11 ms·

Facebook is pushing back on these claims: https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389735736644091906 https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389735736644091906 "

by sp332 6y ago

Facebook is pushing back on these claims: https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389735736644091906 https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389735736644091906 "These ads were never rejected because they were never set by Signal to run. The ad account has been available since early March"

threatofrain 6y ago
I'm glad that both FB and Signal have both made clear claims which may be proven or disproven. That makes everything much easier for onlookers. As both parties have made strong plays, time will adjudicate this matter.
- medstrom 6y ago
  Karl Popper rests peacefully.
neltnerb 6y ago
Wow, that sounds like a response made without input from their PR department. They basically obligated themselves to show these ads now if Signal tries to run them (even taking at face value their claim that they were never set to run). So, they never ran the ads as a publicity campaign, caused some Facebook exec without enough PR experience to promise they will be run, and now they run... a publicity campaign... seems like Signal is winning twice here to me.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  It's not obvious to me. If FB's claims turn out to be true, then it will look very bad for Signal — that they staged evidence to create a fake story about FB, and went on record to double-down on their dishonesty.
  - invalidname 6y ago
    Yes but do you honestly believe Facebook over Signal? Facebook literally lied to Congress... Signal is about transparency. I seriously doubt Signal lied. They have no incentive to lie here, if the ad would have run they would have won, it didn't they're winning. It's a win-win for them.
    - anonymousab 6y ago
      It is possible that neither of them are lying and that Signal just misinterpreted what the Facebook ad system was telling them and jumped the gun a bit.
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        This honestly seems most likely to me. It does mean that Facebook’s messaging is confusing enough to cause that though.
      - ganafagol 6y ago
        Or they "misinterpreted". Plausible deniability enables this win-win scenarion.
    - NoPicklez 6y ago
      Problem is that the images Signal have provided don't really provide much concrete evidence that the ads were rejected after infact being run.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - a254613e 6y ago
      So far even the screenshots Signal posted contradict and disapprove Signal's story, and are in line with what facebook is saying.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
barnaclejive 6y ago
Signal is pushing back on these claims: https://twitter.com/signalapp/status/1389767227570798595 https://twitter.com/signalapp/status/1389767227570798595
- amanzi 6y ago
  And then Facebook pushed back again: https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389773302160297985 https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389773302160297985 The screenshots Signal posted showed they were from early March and show no ads rejected. I never thought I would say this, but so far I'm leaning towards believing Facebook over Signal.
  - lordlimecat 6y ago
    Facebook would not push back on this unless they were very sure of their position, because the spotlight is going to be on them harder.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
fingerlocks 6y ago
Interesting. After reading the back and forth between Signal and Facebook, I think Facebook’s argument is stronger. It sounds plausible that Signal’s account was briefly suspended due to a payment issue, and someone in Signal’s marketing is simply mistaken, confused, and/or inexperienced at using Facebook’s ad campaign tools.
- shoto_io 6y ago
  These tools get more and more complicated by the day, so that could very well be
  - NoPicklez 6y ago
    Looking at the screenshot provided by Signal it's pretty clear that the account is disabled due to some sort of payment dispute and/or account balance problem.
    - SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
      They have plausible deniability because FB bans are well known to be totally opaque. They don't like to tell you what you did wrong.
      - NoPicklez 6y ago
        The image they posted clearly has a statement on it next to the account disable banner which relates to an account balance problem. It also has 0 rejected ads against the campaign. Doesn't seem to be totally opaque to me.
    - toast0 6y ago
      Disclosure: I worked at FB, but my only exposure to ads was in an advisory role on an ads product that as far as i know hasn't launched and doesn't seem to be launching soon and my advice wasn't taken anyway. Looking at the big modal style box in the middle of the screenshot it says: "Ad Account Disabled This ad account, its ads and some of its advertising assets are disabled. You can't use it to run ads." And there's a see details button. Maybe the see details indicates a fixable problem, and some of the text behind seems to maybe indicate a fixable payment problem, but it's not clear at all from the text of the big box that the problem is fixable. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that when Facebook says you can't use this account to run ads, it means you can't use that account to run ads, end of story. There's not a call to action to contact customer support or fix the payment or anything, just disabled, you can't run ads. I'm looking at this image https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lx59fWEAI9HcX?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lx59fWEAI9HcX?format=jpg&name=...
SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
It looks like: 1. Signal planned this as a PR stunt, anticipating that Facebook would reject the ads. 2. After setting up their ad account, the account or payment method was flagged for additional verification, triggering the dialog they showed in the screenshot in their blog post. 3. That dialog has a big red padlock that says "Ad Account Disabled". That's perfect for Signal's needs, so they stop here and don't even bother getting the actual ads reviewed and rejected. Signal's post is careful not to say that the ads were rejected, only that their account was banned. In response to the pushback, on Twitter, they posted another screenshot showing that the account was restricted, but still no evidence that they actually attempted to run the ads.
- maram 6y ago
  > Signal planned this as a PR stun I would say both Signal + Facebook. I only use iMessage. In Apple I trust =)
  - NoPicklez 6y ago
    You only use iMessage up until the point you need to SMS a device that isn't an Apple device. Then its not in Apple's ecosystem anymore.
    - mosselman 6y ago
      How do you know that they aren’t using iMessage to only send iMessages?
      - NoPicklez 6y ago
        I don't but my point still stands, Signal and Messenger are software agnostic (to a degree). There is every possibility that when I send a person an SMS, it will fall outside of the iMessage ecosystem. If I send someone a message on Signal or Messenger, it will only come through to them via that platform. With iMessage you cannot guarantee that.
newgradhire 6y ago
Very disappointed this was a sham LOL.
NullPrefix 6y ago
>our advertising policies prohibit ads that assert that you have a specific medical condition or sexual orientation Are there any grammy-like awards for corporate speak performances? This is gold.

by sp332 6y ago

threatofrain 6y ago

I'm glad that both FB and Signal have both made clear claims which may be proven or disproven. That makes everything much easier for onlookers. As both parties have made strong plays, time will adjudicate this matter.

medstrom 6y ago
Karl Popper rests peacefully.

neltnerb 6y ago

Wow, that sounds like a response made without input from their PR department. They basically obligated themselves to show these ads now if Signal tries to run them (even taking at face value their claim that they were never set to run). So, they never ran the ads as a publicity campaign, caused some Facebook exec without enough PR experience to promise they will be run, and now they run... a publicity campaign... seems like Signal is winning twice here to me.

threatofrain 6y ago
It's not obvious to me. If FB's claims turn out to be true, then it will look very bad for Signal — that they staged evidence to create a fake story about FB, and went on record to double-down on their dishonesty.
- invalidname 6y ago
  Yes but do you honestly believe Facebook over Signal? Facebook literally lied to Congress... Signal is about transparency. I seriously doubt Signal lied. They have no incentive to lie here, if the ad would have run they would have won, it didn't they're winning. It's a win-win for them.
  - anonymousab 6y ago
    It is possible that neither of them are lying and that Signal just misinterpreted what the Facebook ad system was telling them and jumped the gun a bit.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      This honestly seems most likely to me. It does mean that Facebook’s messaging is confusing enough to cause that though.
    - ganafagol 6y ago
      Or they "misinterpreted". Plausible deniability enables this win-win scenarion.
  - NoPicklez 6y ago
    Problem is that the images Signal have provided don't really provide much concrete evidence that the ads were rejected after infact being run.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - a254613e 6y ago
    So far even the screenshots Signal posted contradict and disapprove Signal's story, and are in line with what facebook is saying.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

barnaclejive 6y ago

Signal is pushing back on these claims: https://twitter.com/signalapp/status/1389767227570798595 https://twitter.com/signalapp/status/1389767227570798595

amanzi 6y ago
And then Facebook pushed back again: https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389773302160297985 https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1389773302160297985 The screenshots Signal posted showed they were from early March and show no ads rejected. I never thought I would say this, but so far I'm leaning towards believing Facebook over Signal.
- lordlimecat 6y ago
  Facebook would not push back on this unless they were very sure of their position, because the spotlight is going to be on them harder.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fingerlocks 6y ago

Interesting. After reading the back and forth between Signal and Facebook, I think Facebook’s argument is stronger. It sounds plausible that Signal’s account was briefly suspended due to a payment issue, and someone in Signal’s marketing is simply mistaken, confused, and/or inexperienced at using Facebook’s ad campaign tools.

shoto_io 6y ago
These tools get more and more complicated by the day, so that could very well be
- NoPicklez 6y ago
  Looking at the screenshot provided by Signal it's pretty clear that the account is disabled due to some sort of payment dispute and/or account balance problem.
  - SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
    They have plausible deniability because FB bans are well known to be totally opaque. They don't like to tell you what you did wrong.
    - NoPicklez 6y ago
      The image they posted clearly has a statement on it next to the account disable banner which relates to an account balance problem. It also has 0 rejected ads against the campaign. Doesn't seem to be totally opaque to me.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Disclosure: I worked at FB, but my only exposure to ads was in an advisory role on an ads product that as far as i know hasn't launched and doesn't seem to be launching soon and my advice wasn't taken anyway. Looking at the big modal style box in the middle of the screenshot it says: "Ad Account Disabled This ad account, its ads and some of its advertising assets are disabled. You can't use it to run ads." And there's a see details button. Maybe the see details indicates a fixable problem, and some of the text behind seems to maybe indicate a fixable payment problem, but it's not clear at all from the text of the big box that the problem is fixable. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that when Facebook says you can't use this account to run ads, it means you can't use that account to run ads, end of story. There's not a call to action to contact customer support or fix the payment or anything, just disabled, you can't run ads. I'm looking at this image https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lx59fWEAI9HcX?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lx59fWEAI9HcX?format=jpg&name=...

SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago

It looks like: 1. Signal planned this as a PR stunt, anticipating that Facebook would reject the ads. 2. After setting up their ad account, the account or payment method was flagged for additional verification, triggering the dialog they showed in the screenshot in their blog post. 3. That dialog has a big red padlock that says "Ad Account Disabled". That's perfect for Signal's needs, so they stop here and don't even bother getting the actual ads reviewed and rejected. Signal's post is careful not to say that the ads were rejected, only that their account was banned. In response to the pushback, on Twitter, they posted another screenshot showing that the account was restricted, but still no evidence that they actually attempted to run the ads.

maram 6y ago
> Signal planned this as a PR stun I would say both Signal + Facebook. I only use iMessage. In Apple I trust =)
- NoPicklez 6y ago
  You only use iMessage up until the point you need to SMS a device that isn't an Apple device. Then its not in Apple's ecosystem anymore.
  - mosselman 6y ago
    How do you know that they aren’t using iMessage to only send iMessages?
    - NoPicklez 6y ago
      I don't but my point still stands, Signal and Messenger are software agnostic (to a degree). There is every possibility that when I send a person an SMS, it will fall outside of the iMessage ecosystem. If I send someone a message on Signal or Messenger, it will only come through to them via that platform. With iMessage you cannot guarantee that.

newgradhire 6y ago

Very disappointed this was a sham LOL.

NullPrefix 6y ago

>our advertising policies prohibit ads that assert that you have a specific medical condition or sexual orientation Are there any grammy-like awards for corporate speak performances? This is gold.