defend a private company making a business decisions just as I defended the right of a baker to say "no, I will not make that cake". I suppose you attacked the guy for saying that.

You are a lefty, which means your ideology can't exist without censorship. You are absolutely here to defend censorship. Every post from you supports censorship.

 

[BWK]

Facebook strikes again.

Now let's hear the whines "it's a private business!"

Fox Business: Facebook 'permanently' locks account of conservative children's book publisher.

Facebook reverses course after 'permanently' locking account of conservative children's book publisher

Facebook has reversed course after “permanently" disabling the ads account of a conservative children's book publisher, claiming that Heroes of Liberty – which has published books about Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, former President Ronald Reagan and author Thomas Sowell – violated...

www.foxbusiness.com

At the end of the day, the children's book is selling a political narrative. How is Reagan a hero for liberty? Reagan's Dangerous Game in Nicaragua Is this who the book describes as a hero for liberty? No wonder they locked his account. He's a filthy liar.

 

[colfax_m]

I pay you for advertising on your house. You decide that you don't like the sign. You take down my sign and keep the money.

That doesn’t seem to be analogous here. There’s no indication that Facebook charged them any money for ads not displayed. The company had advertised and paid for advertising for some months before the account was frozen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What rules? What about their advertisements broke Facebook rules that allowed Facebook to arbitrarily decide AND keep the money?

According to the OP they violated the company's rules against "Low Quality or Disruptive Content."

The OP does not state FB kept their money.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

At the end of the day, the children's book is selling a political narrative. How is Reagan a hero for liberty? Reagan's Dangerous Game in Nicaragua Is this who the book describes as a hero for liberty? No wonder they locked his account. He's a filthy liar.

Great....you again

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Facebook kept a years worth of advertising funds.

Again, the OP does not state this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are a lefty, which means your ideology can't exist without censorship. You are absolutely here to defend censorship. Every post from you supports censorship.

I am here to defend a private company making a business decisions just as I defended the right of a baker to say "no, I will not make that cake".

I suppose you attacked the guy for saying that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, the OP does not state this.

A quote from the business in the article:

"We began investing in Facebook four months before we launched our first book," she added. "We invested most of our marketing budget on the platform, and now our budget (the money we’ve already spent), as well as our assets and data are gone. Marketing-wise we are back in square one, financially it's even more challenging."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A quote from the business in the article:

"We began investing in Facebook four months before we launched our first book," she added. "We invested most of our marketing budget on the platform, and now our budget (the money we’ve already spent), as well as our assets and data are gone. Marketing-wise we are back in square one, financially it's even more challenging."

Yes, it says they are out the money they already spent, I take that to mean the money for the ads that have been ran.

I would in no way agree with FB keeping money for ads never published.

Perhaps they should have taken the warning from FB more seriously.

But now they are getting a shit ton of free PR. lets face it, neither of us would have known about this company had this not taken place

 

[EvilCat Breath]

According to the OP they violated the company's rules against "Low Quality or Disruptive Content."

The OP does not state FB kept their money.

We began investing in Facebook four months before we launched our first book," she added. "We invested most of our marketing budget on the platform, and now our budget (the money we’ve already spent), as well as our assets and data are gone. Marketing-wise we are back in square one, financially it's even more challenging."

What does this mean to you?
FB needs to give a refund as well as interest for loss of use of the funds.

 

[BWK]

What rule was broken? Did you even read the OP?


They stated they're not political they just sell books about conservatives.

My guess is some Fascistbook jack boot employee saw conservative and promptly shat itself

Are you seriously this stupid? Reagan's Dangerous Game in Nicaragua The publisher is talking about Reagan and liberty. WTF?

"They stated they're not political." That's like saying I prefer Biden over Trump, but, I'm not political.

Your arguments wouldn't get past third grade logic.

 

[EvMetro]

I am here to defend a private company making a business decisions

A private company who uses suppression of speech as a weapon against your political opponents. You respect businesses that use censorship, and you are here to support censorship.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We began investing in Facebook four months before we launched our first book," she added. "We invested most of our marketing budget on the platform, and now our budget (the money we’ve already spent), as well as our assets and data are gone. Marketing-wise we are back in square one, financially it's even more challenging."

What does this mean to you?
FB needs to give a refund as well as interest for loss of use of the funds.

What that means to me is they are out the money they spent creating the ads as well as the money for the ads that already ran.

 

[BWK]

Even when a company has paid Facebook for advertising?

I beg to differ.

FB has no moral skin in this game. Make no mistake. They need to reimburse the publisher.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it says they are out the money they already spent, I take that to mean the money for the ads that have been ran.

I would in no way agree with FB keeping money for ads never published.

Read more of the article. If you don't see a heavy breach of contract claim I should think you a simpleton.

There was an inherent benefit for Heroes of Liberty to being able to direct people to their Facebook page based on the advertisements they had already paid for. This decision in essence reverses the marketing momentum gain from advertising on the platform--a highly foreseeable benefit from the contract Facebook unilaterally canceled.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A private company who uses suppression of speech as a weapon against your political opponents. You respect businesses that use censorship, and you are here to support censorship.

am here to defend a private company making a business decisions just as I defended the right of a baker to say "no, I will not make that cake". I suppose you attacked the guy for saying that.

Whether I approve of those decisions or not is irrelevant.

I personally disagreed with the baker refusing to make the cake, but I 100% supported his right to say no.

I do not have to agree with something to support the right for it to happen. I am not like you.