4 ms·
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 t
by neltnerb 5y 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 5y agoIt'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 5y agoYes 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 5y agoIt 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.
- NoPicklez 5y agoProblem is that the images Signal have provided don't really provide much concrete evidence that the ads were rejected after infact being run.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- a254613e 5y agoSo far even the screenshots Signal posted contradict and disapprove Signal's story, and are in line with what facebook is saying.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]