Facebook permanently locks conservative children books publisher

[EvilCat Breath]

What that means to me is they are out the money they spent creating the ads as well as the money for the ads that already ran.

Then your meaning is wrong. They invested most of their advertising money on the platform. FB should refund the money.

 

[BWK]

Great....you again

I take that as your concession. Thanks! As always you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Read more of the article. If you don't see a heavy breach of contract claim I should think you a simpleton.

Do you know what the contract between them and FB said? Is it possible there is a clause from FB saying if you break the rules then you do not get a refund? you are making assumptions you have nothing to base them on.

There was an inherent benefit for Heroes of Liberty to being able to direct people to their Facebook page based on the advertisements they had already paid for. This decision in essence reverses the marketing momentum gain from advertising on the platform--a highly foreseeable benefit from the contract Facebook unilaterally canceled.

Yes it does. They should have thought about that when given the first warning. But they choose to ignore it.

A few years back I was golfing with some friends at a rather expensive course and there was a bit too much drinking going on. On the 7th green the Ranger warned our group to settle down or be kicked off. 2 holes later we were tossed for breaking the rules. We lost our money paid to golf there. It was our own fault.

This is no different.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then your meaning is wrong. They invested most of their advertising money on the platform. FB should refund the money.

Thank you for your opinion of my opinion.

Though I do agree if they had money for ads not spent in the future they should get that money back

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I take that as your concession. Thanks! As always you put your foot in your mouth.

No, you're irratating and every thread you engage in becomes a kindergarten like environment.

I myself despise censorship no matter who's doing it.

 

[EvMetro]

am here to defend a private company making a business decisions just as I defended the right of a baker to say "no, I will not make that cake". I suppose you attacked the guy for saying that.

Whether I approve of those decisions or not is irrelevant.

I personally disagreed with the baker refusing to make the cake, but I 100% supported his right to say no.

I do not have to agree with something to support the right for it to happen. I am not like you.

You support companies who use suppression of speech as a weapon against your political opponents. You respect businesses that use censorship, and you are here to support censorship.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you know what the contract between them and FB said? Is it possible there is a clause from FB saying if you break the rules then you do not get a refund? you are making assumptions you have nothing to base them on.

Surely, Facebook would have articulated how Heroes of Liberty broke said rules, would they not?

So far --- NOTHING!!! Just this:

Yes it does. They should have thought about that when given the first warning. But they choose to ignore it.

What first warning? What about their advertising was "Low Quality" or "Disruptive" that would have given Heroes of Liberty notice of the potential breach and an opportunity to cure?

NOTHING

A few years back I was golfing with some friends at a rather expensive course and there was a bit too much drinking going on. On the 7th green the Ranger warned our group to settle down or be kicked off. 2 holes later we were tossed for breaking the rules. We lost our money paid to golf there. It was our own fault.

See, you have a specific reason as to why you were tossed. Here? See above.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You support companies who use suppression of speech as a weapon against your political opponents. You respect businesses that use censorship, and you are here to support censorship.

I support the right of companies to do so. I have no respect at all for FB or Zuck, but that does not mean I will not support their rights.

Again, this is the main difference between you and I, you only support things you agree with. I do not have to agree with an action to support the right for it to happen

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Surely, Facebook would have articulated how Heroes of Liberty broke said rules, would they not?

So far --- NOTHING!!! Just this:

You have no idea what FB sent them, only what they are willing to show you.

What first warning? What about their advertising was "Low Quality" or "Disruptive" that would have given Heroes of Liberty notice of the potential breach and an opportunity to cure?

The OP said they were given a warning before they were blocked for good.

See, you have a specific reason as to why you were tossed. Here? See above.

Again, you have no clue what details that FB gave them. I was given a week vacation from FB for comparing Trump to Mussolini on a balcony, and I was given very clear details of why I got the ban for a week.

 

[BWK]

No, you're irratating and every thread you engage in becomes a kindergarten like environment.

I myself despise censorship no matter who's doing it.

Says the one creating a kindergarten like thread, about a guy who was locked out of FB for pedaling politics.

I explained to you how it was political, by way of a provable link, that also describes the hypocrisy of the books hero, and you think the argument is kindergarten? You got had for an argument you never should have posted. Censorship exists for a reason. And in this case, the reason was justified.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You have no idea what FB sent them, only what they are willing to show you.

Where is facebook's comment on the situation?

Keep in mind, they have done this shit MANY times before.

The OP said they were given a warning before they were blocked for good.

Okay. What was the warning?

Surely, Facebook would have already responded with this information about how Heroes of Liberty were breaking the rules, right?

Keep in mind, this has happened MANY times before.

Again, you have no clue what details that FB gave them. I was given a week vacation from FB for comparing Trump to Mussolini on a balcony, and I was given very clear details of why I got the ban for a week.

Right. You were given very clear details.

So, what did Heroes of Liberty do that they would not have corrected and wasted an entire year's worth of advertising budget?

Why have we not seen what Facebook said? Why has Facebook not responded?

Probably because the actual reason is that "people hate Reagan, Uncle Tom Sewell, and Coney Barrett and they are complaining."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Facts are facts. They are nothing more.

Broken record is broken record. You are nothing more.

 

[EvMetro]

I support the right of companies to do so. I have no respect at all for FB or Zuck, but that does not mean I will not support their rights.

Again, this is the main difference between you and I, you only support things you agree with. I do not have to agree with an action to support the right for it to happen

You support companies that do bad things. You will ALWAYS have reasons to support censorship. Every one of your posts on this site support censorship, and you will ALWAYS support censorship. The legalities of censorship will always be more important to you than what's right and wrong, since you are loyal to forced suppression of speech.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Says the one creating a kindergarten like thread, about a guy who was locked out of FB for pedaling politics.

I explained to you how it was political, by way of a provable link, that also describes the hypocrisy of the books hero, and you think the argument is kindergarten? You got had for an argument you never should have posted. Censorship exists for a reason. And in this case, the reason was justified.

It's a company not a "guy". You didn't even read the OP but just have to bloviate. Get lost

 

[BWK]

I support the right of companies to do so. I have no respect at all for FB or Zuck, but that does not mean I will not support their rights.

Again, this is the main difference between you and I, you only support things you agree with. I do not have to agree with an action to support the right for it to happen

It's all relative and convenient for the crowd on the Right. They can't see past their noses when it comes to something they don't like.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's all relative and convenient for the crowd on the Right. They can't see past their noses when it comes to something they don't like.

Irony just shit its pants.

 

[BWK]

You support companies that do bad things. You will ALWAYS have reasons to support censorship. Every one of your posts on this site support censorship, and you will ALWAYS support censorship. The legalities of censorship will always be more important to you than what's right and wrong, since you are loyal to forced suppression of speech.

Your convenient narrative of a publisher selling a political book, depicting a hero for liberty, when he was not, has no relationship with "right." Get a clue.

 

[BWK]

Irony just shit its pants.

And your five word wonder of a argument just fixed everything. Please, tell us more.

 

[BWK]

It's a company not a "guy". You didn't even read the OP but just have to bloviate. Get lost

Company or guy is not a relevant argument. The book exists doesn't it? Here's your problem; you don't have an intelligent argument against the censorship of this book. It's political, and it's also a lie. And I proved it. Beyond that, your argument was DOA before you ever created the thread. Get over it. It is what it is.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where is facebook's comment on the situation?

Keep in mind, they have done this shit MANY times before.


Okay. What was the warning?

Surely, Facebook would have already responded with this information about how Heroes of Liberty were breaking the rules, right?

Keep in mind, this has happened MANY times before.

Right. You were given very clear details.

So, what did Heroes of Liberty do that they would not have corrected and wasted an entire year's worth of advertising budget?

Why have we not seen what Facebook said? Why has Facebook not responded?

Probably because the actual reason is that "people hate Reagan, Uncle Tom Sewell, and Coney Barrett and they are complaining."

Yes, I was given details. I would have been pissed had FB given those details to anyone else. You have no idea what FB told these people, it is in their best interest to make FB look as bad a possible.