Facebook Hell II—Advertisements

When is enough enough? 

I have bone to pick with Facebook.  I am tired of being constantly bombarded with advertisements.  I am drowning in Facebook’s constant flooding of my page with commercial garbage.  Fifty percent of the posts on my Facebook page are advertisements.  Every other post is a push to get me to buy some products, endorse some company, or follow some influencer.  Nothing that I need or want.  The onslaught is relentless.  Had tRump put Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in control of his Iran assault the war would have been over weeks ago.  That is how relentless Facebook is with its advertising.  It is overwhelming.

 

Facebook has conned us all into thinking that it is a social media platform designed to connect people with family, friends, and communities.  It boasts over three billion active users.  That is a little over 36 percent of the world’s population.  A third of the world is using Facebook believing that the company truly wants to connect with people.  How heartwarming.  Three billion of the world’s population has been suckered and played for fools.  Facebook has nothing to do with connecting people, building relationships, or strengthening communities.  That is the illusion it presents while snookering us into its traps and getting into our wallets.

 

In 2025, Facebook pocketed $123.73 billion dollars in ad revenue.  Approximately 98 percent of Meta (Facebook’s parent company) revenue is raised through advertisement.  Each Facebook user contributes a little over $41 dollars towards that $123.73 profit making Mark Zuckerberg even richer.  Zuckerberg is already one of the top five wealthiest people in the world worth between $210 and $252 billion.  You know he values every single Facebook connection and relationship . . . all the way to the bank.

 

People have the right to make money.  But when is enough . . . enough?

 

The “average” person might not be bothered by any of this . . . probably doesn’t even think about it.  I’m not an “average” person.  I’m retired.  Being retired means I have lots of free time on my hands.  Because of that I noticed . . . noticed all the ads constantly inundating my Facebook feed.  Advertisements for medicines and miracle cures for my growing old age.  Advertisements for adult diapers. Clothing.  Food for humans and pets.  Entertainment suggestions.  Influencers.  Insurance . . . home, personal, life, and car.  The occasional funeral parlor.  Alcohol.  If you can sell it, it was on my feed.  The advertisements were everywhere.  Every other post . . . I counted.  When you are retired you have a lot of time to do that.

 

It is frustrating having to wade through all the commercials to get around to making that connection with family, friends, and community.  It is like trying to swim upstream.  Lots of effort, little gained.  The real goal is money, not relationships.  Facebook knows it and is good at what it does.

 

I must admit that Facebook has an inkling about this advertising weariness and fatigue.  It does give the user the option to opt out of advertisements.  Facebook uses straight out advertisement that they mark as either “sponsored” or “ads”.  The user only has to click on the little “x” in the right-hand corner and . . . POOF! It is gone . . . almost.  What happens next is a new page appearing wanting a reason for the removal of the ad.  Once given you click “submit” and Facebook tells you that you won’t see the ad again. Which is not true . . . the advertisement will be back!  The process is painless and is fast.  Of course, this just prompts Facebook to add another ad to the feed.  This continues for between fifty and hundred times before it quits, and they disappear until you come back later.  It’s worth the minimal effort it takes even if you are too busy to read any real posts . . . at least until the next you use your device.

 

This would be great if it weren’t for the fact that Facebook also likes to make ads look like regular posts from sites your family and friends like.  Sneaky.  They put your family or friend members’ name at the top of the post looking like they are recommending the advertisement.  So-and-so likes . . . then comes the ad looking like your family/friend posted it.  I kind of suspected something was up when I kept seeing ads for MAGA with my wife’s name on them. It was not a cold day in hell . . . Facebook is sneaky.  Still, there is an “out”.  Click the “x” in the right-hand corner.  A page comes up asking why you want to hide the ad.  Take your pick and click “submit”.  The ad is gone . . . for a while.

 

For several days that is what I did.  I kept deleting ads left and right as fast as Facebook could place them.  Over and over again.  Then one day I noticed that the ads looked different.  The “x” in the right-hand corner was gone and replaced with three dots.  Little did I know the devious plan they were hatching.  I must have made the advertising department of Facebook mad for them to go to this length to frustrate me even more.  It looked as if there was no way to “delete” or “remove” the ads—there was no “x”.  Everyone knows that “x” means “delete” or “remove”.  So, I clicked on the three dots . . . the key was revealed.  A page magically appeared giving me several options as to what I wanted to do with the ad.  None of the choices gave me the option to tell them to stick their advertising where the sun doesn’t shine . . . but there was a choice to hide the ad.

 

That was my choice—hide the ad.  I clicked it and another page appeared.  Now it wanted to know my reason for hiding the ad.  They even provide the list.  I always choose “irrelevant”.  Every time.  Apparently, they know my pattern because every time I go through this process they move “irrelevant” around on the list making me have to look for it.  Sneaky mean.  “Irrelevant” every time pulls up a final page telling me the steps, I can take to hide the ad.  Again, no suggestion of where the sun doesn’t shine.  Kindly, they do allow me to hide all the ads from the advertiser.  You choose that and then click the “done” button.  Once again, they promise that you won’t see the ad again . . . don’t believe it.

 

The goal of Facebook is to wear people out until they throw up their arms, give up, and accept that advertisements are like death and taxes.  There is no escaping them.  They figure the “average” person will succumb to the relentless bombardment and onslaught of commercial enticement . . . that they will just put up with it.  But, as I said earlier, I’m not “average” . . . I’m retired.  I’ve got all the time in the world.  I can sit there and delete Facebook advertisements all day long. I’ve got nothing better to do.  My wife tells me I need to find a purpose in retirement and I think I have.

 

At the same time, Facebook keeps figuring it out.  They know I am spending my hours hiding their ads.  That’s why they keep changing the game . . . changing the rules.  Money does that.  They want the cash.  Little do they understand, I want the peace of having an ad-less Facebook page.  They don’t realize how much “free” time I have since retiring—lots!  Yet, I am willing to throw in the towel to end this battle of wills.  All Facebook has to do is give me a cut of what they earn.  You know, pay me for my time of having to read their ads.  I don’t need much.  I’ll take my 1/3,000,000,000^th cut of the profits—which is about $41 dollars.

 

That is all that it would take--$41 dollars.  The problem will be solved.  The battle would be over.  The advertisements can run free.  Forty-one dollars is a lot for an old, retired guy like me.  That is close to ten lunches at the Senior Center.  Sounds like a great trade-off for Facebook and me.  Mark Zuckerberg can afford it.  What’s $41 dollars to a person with $210 to $252 billion in the bank?  Forty-one dollars . . . I’ll count it as I go to the bank.

Conundrum of Time . . . the Magazine

I must admit that I had plenty of time to consider what I would do . . . at least two weeks.  Two weeks prior to publication Time magazine announced that Donald Trump, president-elect of the United States of America, was selected as “Person of the Year”.  It caught me off-guard; it shouldn’t have even though it did . . . I was alarmed.  A person of Trump’s magnitude and reputation—for better or worse, would not have been my first choice for the “Person of the Year”.  It got a rise out of a lot of people . . . irritation, anger . . . and more anger . . . confusion . . . frustration . . . offense . . . and sadness on one side, while great joy and bragging came from the other side. It all depends on which side of the fence one was on.  You were either “for it” or “against it”.

My first gut reaction was that I would return the magazine to Time, Incorporated . . . a “return to sender” message for a choice I wasn’t pleased with.  Lots of people had that reaction.  The other was to throw it in the trash once it arrived or to give it away.  Some I know were going to burn it upon arrival.  But the whole magazine would have lots of other articles to be read besides who was the “Person of the Year”.  I like reading the articles . . . why else would I subscribe to the magazine?  With that mindset, the issue became how I would sneak the magazine into the house without the spouse seeing it.  My spouse is an ardent anti-Trump person and would not want it to cross the threshold of our home. 

 

Yeah, I had two weeks to consider what I would do . . . two weeks!  When the issue arrived . . . well, I was no closer to a decision than I was when I learned the news of who the “Person of the Year” would be.  It was a conundrum.

 

The criteria for Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” is simple: “The individual who, for better or worse, did the most to shape the world and headlines over the past twelve months.”  Whether one likes it or not, president-elect Donald Trump fits the bill.  It feels as if he has been in the daily news since he first ran for the presidency in 2015—ten years and running, the American people have endured this reality sit-com . . . and we are about to start four more years of daily Trumpism.  For better or worse, we are stuck with him.  Crazy sells and the news market knows it.

 

Thus, Donald Trump should come as no surprise as the “Person of the Year”.  I imagine that in his mind he won hands down with the greatest landslide victory over his competition in the history of humankind.  Whatever the case, the choice definitely got a reaction.  On one side was the thunderous standing ovation from all the die-hard loyalists.  On the other side was a gut-retching groan of misery.  Whatever the case . . . it sells.

 

Time magazine is just as much a business as it is a journalistic periodical.  Its goal is to make money.  Do you remember last year’s “Person of the Year”?  Taylor Swift.  Knowing the popularity and selling power of Taylor Swift, the magazine issued three versions with three different cover poses of the singer. Hundreds of thousands of copies flew off the shelves.  Time sent out nearly a million copies to the stores—and they sold out.  It was a 365% increase over its normal distribution of a single edition.  Time magazine sells for $14.00 an issue. That’s a lot of moola!  Taylor Swift set the record for “Person of the Year” sales.

 

You think that caught the attention of the great orange one?

 

With no love lost between Swift and Trump since the last election when she encouraged her followers to vote against the president-elect . . . well, the Donald picked up the challenge . . . especially when it looks like he is getting his butt kicked.  Trump proclaimed, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”  Trump hates being considered a “less than” and in the “Person of the Year” race with Swift he is way behind.  Time hopes that he can do at least half of what Taylor sold. Again, that is a lot of money.  They have their person and are whistling all the way to the bank. 

 

That’s the American way.  Love it or not.

 

I am not among those lauding Time magazine’s choice for “Person of the Year”.  I didn’t quite retch at the announcement, but rolled my eyes towards the heavens proclaiming, “You’ve got to be kidding.”  Then the realization . . . the stupid magazine is going to come to my mailbox!  What am I to do?  Return it to “sender”?  Throw it in the trash?  Package it and send it down the street to that neighbor with all the Trump flags?  Put it in a brown paper bag and try to sneak it into the house? Or, surprisingly, tear off the cover to reveal one of the other three covers that Time magazine put on the magazine as a means of getting an “out” of the conundrum it created when naming Trump, the “Person of the Year”?  That’s right!  The magazine had three other covers with the issue . . . Lisa Su as the “CEO of the Year”, Caitlin Clark as “Athlete of the Year”, and Elton John as the “Icon of the Year”.  All worthy of the cover, even though I had to look up who Lisa Su was.  Burn it?

 

Alas, I just carried it into the house.

 

I have read the articles . . . each selection had an interview article written to go with the award.  And, yes, I even read the interview of Trump.  There was nothing new in the article to learn about the president-elect.  It is the same old baloney he has been spouting off since his first presidency . . . same old scary meanderings of a person who has made it difficult to respect or admire him.  With him it is more of a “icky” feeling and response.  In the end, the magazine hit the trashcan once its purpose had been fulfilled. 

 

Though many of us believe that there were more worthy individuals deserving of the “Person of the Year” designation, the magazine served its purpose:

·        It created a response . . . no one can deny that.

·        It announced that the circus was back in town . . . at least for another four years.

·        It gave the “great orange one” a little more ammunition to feed his ego (as if he needed any of that).

·        It made Time magazine a lot of money . . . which made its investors happy . . . and the rich got richer.

·        And it ended up being more garbage in the dumps.

Conundrum . . . Trump as “Person of the Year”.  Though surprising, he fit the criteria selected by Time magazine.  We might agree or disagree.  We might have even had a few other designations we might have given him before naming him “Person of the Year”, but none I can put in this blog.  As far as I am concerned, Trump is Trump . . . as crazy and vile as he is.  He only becomes something important—like the “Person of the Year” if I acknowledge him as such . . . and I cannot.  I will not.  My opinion doesn’t count for much . . . won’t sell a lot of magazines.  That is the name of the game . . . the American way.  Money speaks and we are paying the price.

Garbage it is.