Facebook defaces Noseweek

Every month Noseweek advertises its current issue on Facebook.

It’s an entirely automated affair and every advert is “reviewed” by an algorithm, and either approved or disapproved within minutes of its creation.

In nose217 the magazine featured an extract from a recently published book titled Done by eminent BBC journalist Jacques Peretti. In it Peretti describes how the world’s ultra-rich actually identified global inequality as a business opportunity that they planned to exploit – and widen. To them, he reported, it was a gift-horse like no other.

Peretti revealed that in 2006, a Citigroup consultant had predicted that by 2015 the 100 richest people would own the same as half the world’s population. In fact by 2015 just eight men owned as much as the poorest half of the world’s population: 3.7 billion people. Peretti named these extremely well-known and vastly wealthy eight men; Noseweek published their portraits to illustrate this remarkable must-read story.

The story was the obvious one to feature in a Facebook ad announcing the publication of the November issue of Noseweek – accompanied by the portraits of the eight richest men. But within 24 hours of the advert going live, Facebook canned it. Why? Because Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg is one of the eight.

Their official explanation: “We don’t allow adverts to use the image of Mark Zuckerberg when promoting a product or service”. Does that include a serious news story published in the public interest? Their reply: Noseweek was free to appeal against their decision.

We appealed – and got no response. In any event, appealing for the right to advertise a news story so obviously in the public interest just seemed daft. So we changed the advert and instead of using Zuckerberg’s image we replaced it with “censored”.  The Facebook police appeared to be happy with this.

We have since learnt that Facebook is awash with “do-nots” in its attempt to occupy the moral high ground. For instance you cannot advertise tobacco related products, weapons or “sensational content” defined as imagery that may “shock or scare viewers”.  You can’t have “controversial content” that “exploits controversial political or social issues for commercial purposes” – the mainstay of newspapers – and you can’t ask a person “Are you a Christian?” or have a leading sentence such as “Meet other Buddhists”.

Yet you can advertise alcohol, dating, gambling, natural remedies and online pharmacies, although these must have prior written approval.

They do have one quirky rule Noseweek approves of: “Adverts must not contain … bad grammar and punctuation. Symbols, numbers and letters must be used properly.”

Absolutely! Apostrophe abusers should be banned from the internet!

media censorship
Mark Zuckerberg
internet ethics

worlds richest men
Share this article:

Reader's comments

Like to add your own comment ? Please click here to subscribe - OR -
Submitted by : Dave Wailer of Kelvin on 2017-12-09 09:54:54
For the past few weeks I have been blocked by FB. I have appealed several times and have been ignored. However the last time I appealed in writing and sent it their listed email address. The block was lifted the following day.
The blocking process is certainly automatic - the large number of postings would require it to be so. The algorithm is faulty and I believe it needs to be reviewed.
Submitted by : Gabrie Jansen on 2017-11-25 08:19:08

We knew to be wary of large concentrations of capital but the "social media" ones have an extra baton, deployable instantaneously. What pisses off is the macebooks and foogles now becoming enforcers of arbitrary "values" - I don't care what word or phrasess they use: I object.

Try this: the next few times you search the net with a foogle, duplicate the search on DuckDuckGO (https://duckduckgo.com/) and compare results. Oh, and look at the DDG privacy statement.

In the above context, consider the successfully manufactured anti-Russia hysteria (Russia Today has now been registered as a "foreign agent" in the land of the free) and combine with this idea: RT is "dangerous" to the lands of the free because it provides a platform to voices from the lands of the free that would otherwise be unheard. (The pro-Russia propaganda on RT is minimal, easily identifiable and innocuous but you might have to grind your teeth when RT shows it patriarchal and orthodox religious shade.)

The New York Times had, until very recently, not mentioned even once the name of Noam Chomsky, literally for decades. Noam Chomsky interviewed on the see-en-ens or bee-bee-see's of the world? No chance whatsoever.

Oh, and finally: there is no conspiracy, no organised illumination, no united heaps of capital for a defined new world order; we do live in deep dusk though. It is just that each large concentration of capital has a selfish profit motive and that when requirements for profit overlap between these large concentrations of capital, they work together very well. Secrecy, when required, is not because of shame (there's none) but simply useful if and only if it protects profit.

So macebook: I don't like you and even more so because you mess with ZA's Noseweek. Finger to MB.

Gabrie Jansen


While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the authors nor the publishers of this website bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on the information contained therein.