[layoffdenial]

From someone who worked on this program at Meta before getting laid off: the ads aren't banned. Ads about social issues (including the right to vote -- which like it or not is an active issue in some of the world) are more sensitive than others. They need a disclaimer so that it's transparent who is paying for the ads, which is literally in the error message in the screenshot.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

Disclaimer and identity validation.

Presumably because they want to make it a bit harder for malicious foreign influence operations to run divisive ad campaigns.

Honestly, identity validation should probably be required for _all_ ads, given how many scams you can find there nowadays and how bad actors just show up with the next sockpuppet once caught. Being trigger-happy on requiring identity validation is the next best thing.

Given how clearly it's stated even in the screenshot shown in the article, I wonder if neither the creator nor BoardGameWire can read, or both are just trying to stir up drama (rather than addressing the issue) because it's much better free advertisement, or they tried that but that crucial fact got completely omitted from the article.

[outofpaper]

Yes. Anyone familiar with Meta adversity policies can see that this article is grasping at straws and ignoring the transparency policy. Anyone can browse through the Facebook Ad Library and see hundreds of thousands of these cases. Teams often have the blocked ads back up and running with the disclaimer n both versions are visible in. The Library.

[PeterisP]

I am a bit confused about it being treated as a socially relevant issue - it definitely was a relevant socially sensitive issue back then, but that was 100 years ago, and now it's not an active issue - as far as I understand, women can vote in currently literally every country in the world which has voting; there are some countries where nobody can vote, but that's still treating women equally with respect to voting rights.

[mitthrowaway2]

Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote* as of 2015, which is recent enough that there's probably still a significant fraction of the population that isn't enthusiastically on board.

* In local elections; they don't have national elections.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote as of 2015

Saudi Arabia is 0.018% of Facebook audience. Factoring in language differences and content geofencing and it'll be about a handful Saudis likely to see an ad for the game - all of them probably visiting the US.

So bring it home for us. How do 6 Saudis (of unknown opinion on voting)

transform a longstanding reality - that women vote

into an issue so sensitive that banning game ads is a reasonable response?

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm certainly not expressing the opinion that the policy is reasonable.