Level1 News July 14 2020 - Over The Loon

The Fallout from Facebook's Meeting with Advertisers

Last week, it was reported that Facebook had internally met to discuss the ongoing boycott and backlash against the company. The meeting came after a leaked document revealed that Zuckerberg had expressed confidence that the ads would be back on soon. However, in reality, the situation is more complex than initially thought.

The meeting between Facebook executives and representatives of several major advertisers, including Unilever, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks, was seen as an attempt to address the growing boycott movement. The leaders of these groups had been demanding that Facebook take action to address concerns over hate speech and misinformation on the platform. Despite the meeting, it appears that no concrete plans were outlined for resolving the issues.

The advertisers who pulled their ads from Facebook, including Unilever and Coca-Cola, seemed disappointed with the outcome of the meeting. One of them stated that Zuckerberg's attendance was not enough to satisfy their demands, and that he needed to provide a clear plan for addressing the problems on the platform. The disappointment was palpable, as it became clear that no amount of money could buy back the trust of these major advertisers.

The boycott movement has been gaining momentum in recent weeks, with several high-profile companies, including Unilever and Coca-Cola, pulling their ads from Facebook. This move has had a significant impact on the company's bottom line, with some estimates suggesting that the losses could be substantial. The pressure is mounting, as Facebook struggles to find a solution to the crisis.

In an attempt to address the issue, Facebook considered banning political ads before the 2020 US election. However, this plan was met with skepticism, with many arguing that it would not have any significant impact on the debate. Critics pointed out that even if political ads were removed from the platform, they could still be shared through other means, such as social media and word of mouth.

The argument against banning political ads is that it would unfairly disadvantage certain candidates who rely heavily on these ads to reach their audience. For example, Trump has been known to have a significant following, and his ability to connect with his supporters through targeted ads cannot be ignored. In contrast, Biden has struggled to gain traction in the campaign trail, and banning political ads could only exacerbate this problem.

Despite the lack of concrete plans from Facebook, it appears that the company is aware that something needs to be done. The Oversight Committee, which was established to review content removed from the platform, has been criticized for being toothless. The committee's power to review decisions made by Facebook executives is limited, and its impact on the company's policies is uncertain.

The situation with the Oversight Committee highlights the challenges facing Facebook as it tries to navigate this crisis. The committee only comes into play after a piece of content has already been taken down, which means that it cannot be used proactively to address issues before they arise. This limitation has led many to question the effectiveness of the committee and its ability to have any real impact on the company's policies.

In conclusion, Facebook's meeting with advertisers was seen as an attempt to address the growing boycott movement, but it appears that no concrete plans were outlined for resolving the issues. The pressure is mounting, and the company needs to find a solution quickly if it wants to regain the trust of its advertisers and users.