Then on the 20th, I posted a picture that Facebook allowed on a TRX ad and wondered why, since it certainly seemed to show more skin than the photo I submitted. You can see that post at Update On Me Vs. Facebook.
Now that you're all caught up, here's the latest. Apparently, there is a new exercise gadget called the Windjector. I'd never heard of it before and even after going to their website, I don't know how to describe it to you. (It really has no bearing on this post but if you want to see the Windjector in action, you can go to Windjector Pro.)
Anyway, Windjector is running an ad on Facebook using this photo...
Although I find Facebook's rejection of my ad annoying and bad for our country, I'll admit to having a little fun with the situation. However, now things have turned ridiculous.
Someone could have possibly come up with some irrational reason why the TRX ad was acceptable and mine was not but now we have an apples-to-apples comparison. How is my photo (A) in any way more "explicit or provocative" than Windjector's (B)? It definitely doesn't "reveal too much skin" in comparison to B.
So if my ad wasn't rejected for "too much skin" then it must be the other part of Facebook's policy. But wait, if anything, Windjector's ad promotes an "idealized body type" more than mine. Look at the definition in B's abs! Beautiful but not to the folks at Facebook, unfortunately.
Based on the rejection e-mail I received and comparing the photos, Windjector is clearly in violation of...
Images that are overly explicit or provocative, or that reveal too much skin, are not permitted.
Images that may either degrade or idealize any health condition or body type are also not allowed.
So why the double standard? What's your opinion?