• P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 hours ago

    As shitty as Meta is, I really don’t like the reductive nature of this headline. Here is the original Guardian article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/21/meta-ban-virginia-woolf-a-room-of-ones-own-barcelona-teatre-raval

    “Meta bans ads for Virginia Woolf play in Spain because they relate to feminism”

    This turned into “Meta Now Banning Ads That Promote Feminism”, with a quote from the showrunner to make it sound even more scary. Frankly, either of them can barely be called journalism, because they can’t be bothered to write more than a page on the subject.

    • VAK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 hours ago

      They literally said that “any mention of civil rights, feminism or social reform are usually classified as ‘social topics’ by our automatic system,” and therefore rejected.

      So how the fuck is it reductive?

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Look at that. Someone claiming that people are overreacting to this clear censorship of feminism.

      What a surprise.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I don’t think the headline is reductive at all, in fact, you could take it a step further and say Facefuck has banned all social activism in advertising.