diogenes-pithos

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by diogenes-pithos 4y ago

   How is the following not possible? >Facebook disabled their account because of their ad content, but chose to put up a message that was more ambiguous.
2. 2.▲
   by diogenes-pithos 4y ago

   You're presupposing because you're coming to a conclusion that is not justified by the evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > The only way it makes sense is I don't think you've provided convi
3. 3.▲
   by diogenes-pithos 4y ago

   They did speak out about it, which is in the same article linked above that sources the FB disputation statement ( https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/facebook-and-signal-are-figh... ): > We absolutely did try t
4. 4.▲
   by diogenes-pithos 4y ago

   I think it'd be helpful for discussion to include Signal's dispute of Facebook's disputation of the story in your comment: > We absolutely did try to run these. The ads were rejected, and Facebook disabled our ad account.
5. 5.▲
   by diogenes-pithos 4y ago

   Why do you believe Signal is lying about it, and Facebook is not?
6. 6.▲
   by diogenes-pithos 4y ago

   Why are you accepting Facebook's PR narrative as true? From the article ( https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/facebook-and-signal-are-figh... ): > Signal countered on Twitter that it “absolutely did” try to