3 ms·

>Freebies has been plagued by recent ad violations suggesting they are not following policy for dating ads. Freebies has never run a dating site, nor has it adv

>Freebies has been plagued by recent ad violations suggesting they are not following policy for dating ads. Freebies has never run a dating site, nor has it advertised for dating sites on Facebook. The CEO of Freebies, Mike Debutte, tried in vain to reach out to Facebook for help in appealing the supposed violations that are causing major disruptions and loss of revenue to our business. It was frustrating and handicapped the business, but it had become the cost of doing business on Facebook, so we just kept doing the best we could to continue to grow the business. Isn't this the explanation? I get that they disagree with the substance of the violations, but it doesn't sound like this came out of nowhere like the headline claims. They were repeatedly flagged for ad violations, then their pages were shut down when they ignored these as the "cost of doing business".

bryan0 6y ago
Yes they were kicked off for ad violations, but the violations were not explained.
capableweb 6y ago
I'm failing to understand how they are ignoring violations when A) they don't see which policy rules are being broken B) the rule that Facebook says been broken has norelevance to the ads they actually run and C) the CEO of Freebies tried to reach out to Facebook to clear things up.
jbob2000 6y ago
I looked at the shared.com website, it seems like it’s just a content farm for marketing affiliations. They were probably banned for being a source of spam, even if the dashboard says “green” (maybe there are ways to systematically game this rating, very odd the article is so hung up on this rating).
sonotmyname 6y ago
> Isn't this the explanation? Err, how is that an explanation? If they don't run dating ads and Facebook says their dating ads are non-compliant, it's a non-answer. It'd be like me firing you for having blue hair when you don't have blue hair.
- mattficke 6y ago
  The claim isn't that the explanation is incorrect or based on a faulty premise, they're saying that there was no explanation at all. Maybe they're right about FB incorrectly flagging their ads, I'm not in a position to judge. However, they're making a misleading claim by saying this happened without explanation and leading with the image showing no Page Quality violations, since the affiliated Freebies page did apparently have numerous violations.

bryan0 6y ago

Yes they were kicked off for ad violations, but the violations were not explained.

capableweb 6y ago

I'm failing to understand how they are ignoring violations when A) they don't see which policy rules are being broken B) the rule that Facebook says been broken has norelevance to the ads they actually run and C) the CEO of Freebies tried to reach out to Facebook to clear things up.

jbob2000 6y ago

I looked at the shared.com website, it seems like it’s just a content farm for marketing affiliations. They were probably banned for being a source of spam, even if the dashboard says “green” (maybe there are ways to systematically game this rating, very odd the article is so hung up on this rating).

sonotmyname 6y ago

> Isn't this the explanation? Err, how is that an explanation? If they don't run dating ads and Facebook says their dating ads are non-compliant, it's a non-answer. It'd be like me firing you for having blue hair when you don't have blue hair.

mattficke 6y ago
The claim isn't that the explanation is incorrect or based on a faulty premise, they're saying that there was no explanation at all. Maybe they're right about FB incorrectly flagging their ads, I'm not in a position to judge. However, they're making a misleading claim by saying this happened without explanation and leading with the image showing no Page Quality violations, since the affiliated Freebies page did apparently have numerous violations.