Spurning The Sidebar: Does Facebook Verify The Sponsored Articles That Appear In Its News Feeds?

In a Medium article written on June 2, 2016, Hunch.ly, a web sleuthing company, exposed Facebook’s lax advertising policy, one that allowed the post’s author to create a fake ad in 15 minutes.

Facebook noticed.

According to Facebook’s Ad Review Process essay, “Before ads show up on Facebook or Instagram, they’re reviewed to make sure they meet our Advertising Policies. Typically most ads are reviewed within 24 hours, although in some cases it may take longer.”

If each ad is being approved prior to publication, there’s no way fake or misleading ads would slip by, right?

Well, not so fast.

While reviewing ads, Facebook claims to check the image(s), text, targeting, positioning and content on the ad’s landing page. Facebook states: “Your ad may not be approved if the landing page content isn’t fully functional, doesn’t match the product/service promoted in your ad or doesn’t fully comply with our Advertising Policies.”

And, if an ad isn’t approved, Facebook sends the advertiser an email with details explaining why. There are 26 categories of prohibited content, which includes illegal products or services; discriminatory practices; tobacco products; drugs and drug-related products; unsafe supplements; weapons, ammunition, or explosives; adult products or services; and adult content, among others.

Similarly, there are 10 categories of restricted content, which includes, alcohol, dating, real money gambling, state lotteries, online pharmacies, supplements, subscriptions services, financial services, branded content, and student loan services.

As I dove into the right sidebar of my Facebook page this morning in search of fake ads, I was stunned — there were none in sight. I kept refreshing the page to see if any would show up, but I was only directed to sites like Anthropologie, Nordstrom, Lululemon or Saks Fifth Avenue.

Otherwise, my feed seemed to consist of posts, pictures, memes, short videos or articles from The Huffington Post, CNN and Time. Nothing suspicious here.

But then, I began searching elsewhere. I was immediately presented with several clickbait articles on my news feed that reminded me of “Ivanka Trump’s Net Worth Left Us Speechless,” which I wrote about this Medium article: “It’s Easy For Ads To Masquerade As News On Facebook.”

In that piece, I referred to the clickbait article as an “ad,” but I think there’s an important distinction between ads on Facebook’s news feed and ads on Facebook’s sidebar that I failed to mention in that article.

In my experience with Facebook, ads on my right sidebar are usually trustworthy — the advertisers are companies that use real pictures, captions and websites to market a product.

I never realized, until I began writing for #TruthSquad, that I had been mindlessly scrolling past fishy clickbait articles on my news feed for months, maybe longer, and mistaking them for ads.

But here’s the distinction: ads on my sidebar are (usually) genuine, and articles in my news feed are (usually) clickbait slideshows on sketchy websites that run on advertising revenue. Here are three examples I found today:

10 Met Gala Dresses That Were Too Much For The Red Carpet, by stylebistro.com.

Advertisements on this site included Domo, Allstate, Burt’s Bees, GMC and Verizon. And, as you can see below, the picture associated with the article shows Taylor Swift at the 2016 Met Gala, but Swift is not featured in the slideshow. Also, side note: Why are irrelevant articles from 2016 showing up on my news feed anyway?

She Revealed The Untouched Photo And Then This Happened…, by zimbio.com

Advertisers on this site included Pottery Barn, Macy’s and Nordstrom. And, the article’s title makes it seem like one person was upset about Photoshop and then discussed her experience publicly. But the article is actually a slideshow that gives examples of several celebrities who have spoken out against Photoshop.

See Inside Ivanka Trump’s New Home in DC & Try Not to Cry, by thestir.cafemom.com

Advertisers on this site included Sweetos, Jet.com, Cottonelle, Dove, Degree Deodorant, even Nordstrom. Why would a company like Nordstrom choose sites like “thestire.cafemom.com” to advertise on?

If Facebook checks their ads on the sidebar, does it also check misleading stories that appear on the news feed? What’s the difference? To me, ads and clickbait articles are equally pointless. I rarely click either, and on the rare chance I do, I regret it because I never buy anything from the store and I never learn anything from the article. And when the article is boring, I pay attention to the ads from Nordstrom or Lululemon — but again, I don’t buy anything. A waste of time, in my opinion.

But perhaps I’m looking at these articles in the wrong way? Maybe other people enjoy clicking through slideshows about Ivanka Trump and other celebrities. I might be the exception here, but I see minimal value in both advertisements and clickbait articles.

And in turn, I think Facebook should check clickbait articles on the news feed as heavily as they claim to check advertisements on the sidebar.