> To resolve the situation, Meta recommended removing “key words” so that the text doesn’t appear to encourage activism.
Move along now, don’t make a racket, don’t do anything to disturb count Zuckerberg and his masters. Go away with your progressive ideas like… Allowing women to express themselves.
Beginning October 2025, Meta – like other platforms – will no longer allow social issue, electoral and political ads our platforms in the EU, given the unworkable requirements and legal uncertainties introduced by the EU Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) regulation.
The TTPA will restrict how advertisers can reach their audiences, which means people will also see less relevant content.
We remain committed to enabling political speech and fair elections. This won’t prevent people or candidates in the EU from posting about and debating politics on our platforms.
...
Ads about civil and social rights, with ad content that includes discussion, debate or advocacy for or against topics including but not limited to freedom of religion, LGBTQ+ rights and women's rights are subject to review and enforcement.
Ineligible to run in the EU:
"Free speech is under attack across college campuses — excessive censorship needs to stop. ”
“It's time for us all to stand up and demand equal rights for women. ”
"It's critical for trans people to be given their own voice. "
Eligible to run in the EU
“Civil rights exhibition opens on Monday. ”
---
That document describes how Meta has chosen to comply (and complain about) TTPA.
The question here appears to be "is Meta willing to risk going to court and getting fined about an advertisement for Virginia Woolf in Spain?" The answer has always been "no".
The translation that I got for the text in the image in the Guardian article is:
Clara Sanchis returns to Barcelona with this ironic and provocative show, an icon of feminism, with live music.
I might be missing something in translation, it doesn't seem excessive to me, though Meta is likely being extra prickly to the point of malicious compliance... but they are regulated about what can go into an advertisement about a social issue under the TTPA.
Anything other than entirely milquetoast wording on any social issue is likely to get banned on Meta in the EU.
From Meta's point of view, anything they do gets them brought into court in the EU, and it's likely cheaper to be brought this way rather than getting fined and brought into court.
Take the advertisement to the courts in the EU and get them to declare that it's not in violation of the TTPA.
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
Move along now, don’t make a racket, don’t do anything to disturb count Zuckerberg and his masters. Go away with your progressive ideas like… Allowing women to express themselves.
shagie · · focus · HN ↗
That document describes how Meta has chosen to comply (and complain about) TTPA.
The question here appears to be "is Meta willing to risk going to court and getting fined about an advertisement for Virginia Woolf in Spain?" The answer has always been "no".
The translation that I got for the text in the image in the Guardian article is:
I might be missing something in translation, it doesn't seem excessive to me, though Meta is likely being extra prickly to the point of malicious compliance... but they are regulated about what can go into an advertisement about a social issue under the TTPA.Anything other than entirely milquetoast wording on any social issue is likely to get banned on Meta in the EU.
From Meta's point of view, anything they do gets them brought into court in the EU, and it's likely cheaper to be brought this way rather than getting fined and brought into court.
Take the advertisement to the courts in the EU and get them to declare that it's not in violation of the TTPA.