Run the ad in your local newspaper. When you place the ad they look at it and say "well that isn't obviously snake-oil" If it turns out that it was snake oil i

Run the ad in your local newspaper. When you place the ad they look at it and say "well that isn't obviously snake-oil" If it turns out that it was snake oil in disguise, the defence of that not being obvious to a reasonable person is a thing. You know much the same way the genocidal maniacs can't advertise genocidial mania in the new york times. Or your local newspaper. Is that ok on facebook or do they actually stop that? If they don't they probably should. If they do then they should keep doing it and extend to snake-oil frauds and such like. It benefits the small players as the cost reduction to google and facebook from the sheer scale of not vetting anything much is diminished encouraging publishers to run their own ads rather than outsource to the huge players with all the associated problems with that. (e.g. just one aspect, How can your advertising startup possibly compete with google given the status quo? With a diminished advantage of scale you have a better chance of setting up your advertising company in some particular niche or other). Beyond that I have no issue with small, local internet advertising being more expensive - if that even is the outcome, which I'm not convinced about. So running a small, local campaign pushes people and their advertising spend to local non-internet campaigns? I'm completely fine with that. I think that is a good thing, myself. More competition for advertising spend is a very, very good thing, in my view. For so many reasons. Censorship mitigation among them. A wouldn't publish the ad, B was unsure, but C said it was ok so I went there. Better than FB said no on a whim so now I can't advertise competitively. See, sensible discussion. I don't require you or anyone to agree with me. Just be civil, and not put words into others mouths they did not say e.g. "...because you don't like ads"