[sonotmyname]

> 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]

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.