0 comments
In its efforts to limit online abuse, Facebook removed ‘sensitive’ categories from its Detailed Targeting advertising tool. Climate groups now say the new policy is limiting their ability to connect with audiences.
Has Facebook ever been on good terms with climate groups at this point?
Last month, Facebook decided to escalate its response against online abuse by re-evaluating its policies on targeted ads. Previously, its tools had been used to market military gear to far-right extremist groups and exclude minority groups from real estate ads.
The Meta owned company decided as a blanket rule, it would be the safest option to ban advertisers from targeting based on interests in causes or organisations related to ‘health, race or ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, or sexual orientation.’
While Facebook was aiming to address topics ‘people may perceive as sensitive,’ however, climate groups say they’re now struggling to connect with audiences and that the change has given fossil fuel companies the upper hand.
How climate groups have responded
Facebook has all but ‘stripped out any kind of climate targeting,’ says Nathanael Baker of Spake Media House – an ad agency representing climate groups.
‘We used to be able to find people who are interested in environmental protection and environmentalism… those options have evaporated.’
Advertisers on Facebook typically find receptive audiences by identifying those who engage with similar organisations. For a climate advertiser like Baker, that meant finding likeminded folk who follow NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund or Fridays for Future.
You could also identify and exclude users who clearly would not be interested in eco ads – like, say, those following or engaging with fossil fuel companies or big multi-national conglomerates. Under the new iteration of ad tools, this is no longer possible.
What’s particularly frustrating for climate groups is that the new rules don’t technically apply to fossil fuel companies either, as they’re not deemed political organisations. But, then again, why do climate organisations fall under this umbrella?
‘The implication is that climate change is a political issue rather than a scientific issue,’ says Christian Sanchez of the Digital Climate Coalition.
Very much on the same page, Faye Holder of Influence Map declared that treating fossil fuel ads as ‘nonpolical statements of fact’ distorts the conversation further.
