Facebook Rejects Ad Boost Honoring Illinois Police ‘Officer of the Year,” Claims It A “Sensitive Social Issue”
FB continues: “Our policy for running ads related to politics requires you to get authorized first by confirming your identity and creating a disclaimer that lists who is paying for the ads.”
This story is almost a week old, but it’s well worth sharing because it clearly demonstrates that Facebook is completely unhinged in its self-appointed role as guardians of all things social justice, including apparently upholding the antifa line of thought that “all cops are bastards.”
In an appalling display of ideological heavy-handedness, Facebook reportedly rejected an ad “boost” buy-in by the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police for an ad honoring East Peoria Officer Jeffrey Bieber as their choice for ‘Officer of the Year.’
The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police wanted more people to know about hero East Peoria Officer Jeffrey Bieber, so it planned to pay Facebook extra for a “boost” in distribution of its post, according to a report.
But the social networking giant rejected the police group’s request, citing “sensitive social issues” connected with the ad that could spark controversy, the Journal Star of Peoria reported.
Ed Wojcicki, executive director of the police group, told the newspaper he couldn’t believe Facebook would reject a tribute to a police officer.
“The way we see it is, Facebook thinks it’s wrong to honor a brave police officer who suffered serious wounds while protecting his central Illinois city. How is that remotely political?” Wojcicki asked, according to the Journal Star.
We already know that Facebook and other Big Tech social media outlets work overtime to shadowban and “limit the circulation” of posts and accounts that it deems wrongthink. What they cannot do is to accept money to “boost” an ad and continue to suppress it.
Fox News continues:
Back in February, Officer Bieber managed to fatally shoot an assailant despite having been stabbed by the suspect multiple times during a traffic stop, the newspaper reported.
The police group in July named Bieber its officer of the year and posted an announcement on Facebook, only to receive the following response from the company after trying to “boost” the post’s distribution:
“This ad content has been correctly disapproved for violation of Facebook Advertising Policies and Guidelines,” Facebook wrote in a message to the police group. “As per policy: Your ad may have been rejected because it mentions politicians or is about sensitive social issues that could influence public opinion, how people vote and may impact the outcome of an election or pending legislation.
“Our policy for running ads related to politics requires you to get authorized first by confirming your identity and creating a disclaimer that lists who is paying for the ads,” the response from Facebook continued.
But Wojcicki said Facebook’s response made no sense to him.
“Our press release mentioned no politicians and has nothing to do with any election or pending legislation,” he said. “For Facebook to suggest that seems like a huge stretch and could be a signal that it wants to block good news about police.”
The suggestion, of course, is that the Illinois group didn’t submit their “political” ad properly, according to Facebook guidelines. But that’s not what is going on here.
Watch the discussion at Fox News:
We get it, Facebook doesn’t want any ad to announce, much less celebrate, any police officer being named ‘Officer of the Year.’ After all, they are on the “defund the police,” ACAB side of the political spectrum, so respecting the police is clearly a violation of their worldview, a worldview that actually sees everything as political, including the announcement of an officer of the year.
Obviously, this is outrageous, but it also provides a blueprint for an interesting strategy to conservative outlets and organizations. Facebook must “boost” any ad it accepts monies to boost or it can send out these nonsensical emails that attempt to obfuscate their true agenda while laying it bare.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
To me, it seems very obvious that Facebook is choosing sides in the arena of good vs. evil. Some would say the wrong side.
Me!! I would definitely say the wrong side. 😛
Many would say it….a minority of people are even on the site and many have left. They just don’t seem to care.
That picture looks like Greg Gutfeld’s side-kick Tyrus!
I honestly have no idea since I don’t watch Fox News anymore (except for clips for LI, of course).
Yes…. He surprises me,,, seems to be deep thinker…
Our side could do better at not judging books by their cover…unless it’s AOC or Stacey Abrams then you have carte blanche.
Ok. So disclosure is now required for any ‘x of the year’ award because these awards are inherently political, controversial or may influence public debate or discussion that impacts or influences public policy or legislation.
FB, please be prepared to provide proof of your consistent application of this policy. This is a way to ‘regulate’ FB at the State level. Demand they do so or risk the State using another platform.
Nothing prevents a State say FL from telling FB that as of Sept 1 no State agency or political subdivision will place any content on FB. Nothing prevents the State from expanding that to contractors who wish to do receive contracts, grants or funds from the State and it’s political subdivisions in all future contracts and grant agreements.
Let this be a lesson to all police, do not do anything to promote Facebook.
Make Facebook a non-thing.
It always been a non-thing in my life, anyway.
Make it the next MySpace.
The problem is that candidates from both parties, including candidates in primaries, place a lot of political advertising on Facebook. I personally hate ads, and hate all candidates who resort to Facebook advertising. The problem is that political consultants and Facebook claim that they can microtarget ads based upon my viewing habits. So, not only does Facebook violate my privacy, it profits from selling that knowledge to the campaigns and PACs.
I don’t use Facebook. Addressing the subject of ads on the web: when they tell about a product or service, fine. When they flash, blink, have auto-start sound, or other such botherations, I will boycott the product, even if it just might be something of interest to me.
While I am ranting: those little features that so many sites have, where there is this rapid blinking like about 100 photograhper’s flashguns going off are horrible. And finally, there is the video that plays at the top of the story, and as you scroll to get rid of it, it leaps to the lower right corner and runs with no means to close it for at least several seconds,
GAH!
If cops had any sort of “solidarity” or “brotherhood,” there’d be a whole lot of Facebook employees cited for vehicular infractions in August.
Selective enforcement is always such a great idea… until a Bowser or a Lightfoot has her servants selectively enforce against YOU.
What you mean “until,” Kemosabe? The gloves are already off.
Then, why endorse
harrassmentselective enforcement.?I’m quickly getting over all the “the left can do this, but we can’t” BS. I refuse to live the rest of my life in Bill Cosby’s “Toss of the Coin” skit.
Faebook’s Dhimmi-crat, imbecilic and idiotic ethos: “Officer Bieber police officer. Police officers bad. Officer Bieber kill criminal. Criminals good.”
“This ad content has been correctly disapproved for violation of Facebook Advertising.”
“correctly disapproved”—What kind of awful wording is that? Tyrannical. Attempting to preempt any kind of argument.
I can imagine Mark Zuckerberg saying “I correctly disapprove” to his kids and allowing zero lip and therefore no dialogue. Glad I do t live in that house!
I imagine the original appeal by the PD was to write a written response indicating their belief that the post was disapproved in error. It makes sense if you think of it that way.
The wording is a little awkward but not completely incorrect, especially by today’s lax and fluid language standards where nothing is wrong if there isn’t an explicit rule against it (or the rule is obsolete like beginning sentences with “Because”, “And”, etc.).
I said nothing about the wording being incorrect.