The system for advertising on Facebook allows companies to target specific demographics with ads that follow people based on their personal information, but as some companies have been finding out lately, this could lead to their ads showing up on questionable pages. According to Automotive News and The New York Times, Nissan has joined a growing list of companies that has pulled its advertising until the social media giant can guarantee that the ads won't appear on offensive pages.

This issue came about as a result of a group calling for Facebook to ban gender-based hate speech that went unchecked on some fan pages. Apparently, some of these offensive pages even showed images of women being abused. We won't post the names of the offensive pages, but you can find some of them listed on the NYT article, though it looks like most of the pages have since been removed. As for Nissan, AN says that the only ads it had at the time were for Nissan UK, and there is no telling how this issue will affect Facebook advertising in the future.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 57 Comments
      dollarbill
      • 1 Year Ago
      So tired of this TUB ... Enough already Nissan ! Update this thing or get out !! This is so 2003!!
      Rex Monaco
      • 1 Year Ago
      Is it hate if a gay rights group opposes Catholics? Or is it only hate if a Catholic group opposes gay marriage? I think this 'hate' speech thing is getting out of hand. Disagreement is not hate. And calling much of it hate is itself an act of intolerance. Welcome to the thin skinned world of the easily offended. So much for "...names will never hurt me." Now we pick up sticks and stones to attack those who call us names.
        redshark
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rex Monaco
        The questioned pages are not about name calling. They were about physical abuse, rape, and torture of women and girls. I do agree that we have become a nation of the offended, but this is different and serious.
        interruptive_cow
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rex Monaco
        Are there Catholic children killing themselves because of institutionalized discrimination and prejudice from a predominantly homosexual society? No? Then I'm sorry I don't care about gay hate speech against Catholics as much. It's bad, sure, but it is nowhere near as harmful and not really an issue.
          Carpinions
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          Chris, what double-standard? Who said the double-standard existed? Where is the hate speech coming from the LGBTQ community? Where and how are they being "dooshbags"?
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          So gays are allowed to be dooshbags because they are a small minority of the population? You see, these are the types of double standards I take issue with. No one is better served by such a mentality. In fact, it does more in creating animosity, and ensuring that those issues and conflicts continue. Instead, why not encourage all folks to be respectful of one another. It sounds more sensible, to me at least, than trying to go after some sort of retribution.
          Rex Monaco
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          Are kids killing themselves after having premarital sex because the church opposes fornication? Are unwed teen mothers killing themselves for not using condoms which the church teaches against? And if this is really the fault of institutionalism, then why weren't blacks killing themselves over institutionalized racism? If there is a mental health crisis in the gay community (I have doubts that it's anything more than hyperbole), then it's not the fault of the church. Otherwise society as a whole would be experiencing the same level of mental health issues over the church teachings they break. This is just an intolerant hate campaign against an institution that calls gays sinners. Guess what, so are they. They deal with it. So should you.
          Carpinions
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          Rex, that's a really convenient argument, especially when relating it to the CC, who deals in Hail Marys for repentance for sin, the sale of indulgences, etc. So the question then, is what you say true of heterosexual kids in other religious traditions? No, they are not killing themselves en masse, but there's still a massive difference when the subject turns to homosexuality. That difference being that homosexuality is treated as one of the top 3 ways to guarantee an eternity of torture after death, in addition to the incessant bullying received at the young ages you speak of. A heterosexual girl having premarital sex only has to, at most, face that fact to her parents and perhaps even her priest if she isn't able to conceal it in some way (and many teens do find out how to). The homosexual, if caught, in turn has to answer to everybody for their nature, which all/most of their peers have traditionally been told is a form of absolute human deviance that should be combated in any way necessary. If you don't see a difference there, that is the core problem. And if you think you can straw man that reality, and then spread it across the rest of the heterosexual majority, shrug, and say "See? What problem?", you've assembled yourself quite a quaint little pair of rosy glasses.
        Justin Campanale
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rex Monaco
        As someone who favors marriage equality, that's EXACTLY the problem I have with this "hate speech" BS. The government shouldn't pick and choose who gets to say what, regardless of the circumstances. The only way government should be able to restrict our speech is if it presents a direct danger to someone, like shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.
        mikeybyte1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rex Monaco
        Who ever said opposing gay marriage was hate speech? There is a difference between disagreement and hate. Just like a peaceful protest versus a violent protest. The sites in question were horrific and abusive. They weren't civil "we do not like women". Huge difference.
          Dayv
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mikeybyte1
          So you're saying you don't like straw man arguments?
          Carpinions
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mikeybyte1
          How would any group saying "we do not like women" couch its "disagreement" as simple disagreement? It is impossible to separate disagreement from mendacity - active or passive - in such a situation. It doesn't give license to the opposition to become violent, but neither should it mean the opposition must afford the group voicing such views respect beyond the most basic forms of civility. If someone says "I hate women", I DO NOT HAVE TO respect that view because they have it. I only have to respect their right to hold that belief and voice it.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Rex Monaco
        [blocked]
      seeingwhite
      • 1 Year Ago
      What is hate speech and who decides? What about "tolerance"? Or is tolerance only a one-way street?
        interruptive_cow
        • 1 Year Ago
        @seeingwhite
        On Facebook, Facebook decides what hate speech is, probably based on whatever affects their bottom line the most. If this article were about the government restricting hate speech on Facebook, then I would agree with you. (For what it's worth I'm sure that's not far off)
      Basil Exposition
      • 1 Year Ago
      I don't see why free speech should not apply to Facebook. We can say whatever we want in real life, we can say whatever we want online. If someone is stupid enough to post images of themselves doing something illegal like abusing women, we should by all means allow this as it gives police a great lead to track down and arrest offenders who might otherwise have flown under the radar.
        interruptive_cow
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Basil Exposition
        Free speech does not apply to private companies. If Facebook decided tomorrow that we can only post statuses about purple dinosaurs, there would be nothing illegal about that. No one is forcing you to use Facebook and you do not have the right to say whatever you want there,
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          [blocked]
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          [blocked]
          Basil Exposition
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          Obviously FB can do whatever they want on their site, I was not suggesting they were doing anything illegal. Since FB is marketing its services to a society that holds free speech as one of it's most critical and scared values, you would think FB would respect free speech on their site.
          interruptive_cow
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          I guess my point was that Facebook has a right to free speech too. The right to control the message that their site sends out. When they control that message it is not an example of free speech being restricted, it is just a different kind of free speech.
          interruptive_cow
          • 1 Year Ago
          @interruptive_cow
          I mean in a sense this is the strongest argument for free speech. It is society deciding that hateful speech is unacceptable and changing without any government intervention or restriction.
      FuelToTheFire
      • 1 Year Ago
      As usual, social media sites have no respect for the 1st amendment.
      Drakkon
      • 1 Year Ago
      Since I'm running for election in 2014, let's make sure we get the messaging right on this one... NISSAN IS PRO-ABUSE! NISSAN ENCOURAGES THE VIOLATION OF WOMAN AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN (British, whatever) FAMILY! AMERICA HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        Rex Monaco
        • 1 Year Ago
        You have the right to be an ignoramus on the internet, just as those who respond to you have the right to rip you apart for being a bombastic troll.
      Jesus!
      • 1 Year Ago
      Why is Nissan wasting money advertising a truck no one wants when they should be using that money to build one that is decent? And Built to last? Not only is that false advertisement, but the tag line was one of Ford's last decade.
        Joanne Dochev
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jesus!
        I find your name highly offensive to all traditional Christians. Please consider changing it. God bless.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joanne Dochev
          [blocked]
          geri17935
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joanne Dochev
          I agree.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Jesus!
        [blocked]
      rlrz7
      • 1 Year Ago
      Hey Justin...since you don't pay attention to the business world Facebook is now a PUBLICLY traded company NOT private. Do your research before you open your uneducated mouth. I just used my freedom of speech.
        Justin Campanale
        • 1 Year Ago
        @rlrz7
        Regardless of whether it is publicly traded or not, it still reserves the right to control what goes on in their forums. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, you have the freedom to not use it. It's as simple as that.
        CB
        • 1 Year Ago
        @rlrz7
        Before you start throwing around "uneducated" labels, you might want to educated yourself as to what a publicly traded company is. Correct me if I am wrong, but your post implied that because Facebook is publicly traded that it is in some way owned by the public. That is simply not true. A publicly traded company is still owned by private individuals or groups. Public trading is just a mechanism that makes it easier to buy or sell ownership stakes in a company.
        clquake
        • 1 Year Ago
        @rlrz7
        Publicly traded doesn't mean government run. It's still a private business and can control it's forums in any manner that it sees fit. If you had invested in it, and you didn't like it, you could simply sell your shares. Unless you're on their board of directors, the "public" really has no say in how they run their business.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      Purple Shell
      • 1 Year Ago
      Freedom of Speech comes with responsibility. That is something that most people do not understand. Yes, we have "freedom of speech", but we cannot just go around spouting vulgarities, and hate. Use common sense. There are laws to be followed.
      bbhuey4213
      • 1 Year Ago
      Have seen a bundle of comments regarding violations of "freedom of speech" and how terrible it is that FB would try to control and/or restrict the content of pages on its site. I would refer you to the Terms Of Service (TOS) that virtually *all* sites have - especially "social media " sites. Most if not all of the TOS statements I've read have some variation of warnings against using the site for illegal purposes as well as admonishing users to "Not post content that contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts or is threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another’s privacy, or tortious" (quoted from AOL's TOS). Can you still write and submit the stuff? Yeah...and if the content is deemed to be in violation of the TOS it can be removed. It's kinda like going to the park - you can go there and have a good time, maybe cut loose a little, but if you pee in the sandbox chances are you're gonna be asked to leave.
    • Load More Comments