X Claims It Banned the European Commission's Ad Account. It Says It Wasn't Using Ads.
In a twist that has raised eyebrows in the tech world, social media platform X claims it blocked the European Commission from accessing its ad account due to what it calls a "rule violation." However, the European Commission disputes this claim, pointing out that it does not pay for ads on X anyway - a policy that has been in place for over two years.
The dispute centers around an exploit in X's Ad Composer tool, which the commission allegedly used to post a link that tricked users into thinking it was a video. According to Nikita Bier, head of product at X, the commission's tweet announcing the fine was itself deceptive. Bier claims there is an issue with the ad composer that allowed the commission to use it in this way and "artificially increase its reach."
However, European Commission spokespersons have pushed back on these claims, pointing out that the commission announced a policy of not advertising on X back in 2023, along with a suspension of all other paid services. The suspension still applies, according to the spokesperson.
But what really sets off the confusion is how the commission's ad was presented - it included an overlaid play button that started playing a video, which appears to be no different from normal video posts on X in terms of functionality. On desktop, users can pause and play the video normally, but on mobile, the play/pause function seems broken.
The European Commission claims it is simply using tools provided by X itself, citing the Post Composer feature under the "X Business" umbrella. However, the spokesperson did not clarify how the commission accessed this feature if it was not paying for premium services or if it still has access to them after the ban that Bier claims he issued.
The entire situation raises questions about transparency and compliance with platform terms and conditions, particularly when it comes to large institutions like the European Commission.
In a twist that has raised eyebrows in the tech world, social media platform X claims it blocked the European Commission from accessing its ad account due to what it calls a "rule violation." However, the European Commission disputes this claim, pointing out that it does not pay for ads on X anyway - a policy that has been in place for over two years.
The dispute centers around an exploit in X's Ad Composer tool, which the commission allegedly used to post a link that tricked users into thinking it was a video. According to Nikita Bier, head of product at X, the commission's tweet announcing the fine was itself deceptive. Bier claims there is an issue with the ad composer that allowed the commission to use it in this way and "artificially increase its reach."
However, European Commission spokespersons have pushed back on these claims, pointing out that the commission announced a policy of not advertising on X back in 2023, along with a suspension of all other paid services. The suspension still applies, according to the spokesperson.
But what really sets off the confusion is how the commission's ad was presented - it included an overlaid play button that started playing a video, which appears to be no different from normal video posts on X in terms of functionality. On desktop, users can pause and play the video normally, but on mobile, the play/pause function seems broken.
The European Commission claims it is simply using tools provided by X itself, citing the Post Composer feature under the "X Business" umbrella. However, the spokesperson did not clarify how the commission accessed this feature if it was not paying for premium services or if it still has access to them after the ban that Bier claims he issued.
The entire situation raises questions about transparency and compliance with platform terms and conditions, particularly when it comes to large institutions like the European Commission.
. Like, if X says they banned the EU's ad account, but then the EU doesn't even pay for ads anyway... isn't that just a nice way of saying "we're not paying attention"? And now I'm wondering what's really going on with that Ad Composer tool - is it like a secret sauce that only certain people have access to? 
It's like trying to solve a puzzle blindfolded while being attacked by a swarm of bees 
. But you know what they say, "if you can't take the heat, stay out of X's ad game"... just kidding, I love getting roasted on X 
!
I'm like "okay so X is saying they blocked the EU commission's ad account but only because of a 'rule violation'... and the EU is all 'we're not paying for ads anyway, why are we getting blocked?' Like, what's going on here? Is X just trying to cover their own behinds or something? 
I don't trust Bier's explanation at all. It seems like he's just making excuses for how they messed up and now they're trying to spin it as the EU's fault. And what's with this "artificially increase its reach" thingy? Sounds like they're just trying to sound smart. 
This whole situation is giving me some major red flags about transparency on these platforms... 
. And now the commission's all like "hey, we told you we weren't gonna advertise on here 2 years ago" 
... like, why do platforms have to be so secretive about what they do and don't allow? It feels like a big game of cat and mouse 
. I mean, if X is truly concerned about rule violations, maybe they should look into how their own tools were being used here 
...
. If they're claiming there's a rule violation, shouldn't they be more specific about what that is? 
I mean, the commission did announce their intention not to advertise on X ages ago, so it doesn't sound like this was some sneaky last-minute move 
. Instead of saying "oh no we got tricked" - which, btw, sounds kinda like an excuse to me 
.
. It just doesn't add up 
. I mean, can't you just be transparent about what you're doing? 
The fact that they're trying to spin this as the EU commission being deceptive is just weird 
. I'm not buying that they somehow magically accessed X's Post Composer feature without paying for it 
.
I mean, back in my YouTube days (remember when you had to pay for views? 
), we didn't need all these fancy tools to trick people into watching ads. Just give me the straightforward stuff! 
. I'm not buying the whole story about the commission using it to trick users into thinking it was a video. Can't they just come clean and say "hey, we made a mistake" instead of playing the victim? 
.
.
. But on the other hand, I'm not sure X's motivations are entirely pure