Rendered at 15:56:30 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
colingauvin 55 minutes ago [-]
We don't have to put up with this. We simply choose to. But our laws could be whatever we want them to be.
tygon 53 minutes ago [-]
Unfortunately, "we" is often those with the monetary means to make their voice heard.
ericmay 27 minutes ago [-]
Well you can also just stop using these products. I don't have or use Facebook, Instagram, Whats App, Reddit (since they removed old.reddit.com unless you have an account), TikTok, Snap, or anything else.
Folks want Facebook or whatever to be regulated into some perfect idea they have in their heads of how it should work and how it should be regulated. Sorry, many people have many views on that, and you're never going to be happy with an outcome. Even this article - Facebook is complying with EU rules/regulations and now you're not happy that your voice isn't heard through your preferred form of political activism. If Facebook allows this content, they break EU laws, or they have to allow some content you disagree with and now you're mad.
I don't know why people, right, left, or sideways keep putting up with this stuff.
TacticalCoder 53 seconds ago [-]
> Well you can also just stop using these products. I don't have or use Facebook, Instagram, Whats App, Reddit (since they removed old.reddit.com unless you have an account), TikTok, Snap, or anything else.
I don't have any of those but I do need one messenger to communicate with my buddies in the EU. As I'm a "fuck the Zuck" person and an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft), Telegram is my poison.
I don't have any doubt: I know it's not E2EE (and I doubt that one-on-one encrypted communication --it's a setting you MUST turn on-- in Telegram is actually really E2EE).
But Telegram is neither from the Zuck nor from Microsoft, so that's a big win for me.
Also basically everyone in the EU has Telegram now.
dgellow 14 minutes ago [-]
That has absolutely nothing to do with the EU regulation that requires to label political ads and restricts targeting technics
ericmay 10 minutes ago [-]
Yes it does. You're using the product and seeing the ad. You and others are mad that the product is complying with the regulation in a way you don't prefer. Stop using the product, and no ad is there to be seen and none of this matters.
dgellow 8 minutes ago [-]
I don’t use meta’s products. The issue has absolutely nothing to do about an ad ban. There is no ban of political advertising in the EU.
ericmay 7 minutes ago [-]
Ban/regulation, whatever. It's in the article and comments. Whatever you want to call that.
dgellow 3 minutes ago [-]
> When the newly reopened Teatre Raval, which seats 193 spectators, asked Meta, the parent company of the two social media sites, why its publicity had been blocked, it was told “any mention of civil rights, feminism or social reform [topics that are central to Woolf’s work] are usually classified as ‘social topics’ by our automatic system” and are filtered out.
That’s Meta response. There is no mention of any regulation in that article.
eithed 10 minutes ago [-]
Same here - idk why are people jumping on the wagon of attributing the restriction to EU regulation. Looks to be a US compliance banning social topics that Trump administration is pursuing (but again, idk if that's the case)
alt227 24 minutes ago [-]
"We" is a massive group of people who all have wildly different ideas. Saying "laws could be what we want them to be" is highly subjective depending on who the "we" is at that current time.
p-e-w 35 minutes ago [-]
At this point, I suspect that comments like this one are part of an astroturfing campaign by the ruling class.
It’s the same bullshit as “we could stop climate change if only we bothered to bring cloth bags to the store instead of picking up a disposable plastic bag each time”.
“We” don’t have any power. And once you accept that, you can stop blaming yourself and your neighbors for the world you live in, and direct your anger where it belongs.
chneu 22 minutes ago [-]
The power is with the people. It only takes about 1/4th of a community enact massive change.
Your take is exactly what keeps people apathetic and reliant on others.
"It's someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility" is what you're saying.
It relieves the individual of the outcome of their actions. 8 billion people matter.
If I were an abuser, I would LOVE to hear my victims say they are powerless. Think about that.
p-e-w 3 minutes ago [-]
> 8 billion people matter
I doubt that even 8,000 people “matter” in the sense of having meaningful power.
geraneum 28 minutes ago [-]
> direct your anger where it belongs.
Where does it belong?
alt227 21 minutes ago [-]
> Where does it belong?
Their argument is so generic they would probably say something equally as generic and useless like 'The billionaires"
ajkjk 8 minutes ago [-]
it's the opposite? the person you're replying to is exactly correct... the giant delusion that sustains this whole shitty thing is the public's disenchantment with politics; everything feels bad but no one seems to believe in "passing different laws" as the method of changing it so instead they just vent their frustrations in hopes that someone who already has power will by the goodness of their heart decide to do a better job. when in fact the lever fox fixing things, democracy, still (for the most part) exists, but almost nobody is coordinating to pull it.
causally I think this is because we all grew up watching government operate glacially and so nobody really believes there's an alternative... but I eagerly await the day that millennials realize they can just win every election and fix everything that sucks about their world by basically trying really hard and coordinating with each other.
willy_k 32 minutes ago [-]
“We” do, we could, if organized. Per your first point, that is the problem today - agreeing on a shared goal rather than infighting about all the peripheral issues.
alt227 18 minutes ago [-]
Whos "We"?
I would hazard a guess theres stuff that I don't agree with you on, and we would want certain laws written differently. Its important to remember that we all vote for what we think is right, based on a system evolved over thousands of years to cater for human fallibility. The modern rhetoric of "us against the billionaires" is simply not how the world works, despite how much people want it to.
david-gpu 29 minutes ago [-]
What looks like a peripheral issue to you is somebody else's central goal. And vice versa.
colechristensen 30 minutes ago [-]
>“We” don’t have any power.
<Ned Flanders' father>: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
People who say this have never tried, do nothing themselves to contribute to improving the problem or to convince others or the government to improve the problem besides perhaps complaining on the internet in a bubble of likeminded people who don't need their minds changed.
lynx97 12 minutes ago [-]
What is the problem?
aworks 7 minutes ago [-]
Is this an EU or Spain issue? I regularly attend at a theatre in Chicago that has socially "sensitive" plays. I often see their ads on Facebook.
dgellow 2 minutes ago [-]
It’s a meta problem
15 minutes ago [-]
latexr 10 minutes ago [-]
> To resolve the situation, Meta recommended removing “key words” so that the text doesn’t appear to encourage activism.
Move along now, little sheep, don’t make a racket. Can’t disturb count Zuckerberg as he’s pleasuring his masters.
jmclnx 1 hours ago [-]
Why meta is not fully banned in the EU is beyond me :)
I know banning or forcing meta to obey laws in the US is impossible due to bribes (political contributions), but in the EU I would think meta could at the very least be reined in.
mminer237 55 minutes ago [-]
This actually is a result of Meta being forced to obey EU law. Not sure why the article didn't explain things at all, but Regulation (EU) 2024/900 greatly restricts political advertising with typical vagueness, so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.
tygon 41 minutes ago [-]
Information like this should be front-and-center. Call it malicious compliance if one wishes, but if there is one thing that is clear, Meta does not do anything (besides try and make money) without being forced to. A blanket ban on anything political does indeed mean a ban on all sides of an issue, even ones many would agree is positive.
dgellow 19 minutes ago [-]
The comment you’re responding to and that you want front and center is plainly wrong. The regulation is about transparency and restricting targeted advertising technics for political advertising. That has nothing to do with the situation at hand, it is meta doing something on their own.
And your point about Meta being forced to act is also wrong, companies aren’t just passive institutions that only react to regulations, they constantly take decisions and actions, and regularly manufacture that type of situation as a way to lobby regulators
rr842j 22 minutes ago [-]
If that were the case, we wouldn't have far right AI generated political ads everywhere in Facebook. Just one example from France this week[1]
I don't know what motivation Facebook has to automatically limit certain political advertising and not other, but it certainly has nothing to do with EU regulation
are the things that you linked to adverts? as in, someone paid facebook to promote them in the ad bit? or are they just regular content.
tantalor 31 minutes ago [-]
It doesn't ban political advertising, it requires labeling/transparency, and prohibits targeting without consent or based on categories like race or religion.
It also defines political ad narrowly as placed by a political actor or campaign, or intended to influence some part of the political process, like voting, legislation, or regulatory action.
RugnirViking 16 minutes ago [-]
the law came into effect due to widespread advertising campaigns on facebook by someone (often thought to be russian government based) for both sides of any culture war topics, presumably to drive division. Things like simultaneously advertising BLM/ACAB + thin blue line.
tantalor 38 minutes ago [-]
> Not sure why the article didn't explain things at all
The answer is right in front of your eyes: theguardian.com
darkwater 34 minutes ago [-]
> so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.
No. Meta enforces a broad ban because they don't want EU to regulate them, so they drag their feet and create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage" so people will get upset at the regulation instead of the company. So, pieces like this from The Guardian are surely needed.
nottorp 29 minutes ago [-]
> create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage"
Other examples of this bullshit being cookie consent dialogs and Apple acting like a victim for being forced to open their platform a bit.
watwut 35 minutes ago [-]
No, showing ads for feminism or social issues related plays is not illegal in Europe. Nor fined. And it is practically practiced all around the Europe.
This strategy of "we will lie about what the law enforces, so that we can blame the regulator instead of the company" is getting old.
AnimalMuppet 22 minutes ago [-]
How is a Virginia Woolf play "political advertising"?
ActionHank 1 hours ago [-]
We just need to start pirate streams of football games and it will be gone within the week.
fooqux 57 minutes ago [-]
I'm not saying it's not bad in the USA (because it is) but if you think there's no corruption or bribing in EU politics then I don't know what to say.
1attice 54 minutes ago [-]
Although both continents are presently losing themselves to fascism, quantity still has a quality all its own.
ericmay 35 minutes ago [-]
You're on the right track but instead of losing themselves to fascism what you should more accurately be pointing out, in my opinion, is that in general societies are becoming a lot more open to authoritarian ideologies, whether that's communism, fascism, or similar.
mhitza 49 minutes ago [-]
Why do you think so many big tech companies are registering subsidiaries in Ireland? (Aside form the "Double Irish" mechanism that used to be in vogue more than a decade ago).
Plenty of hands seem to be well greased over there given how long it takes to issue fines for clear&cut violations of EU regulation.
45 minutes ago [-]
thesmtsolver2 45 minutes ago [-]
So, Meta should be banned because it followed EU law to ban some things?
Wow, Europeans do have a penchant for recursively banning things :)
troupo 30 minutes ago [-]
No. Supranational corporations will find any and all ways to be maliciously compliant and blame the EU.
watwut 32 minutes ago [-]
Neither feminism nor social issues are banned in European advertissements.
21 minutes ago [-]
martythemaniak 40 minutes ago [-]
Sounds like malicious compliance, they should get a fine for that as well.
abirch 14 minutes ago [-]
Maybe they should be forced to advertise "Careless People"
pogopop77 23 minutes ago [-]
Well now we know Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Meta, apparently.
durjfirk8rjrj 58 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Illniyar 29 minutes ago [-]
Probably got better publicity with this ban then if they actually showed the ads.
My money is that this is manufactured by some PR team.
Possibly the Ad's text was purposely inflammatory (something like "overthrow the patriarchy" or something) so that they can say it was banned.
jetrink 16 minutes ago [-]
Yes, Meta has consistently acted with integrity and has earned the benefit of the doubt in situations like these. It's safer to assume that the massive PR team working for this one-woman play in Spain has manufactured the whole thing, including the damning quotes, which the Guardian has somehow published without properly verifying.
petcat 17 minutes ago [-]
Appears to be a response to EU regulation in 2025 banning political/electoral advertising [1]:
> Ending Political, Electoral and Social Issue Advertising in the EU in Response to Incoming European Regulation
I guess rather than micro-regulate what constitutes "designed to influence an election/referendum, voting behavior, or a legislative/regulatory process", they just decided to refuse to run ads for anything potentially politically or socially "sensitive".
I'm guessing that they also refuse to run ads for things that are less socially acceptable such as anti-feminism which I would say is a good thing.
Folks want Facebook or whatever to be regulated into some perfect idea they have in their heads of how it should work and how it should be regulated. Sorry, many people have many views on that, and you're never going to be happy with an outcome. Even this article - Facebook is complying with EU rules/regulations and now you're not happy that your voice isn't heard through your preferred form of political activism. If Facebook allows this content, they break EU laws, or they have to allow some content you disagree with and now you're mad.
I don't know why people, right, left, or sideways keep putting up with this stuff.
I don't have any of those but I do need one messenger to communicate with my buddies in the EU. As I'm a "fuck the Zuck" person and an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft), Telegram is my poison.
I don't have any doubt: I know it's not E2EE (and I doubt that one-on-one encrypted communication --it's a setting you MUST turn on-- in Telegram is actually really E2EE).
But Telegram is neither from the Zuck nor from Microsoft, so that's a big win for me.
Also basically everyone in the EU has Telegram now.
That’s Meta response. There is no mention of any regulation in that article.
It’s the same bullshit as “we could stop climate change if only we bothered to bring cloth bags to the store instead of picking up a disposable plastic bag each time”.
“We” don’t have any power. And once you accept that, you can stop blaming yourself and your neighbors for the world you live in, and direct your anger where it belongs.
Your take is exactly what keeps people apathetic and reliant on others.
"It's someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility" is what you're saying.
It relieves the individual of the outcome of their actions. 8 billion people matter.
If I were an abuser, I would LOVE to hear my victims say they are powerless. Think about that.
I doubt that even 8,000 people “matter” in the sense of having meaningful power.
Where does it belong?
Their argument is so generic they would probably say something equally as generic and useless like 'The billionaires"
causally I think this is because we all grew up watching government operate glacially and so nobody really believes there's an alternative... but I eagerly await the day that millennials realize they can just win every election and fix everything that sucks about their world by basically trying really hard and coordinating with each other.
I would hazard a guess theres stuff that I don't agree with you on, and we would want certain laws written differently. Its important to remember that we all vote for what we think is right, based on a system evolved over thousands of years to cater for human fallibility. The modern rhetoric of "us against the billionaires" is simply not how the world works, despite how much people want it to.
<Ned Flanders' father>: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
People who say this have never tried, do nothing themselves to contribute to improving the problem or to convince others or the government to improve the problem besides perhaps complaining on the internet in a bubble of likeminded people who don't need their minds changed.
Move along now, little sheep, don’t make a racket. Can’t disturb count Zuckerberg as he’s pleasuring his masters.
I know banning or forcing meta to obey laws in the US is impossible due to bribes (political contributions), but in the EU I would think meta could at the very least be reined in.
And your point about Meta being forced to act is also wrong, companies aren’t just passive institutions that only react to regulations, they constantly take decisions and actions, and regularly manufacture that type of situation as a way to lobby regulators
I don't know what motivation Facebook has to automatically limit certain political advertising and not other, but it certainly has nothing to do with EU regulation
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2026/09/19/the-lucr...
It also defines political ad narrowly as placed by a political actor or campaign, or intended to influence some part of the political process, like voting, legislation, or regulatory action.
The answer is right in front of your eyes: theguardian.com
No. Meta enforces a broad ban because they don't want EU to regulate them, so they drag their feet and create the most possible "unwanted collateral damage" so people will get upset at the regulation instead of the company. So, pieces like this from The Guardian are surely needed.
Other examples of this bullshit being cookie consent dialogs and Apple acting like a victim for being forced to open their platform a bit.
This strategy of "we will lie about what the law enforces, so that we can blame the regulator instead of the company" is getting old.
Plenty of hands seem to be well greased over there given how long it takes to issue fines for clear&cut violations of EU regulation.
Wow, Europeans do have a penchant for recursively banning things :)
My money is that this is manufactured by some PR team.
Possibly the Ad's text was purposely inflammatory (something like "overthrow the patriarchy" or something) so that they can say it was banned.
> Ending Political, Electoral and Social Issue Advertising in the EU in Response to Incoming European Regulation
I guess rather than micro-regulate what constitutes "designed to influence an election/referendum, voting behavior, or a legislative/regulatory process", they just decided to refuse to run ads for anything potentially politically or socially "sensitive".
I'm guessing that they also refuse to run ads for things that are less socially acceptable such as anti-feminism which I would say is a good thing.
[1] https://about.fb.com/news/2025/07/ending-political-electoral...