WP logo to the left by Norebbo 2020
WordPress – WP – is huge. One source states that it’s the world’s most popular and widely used content management system that now powers 42.7% of all websites on the internet. TFFs, my PhotoGraphics and my personal online home, plus 12 more I am responsible for, are all on WordPress.
I love WordPress and have used it almost since it was established in 2003. It is very reliable, stable and logical to build sites on, and the variety of themes, plugins, etc – all you need – is amazing. And there exists no better support department than WP’s. For very good reasons, they call themselves Happiness Engineers.
I could go on, but – there is a simultaneous thing to report: My first really bad experience with WP concerning its boost/promotion mechanism, Blaze.
Here on The Transnational, we recently posted The TFF Statement on the Genocide in Gaza. It’s signed by a group of internationally respected scholars – also within international law – and people in the know about peace policy and action. It builds directly and indirectly on TFF’s accumulated experience since we started out in 1986.
Read it yourself – it does use the word genocide about what is going, and that’s why it contains a series of links to trustworthy sources, including legal expertise, the United Nations, etc. and of course also the Genocide Convention – exactly in order to explain to the reader why we use that controversial term.
Leading scholars like Professor John Mearsheimer, and one of the US’ finest diplomats, Chas Freeman, have used the word genocide after we published the statement. On this very day, while I write this, South Africa’s demand to have Israel’s policies tried as genocide is going on at The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also called the World Court, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations.
In other words, genocide is not a word you can use to justify censorship.
In the statement we also demand a permanent ceasefire and, quite uniquely, offer some principles and perspectives that could help all the involved parties to move towards a negotiated peaceful solution. As with everything TFF does, we’re clearly within our self-chosen mandate to support the UN Charter’s Article 1, which stipulates that peace shall be established by peaceful means
Naturally, you wish to reach many with such a statement in a situation like this. So I went to WP’s Blaze mechanism, designed an ad for the statement (no new words, basically the photo and the headline) and committed to paying US$ 50 to reach a few thousand additional recipients.
Much to my surprise, WP rejected the ad.
You get a standard letter with reference to WP’s policies. You can read those here. And, of course, I asked for an explanation: What I got was this:
“As part of our commitment to maintain a positive experience for both our advertisers and viewers, we review all Blaze campaigns to ensure they align with our Advertising Policy before they go live.
It appears that your ad was not approved because it did not conform to these guidelines. While we can not get into the specific details of the rejection, I encourage you to review the policy linked above to ensure future campaigns are in compliance.
I hope this was helpful!”
Of curse, it wasn’t – and WP must know that.
A further exchange took place. I tried to explain the purpose and character of the statement. I knew in a way that that would be in vain because, as you see, WP does not discuss the single case. WP tried to close the exchange, but I protested and got, then, the following:
“I’m sorry to hear that. I do appreciate knowing Happiness Engineers have been helpful, so thank you!
Following on the above, we are unable to provide specific details on why individual adverts are rejected. All adverts are checked by a human moderator.
In cases like this, we do recommend reviewing our guidelines, as well as our terms and conditions, for a list of the criteria used for advert reviews.
You can find our general guidelines:
For a more detailed guide: Our Advertising terms and our Terms of Service document.
Please note we do reserve the right to reject or remove any ad that violates our policies or doesn’t meet our expectations, as determined by us at our sole discretion.”
One more attempt was met with WP’s silence.
It is good to know that WP has human moderators. But you wonder how many there are and what academic fields of competence they have. I had asked whether the word ‘genocide’ or the criticism (implicit) of Israel could be a reason for the rejection – simply because this Statement does not contain anything that would militate against WP’s guidelines and policies.
I also let them know that unless they could point to some other reason, I would assume – and conclude – that these words were the reason.
A few days later, I tried an ad at Blaze for this critical article about Swedish defence establishment making a coordinated and unheard-of alarmist drive to tell the Swedes to get prepared for war.
Believe it or not, WordPress rejected that ad too.
This time, I did not bother to ask why.
•
What is the problem with this?
I can understand and respect that social media and publishing systems such as WP must have their policies and guidelines. I would too, if was the founder or CEO. Everything cannot be permitted. The main issue is: Where to draw a line between that sort of curating, on the one hand, and censorship, on the other.
I am well aware that will not be easy – but I would advise WP to a) rely on much more qualified human monitors with genuine competence in a multitude of intellectual fields; b) respect their customers to the extent that they engage in explaining exactly why an ad is rejected instead of, as a policy, refuse to discuss the single case; c) look not a single words or phrases which bots/spiders do and register but be qualified enough to understand an argument, a context.
There is something very odd about the fact that I can publish the TFF statement on WP, but I cannot boost its reach with WP – particularly, you may say, when the basic argument through and through is that international law shall be respected, that lives must be saved immediately and that peace is possible if we break out of the mental chains of militarism, warfare and mass killing.
I believe that such issues should be of urgent and essential importance to the fine people who run WordPress – call it corporate responsibility. I’ve searched a bit, and WP is not known for censorship or arrogant self-secluding refusals vis-a-vis its customers and users. However, I experienced both.
With its huge responsibility for close to half of the websites on the Internet, WordPress doesn’t serve itself by handling this issue so amateurishly that it does raise suspicions that the real purpose is political censorship.
This article is sent to WordPress in the hope that somebody will read, listen, think and take action.
