6 ms·

Facebook uses its ad policies to block apps that compete with its dating service

109 points by ianwalter 7y ago

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
Facebook also used its ad policies to block legitimate, regulated cryptocurrency businesses right up until a month before their announcement of Libra.[1] Do note, I'm not talking about Facebook's laudable decision to block ads for scam ICOs, which its policies against fraud have long prohibited. [1] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-reversed-cryptocurrency-ad-policy-ahead-of-libra-announcement/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-...
- pergadad 7y ago
  In the crypto space fraud and actual business are hard to distinguish (and one can quickly become the other).
JohnFen 7y ago
> its policies prevent “hook up” apps from advertising on the basis that they’re advocating for sexual encounters. So, Facebook is opposed to sex between consenting adults? For some reason, that doesn't surprise me at all.
- jariel 7y ago
  If you try to put an ad for a group-sex/sex-hookup app on CNN, Googe, Apple or NY Times you'll get denied as well. The headline is blatantly misleading, probably purposefully so, which is sad and should make us wonder about the integrity of such organizations as well.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure Tinder would not have a problem advertising in the NY Times. There are plenty of people on Tinder explicitly seeking hookups, open relationships, or group sex.
    - jariel 7y ago
      Tinder is a dating app, like other dating apps, can be possibly be used for hookups etc. but it's not directly advertised as such. A better counter example would be 'Grindr' which is really de-facto focused on hookups, but they do a lot to avoid that in their presentation. But the point stands: if you advertise a hookup app, you will not be approved by any of those orgs. Apple just dropped one of those 'Sugar Daddy' style apps, i.e. focused on connecting younger women and older men on the basis of their 'wealthy appeal' though it's not a direct hookup / money for sex app either.
      - lozaning 7y ago
        As far as I can recall, when Tinder first came out it most certainly was explicitly for hookups and casual sex.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
        I pretty much reject your false dichotomy of dating vs hookup apps. The difference between a date and a hookup is what exactly? But even if we let that stand - the app in the article that was turned down is called #Open and it's very much a dating app like tinder/bumble/hinge not a hookup app (https://www.hashtagopen.com https://www.hashtagopen.com) - it just has a bunch of features focussed on non-standard relationship models (polyamory, open relationships). The other site mentioned in the article, ashley madison, is literally just a scam (https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-m...), so I have no problem with it being banned.
        jariel 7y ago
        If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating' then I'm sorry for you, there's no point in my commenting on that. As for the app, I agree, it doesn't seem to be poignantly focused on 'casual sex' rather, it's directly focused on 'open relationships' - which is definitely different, but an often overlapping category. For a regular corporate policy, it's basically 'right on the line', but it's definitely within the rights of Facebook or any company with a very large audience to not have this included. Facebook has a global audience, and the vast majority of people in the world are not going to go for something like this, and probably a plurality of people within the Western World. FYI the app Apple dumped was 'Seeking' (Sugar Daddy) and I'm not aware if it's a scam or not, but it surely lies within the same category of 'consent, but something many people would find somewhere in the range of offensive'. If the FCC or some agency were taking down their web-site, I would be up in arms, that would be a huge line crossed, but apparently this crosses FB's specific guidelines (and probably those of many others) for ads, which is very well within reason. So, you can do almost what you like 'in the world' (i.e. the net), but on private domains, the rules are going to be more specific, welcome to reality.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > The headline is blatantly misleading What's misleading about it? Reading the article, the headline seems on point.
    - jariel 7y ago
      I think the headline is misleading because it's wrong to suggest that FB is banning dating apps that compete with its service. FB is banning dating apps that don't adhere to its public guidelines, which is a different thing altogether. We can disagree with said guidelines, but they are at least objective. The headline conflates the issue on purpose, i.e. to drive popular support for ostensible the anti-competitive action of Facebook, when really what they're objecting to is the nature of the policy that doesn't allow their dating app. It's definitely misleading.
- maxton 7y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to FOSTA/SESTA legislation
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Facebook's own dating app can be used for sex work, so that passes the "fake justification" test, but not the "real reason" test.
    - oarabbus_ 7y ago
      Citation needed
      - sneak 7y ago
        All dating apps can be used for sex work.
        oarabbus_ 7y ago
        And all messaging tools can be used for assassinations. What specifically about FB Dating yields itself to sex work? That seemed to be the implication by the person I responded to.
        bathtub365 7y ago
        It sounded more like they were saying that the same argument could be made for FB Dating as it could for hookup sites so the argument is invalid.
        kennywinker 7y ago
        Have you used a dating app before? They all have their fair share of sex work (porn, sugar daddy, escorting). I’m not saying there is anything about fb’s app that promotes sex work - but if it’s a dating app it will have that as part of it.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Won't you think of the children? What if they find out adults, maybe even their own parents, have had sex? They might be scarred for LIFE. Better to just let little Timmy watch another violent action movie and not worry he might see a breast.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- paulie_a 7y ago
  Facebook had the poke feature which was entirely for sexual encounters. Hell I bet there are more than a few children born because of that feature.
- burtonator 7y ago
  ... but the have no problem fucking our Democracy.
Animats 7y ago
Facebook lets Grindr on.
- bathtub365 7y ago
  Maybe Facebook hasn’t decided to go into the gay dating market yet
einpoklum 7y ago
Facebook not willing to publicize its own competition? Why, I'm shocked. Shocked and chagrined.

109 points by ianwalter 7y ago

Facebook also used its ad policies to block legitimate, regulated cryptocurrency businesses right up until a month before their announcement of Libra.[1] Do note, I'm not talking about Facebook's laudable decision to block ads for scam ICOs, which its policies against fraud have long prohibited. [1] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-reversed-cryptocurrency-ad-policy-ahead-of-libra-announcement/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-...

pergadad 7y ago
In the crypto space fraud and actual business are hard to distinguish (and one can quickly become the other).

JohnFen 7y ago

> its policies prevent “hook up” apps from advertising on the basis that they’re advocating for sexual encounters. So, Facebook is opposed to sex between consenting adults? For some reason, that doesn't surprise me at all.

jariel 7y ago
If you try to put an ad for a group-sex/sex-hookup app on CNN, Googe, Apple or NY Times you'll get denied as well. The headline is blatantly misleading, probably purposefully so, which is sad and should make us wonder about the integrity of such organizations as well.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure Tinder would not have a problem advertising in the NY Times. There are plenty of people on Tinder explicitly seeking hookups, open relationships, or group sex.
  - jariel 7y ago
    Tinder is a dating app, like other dating apps, can be possibly be used for hookups etc. but it's not directly advertised as such. A better counter example would be 'Grindr' which is really de-facto focused on hookups, but they do a lot to avoid that in their presentation. But the point stands: if you advertise a hookup app, you will not be approved by any of those orgs. Apple just dropped one of those 'Sugar Daddy' style apps, i.e. focused on connecting younger women and older men on the basis of their 'wealthy appeal' though it's not a direct hookup / money for sex app either.
    - lozaning 7y ago
      As far as I can recall, when Tinder first came out it most certainly was explicitly for hookups and casual sex.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      I pretty much reject your false dichotomy of dating vs hookup apps. The difference between a date and a hookup is what exactly? But even if we let that stand - the app in the article that was turned down is called #Open and it's very much a dating app like tinder/bumble/hinge not a hookup app (https://www.hashtagopen.com https://www.hashtagopen.com) - it just has a bunch of features focussed on non-standard relationship models (polyamory, open relationships). The other site mentioned in the article, ashley madison, is literally just a scam (https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-m...), so I have no problem with it being banned.
      - jariel 7y ago
        If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating' then I'm sorry for you, there's no point in my commenting on that. As for the app, I agree, it doesn't seem to be poignantly focused on 'casual sex' rather, it's directly focused on 'open relationships' - which is definitely different, but an often overlapping category. For a regular corporate policy, it's basically 'right on the line', but it's definitely within the rights of Facebook or any company with a very large audience to not have this included. Facebook has a global audience, and the vast majority of people in the world are not going to go for something like this, and probably a plurality of people within the Western World. FYI the app Apple dumped was 'Seeking' (Sugar Daddy) and I'm not aware if it's a scam or not, but it surely lies within the same category of 'consent, but something many people would find somewhere in the range of offensive'. If the FCC or some agency were taking down their web-site, I would be up in arms, that would be a huge line crossed, but apparently this crosses FB's specific guidelines (and probably those of many others) for ads, which is very well within reason. So, you can do almost what you like 'in the world' (i.e. the net), but on private domains, the rules are going to be more specific, welcome to reality.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > The headline is blatantly misleading What's misleading about it? Reading the article, the headline seems on point.
  - jariel 7y ago
    I think the headline is misleading because it's wrong to suggest that FB is banning dating apps that compete with its service. FB is banning dating apps that don't adhere to its public guidelines, which is a different thing altogether. We can disagree with said guidelines, but they are at least objective. The headline conflates the issue on purpose, i.e. to drive popular support for ostensible the anti-competitive action of Facebook, when really what they're objecting to is the nature of the policy that doesn't allow their dating app. It's definitely misleading.
maxton 7y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to FOSTA/SESTA legislation
- kennywinker 7y ago
  Facebook's own dating app can be used for sex work, so that passes the "fake justification" test, but not the "real reason" test.
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    Citation needed
    - sneak 7y ago
      All dating apps can be used for sex work.
      - oarabbus_ 7y ago
        And all messaging tools can be used for assassinations. What specifically about FB Dating yields itself to sex work? That seemed to be the implication by the person I responded to.
        bathtub365 7y ago
        It sounded more like they were saying that the same argument could be made for FB Dating as it could for hookup sites so the argument is invalid.
        kennywinker 7y ago
        Have you used a dating app before? They all have their fair share of sex work (porn, sugar daddy, escorting). I’m not saying there is anything about fb’s app that promotes sex work - but if it’s a dating app it will have that as part of it.
vorpalhex 7y ago
Won't you think of the children? What if they find out adults, maybe even their own parents, have had sex? They might be scarred for LIFE. Better to just let little Timmy watch another violent action movie and not worry he might see a breast.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
paulie_a 7y ago
Facebook had the poke feature which was entirely for sexual encounters. Hell I bet there are more than a few children born because of that feature.
burtonator 7y ago
... but the have no problem fucking our Democracy.

Animats 7y ago

Facebook lets Grindr on.

bathtub365 7y ago
Maybe Facebook hasn’t decided to go into the gay dating market yet

einpoklum 7y ago

Facebook not willing to publicize its own competition? Why, I'm shocked. Shocked and chagrined.