[diogenes-pithos]

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 convincing evidence of that.

Are the following all not possible?

1. They are unable to access that account or page any longer

2. Facebook chose to lie about this in a way that is not easily disproved by a screenshot.

3. Facebook disabled their account because of their ad content, but chose to put up a message that was more ambiguous.

*edit: formatting & make messaging more polite

[cmeacham98]

> Are the following all not possible?

Correct, none of them are! When I last used Facebook advertising at a prior employer, they sent you an email when your ad was rejected informing you of this fact. Assuming that is still true (and I don't see any reason they would change this), then Signal should have undeniable proof about the claim that Facebook rejected their ads (which Facebook claims they did not do).

Of course, I strongly believe we will never see this evidence, because I think that Signal is lying and thus it doesn't exist.

The fact that Signal has not produced this evidence is strong evidence they are lying, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing so. It would also be extremely weird for Facebook to lie about this, given they would know such evidence exists and Signal could easily disprove their lies.

[diogenes-pithos]

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.

[cmeacham98]

We can fairly reasonably assume whoever is telling the truth is doing so about both things. Signal should know whether or not their payment details were actually having issues or not.

Now, if you want, you can believe that Signal is lying about whether or not the ads were rejected, wrote an extremely misleading blog post that strongly implies the suspension was permanent when it was temporary, but has correctly guessed that the real reason for the (temporary) suspension was their (unsubmitted) ads, and that they wrote this blog post rather than trying to submit their ads for the first time after being unsuspended.

But at that point, I would say that you are "presupposing because you're coming to a conclusion that is not justified by the evidence". You are so strongly biased that Facebook must 100% prove their innocence on every single point, but are just automatically assuming Signal is telling the truth with no evidence.