[JimJames]

I find it strange that there is pressure from companies advertising on facebook about this. They signed up for ads on a user generated content site and then are displeased with some of the content?

Why are they even concerned about this? "Sexual assualt 'humor'" is in the extreme minority of posts on facebook. Maybe they don't want their ads next to it but that's what they signed up for. They wanted their ads next to whatever people posted on facebook knowing that the content was out of their control.

[onan_barbarian]

This is a rather disingenuous comment.

Maybe they didn't anticipate that a site that rigorously polices (for example) breast-feeding pictures and race hate material wouldn't rigorously police "rape a bitch" image macros.

They have discovered that having their ads next to this sort of content is not what they signed up for, after all, and are planning to unsign up for this stuff. Companies change their minds all the time about where they advertise - advertising on a service isn't some sort of lifetime promise.

[catweasel]

I'm not sure his comment was disingenuous. But you're right, it's bizarre that FB jumps to remove breast feeding images and yet leaves the most vile rubbish untouched. And unsurprising activists are targeting advertisers after repeatedly getting nowhere with FB itself.

[JimJames]

I will not be sad to see "rape a bitch" macros go but having their ads next to stuff like this is exactly what they signed up for. They signed up for their ads to be displayed next to whatever anyone posted.

Anyone who has used the internet for any length of time knows there are large amounts of disturbing content on it which will definitely spill into any user generated content site. I find it hard to believe that 15 separate companies failed to realise this, especially since I would expect their advertising departments to be well read on "the internet".

What I think may be happening is one company latching onto a group of activists with a very reasonable request to get some positive press and a bunch of companies "me too"ing along behind them. 4 companies were named in this article and 2 of them got airtime on NBC with the most inoffensive sound byte ever ("we are against rape"). That's free TV air time in a news slot appealing to your core demographic.

[lowboy]

They signed up for having their ads shown next to content that is within Facebook's posting guidelines. Or else why not advertise on /b/ if you truly had no qualms about the content?

While I don't discount that they're going to get some press over this, raising issues over Facebook tacitly supporting rape culture is perfectly acceptable for a company.

[KNoureen]

Facebook is a private company and depends on income from advertisers to provide a "free" service. So in reality it is the advertisers who control Facebook I would say, and therefore have some weight to throw around.

[amarcus]

Facebook is a public company.

[k-mcgrady]

Parent might mean it's a private sector business not a public sector one.

[pyre]

They obviously have weight to throw around, but it seems really odd that they are getting into the arena, and then complaining about the conditions (even though they should have known what they were getting in for when they threw in).

[hkmurakami]

I imagine they're accustomed to having sway over the content on any number of traditional media outlets on which they have advertised in the past.

[catweasel]

They (the advertisers) are under pressure from feminist activist groups like /DestroyTheJoint , and www.womenactionmedia.org/fbagreement