Facebook Labels Trump Posts On Grounds That He’s Inciting Violence
Some staff take issue with company decision to allow the posts about social unrest to remain on the platform. Facebook Labels Trump Posts On Grounds That He’s Inciting Violence
Some Facebook Inc. employees staged a virtual walkout Monday to protest CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to leave up a post from President Trump about the recent social unrest, comments they believed violated the company’s rules about inciting violence.
Petition: Ban Donald Trump From All Social Media Sites
Reddit, Acting Against Hate Speech, Bans ‘The_Donald’ Subreddit
Snap Says It Won’t Promote Snapchat Account of President Trump
Twitter Adds Fact-Check Notices To Trump Tweets On Mail-In Ballots
Over the weekend, more than a dozen employees spoke out on Twitter against Mr. Zuckerberg’s decision to keep up a post from the president, which called the demonstrators thugs and warned: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Some employees set up their remote work stations to say they were not working Monday to voice their disagreement with Mr. Zuckerberg, according to people familiar with the matter and public tweets from Facebook employees. The walkout was confirmed by a company spokeswoman.
Facebook says it refrains from fact-checking or removing politicians’ posts on the platform but will take down posts that glorify violence and spread voter misinformation. Some employees and outside academics who study Facebook’s content rules said the looting post, along with an earlier one that contained inaccuracies about voting by mail, broke the company’s rules.
“I’m a FB employee that completely disagrees with Mark’s decision to do nothing about Trump’s recent posts, which clearly incite violence,” tweeted Jason Stirman, who lists himself as a design manager at Facebook on his LinkedIn page. “I’m not alone inside of FB. There isn’t a neutral position on racism.”
On Friday, Mr. Zuckerberg said those posts would remain, despite his own view that the looting post was “deeply offensive.” He said that even though he knew many disagreed, he believed it was “better to have this discussion out in the open, especially when the stakes are so high.”
Late on Sunday night, Mr. Zuckerberg said Facebook would commit $10 million to groups working on racial justice.
Mr. Trump’s tweet was in the early stages of the protests sparked by the death of George Floyd, a black man, while in police custody in Minneapolis. Those protests have spread nationwide in the days since.
Although employee activism has been common around Silicon Valley in recent years, the public outcry is unusual for Facebook employees, who have typically kept their disagreements in-house over the past several years of scandals. But the events of the last few days pushed these debates into public view, mirroring similar developments at rival tech companies like Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
“Mark is wrong, and I will endeavor in the loudest possible way to change his mind,” said Ryan Freitas, director of product design on news feed at Facebook, in a tweet.
In a statement, the Facebook spokeswoman said, “We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now, especially our Black community. We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we’ll continue seeking their honest feedback.”
The spokeswoman declined to say how many employees were involved in the walkout Monday. The New York Times earlier reported the walkout.
The employee unrest adds to the difficulties confronting Facebook regarding the social-media habits of President Trump. Even though Facebook has taken a hands-off approach to the president, he has continued to include the company in his complaints about unfair treatment for conservatives, a beef that led him last week to issue an executive order that would strip some companies of one of their most important legal protections.
Twitter, by contrast, shielded from public view the looting tweet from Mr. Trump. It can now only be seen after users click a box with a notice saying it violated Twitter’s rules against encouraging violence. Another tweet from the president, in which he said voting by mail would lead to rampant fraud, was affixed with a label encouraging users to “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” and referring them to other sources of information.
Mr. Trump and others, largely from the right, have argued that the moves are akin to censorship and that private companies shouldn’t be in the business of regulating political speech.
The same messages were cross-posted to Mr. Trump’s Facebook page, and no action has been taken against them.
One Facebook employee said part of the issue is that Facebook hasn’t given itself the same options as Twitter when dealing with such posts.
“I will be participating in today’s virtual walkout in solidarity with the black community inside and outside FB,” tweeted Sara Zhang, a Facebook product designer. “@Facebook’s recent decision to not act on posts that incite violence ignores other options to keep our community safe. The policy pigeon holes us into addressing harmful user-facing content in two ways: keep content up or take it down.”
The angry tone within Facebook is a contrast to the last several weeks, when morale was generally high over the company’s response to the new coronavirus. Many employees felt the company had regained purpose and supported Mr. Zuckerberg’s steps to elevate accurate information about the virus and rely on world health experts.
One employee said the angst within the company is greater than when Joel Kaplan, a top global policy executive, appeared at a hearing to support Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018. At that time, hundreds of insiders expressed outrage over Mr. Kaplan’s decision, arguing it was hypocritical that a senior executive would appear at such a highly politicized hearing when so many employees were discouraged from expressing their own political views externally.
Mr. Trump’s tweet saying “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” was a line that some people took to refer to the former police chief of Miami when he cracked down on U.S. civil-rights protests, as well as the former governor of Alabama, known for his opposition to the U.S. civil-rights movement.
Mr. Trump later defended his message as being misunderstood. “It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement,” he said in a subsequent tweet. “I didn’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means.”
Facebook’s Zuckerberg Defends Decision To Leave Trump Posts Alone
Civil rights leaders who met with Mr. Zuckerberg said they were ‘disappointed and stunned’.
Facebook Inc. FB 0.35% Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, addressing employees in a highly charged town hall meeting Tuesday, defended his decision to preserve posts on the platform by President Trump despite mounting outrage from insiders and civil rights activists that one of his messages last week was tantamount to a call for violence and therefore a violation of the company’s rules.
The employee meeting, initially scheduled for Thursday, came a day after hundreds of employees participated in a “virtual walkout” opposing the policy decision, with several airing their grievances with the company publicly on Twitter. Two software engineers publicly said on Monday they quit the company, in part due to Facebook’s failure to enforce its own rules when it comes to Mr. Trump.
The meeting wasn’t streamed publicly, as some internal Facebook events have been recently, but employees said Mr. Zuckerberg didn’t give ground on the issue. He has said he doesn’t believe private companies should regulate political speech and that while he personally found Mr. Trump’s posts “deeply offensive,” he thinks it is better for the debate over his comments to be held publicly than suppressed.
“It’s crystal clear today that leadership refuses to stand with us,” said Brandon Dail, a Facebook engineer, in a Twitter post.
In posts on Twitter and Facebook on Friday, Mr. Trump called demonstrators thugs and warned: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Twitter shielded the message from public view, while Facebook took no action.
The employee turmoil amounts to one of the toughest challenges to Mr. Zuckerberg’s leadership in the past 16 years. Since late last week, Mr. Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg have discussed the policy decision with employees, especially black executives and employees within the company, as well as civil rights leaders. Those meetings, some of the participants said, were largely unsatisfying.
Three civil rights leaders—Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; and Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change—issued a fiery statement after speaking with Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg late Monday.
“We are disappointed and stunned by Mark’s incomprehensible explanations for allowing the Trump posts to remain up,” they said. “He did not demonstrate understanding of historic or modern-day voter suppression and he refuses to acknowledge how Facebook is facilitating Trump’s call for violence against protesters. Mark is setting a very dangerous precedent.”
Facebook Looks to Contain Advertising Boycott Over Hate Speech
Social network tells advertisers it takes civil-rights groups’ concerns seriously, but won’t ‘make policy changes tied to revenue pressure’.
Facebook Inc. is working to persuade its top advertisers not to pause spending on the social network, as it tries to keep a boycott from a handful of marketers from turning into a widespread revolt.
Facebook executives in emails and calls with advertisers and ad agencies over the past week have conveyed that they are taking seriously the concerns of civil-rights groups about the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation on its platform. But they are also maintaining that business interests won’t dictate their policies, according to people familiar with the discussions.
“We do not make policy changes tied to revenue pressure,” Carolyn Everson, vice president of Global Business Group at Facebook, said in an email to advertisers last weekend that was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “We set our policies based on principles rather than business interests.”
Facebook executives are also vowing to invest more to tackle hate on the platform including continuing the development of artificial-intelligence technology that can detect hate speech, according to the email.
Several advertisers such as ice-cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, Patagonia Inc., VF Corp.’s North Face, Eddie Bauer and Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI) have said they would halt advertising on the platform. Their decisions came after a call from civil-rights groups including the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP last week to pull ad spending from Facebook for the month of July.
The pullback extended to large advertisers Thursday, with telecommunications giant Verizon Communications Inc. announcing it was pausing its Facebook and Instagram advertising.
In a letter to advertisers Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League said Facebook has repeatedly refused to remove political ads that contained “blatant lies,” and has been slow to respond to calls to take down conspiratorial content.
“Every day, we see ads from companies placed adjacent to hateful content, occupying the same space as extremist recruitment groups and harmful disinformation campaigns,” the Anti-Defamation League said in its letter. “Your ad buying dollars are being used by the platform to increase its dominance in the industry at the expense of vulnerable and marginalized communities who are often targets of hate groups on Facebook.”
Facebook declined to comment.
Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday joined a Facebook meeting with a group of big advertisers and ad agency-executives, according to people familiar with the conference call. Mr. Zuckerberg listened to advertisers’ concerns and reiterated the company’s principles of neutrality.
He said political content can be seen as egregious by one side and not by the other, the people said. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, also joined the client council meeting, which had been scheduled before the civil rights groups called for the boycott and was reported earlier by Business Insider.
So far, many of the biggest advertisers haven’t joined the boycott, but several are seriously considering it, according to ad executives.
“Several of my clients are planning on sitting out in July,” said Barry Lowenthal, the chief executive of the Media Kitchen agency, an ad-buying agency owned by MDC Partners Inc. Some marketers are pausing because “it’s the right thing to do as a good corporate citizen,” he said. The brands, which are midsize advertisers, are likely to pause quietly, he added.
Consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble Co., a trendsetter in the ad world, said it is reviewing all platforms on which it advertises for objectionable content. Facebook is included in that review, according to a person familiar with the matter. The company’s marketing chief, Marc Pritchard, on Wednesday vowed that it wouldn’t advertise “on or near content that we determine is hateful, denigrating or discriminatory.”
P&G met with civil-rights group Color of Change this week to discuss Facebook’s track record of removing content that violates their standards, according to people familiar with the matter. Color of Change joined the ADL and NAACP in calling for a Facebook boycott.
A P&G spokesman said the company won’t name publicly the platforms from which it might pull ads.
“We’re going to work with our partners to make sure our standards are met.”
Any pull back from Facebook—even a short one—isn’t an easy decision. The platform has become a must-buy for many advertisers because of its huge audience and the vast amount of data the platform has, which enables brands to efficiently target customers. Moreover, after significantly pausing advertising in the early days of the pandemic, companies are now anxious to ramp up ad spending as cities across the country begin to allow businesses to open up.
Over the past few years, Facebook has invested in workers and technology to guard against election interference and to better police its platforms, resulting in improvements in the removal of hate speech and other objectionable content.
Some advertisers want Facebook to go further and have asked the social media giant for more transparency regarding where their ads appear and if their promotions appear adjacent to hate speech. They have also called for Facebook to improve its technology that it uses for detecting hate speech on its platform, according to people familiar with the discussions.
In her weekend email to advertisers, Facebook’s Ms. Everson said 89% of the content Facebook removed for violating its hate-speech policies in the six months to March was detected by its systems before anyone reported it to the company. Three years ago, that was the case for only 23% of such content, she said.
Some ad buyers say they are busy making contingency plans in the event that clients decide to participate in the advertising boycott. They are working to figure out other digital platforms to use in order to cushion any business disruption for them that could be caused by pausing Facebook ad spending.
Facebook and other tech giants have been somewhat immune from past moves by big marketers to curb their spending because the platforms don’t rely as heavily on large marketers, with the bulk of their revenue coming from small and midsize advertisers. Facebook’s U.S. revenue from digital advertising is expected to rise about 5% this year to $31.43 billion, according to eMarketer.
Madison Avenue’s relationship with Facebook has been filled with angst.
Tensions boiled over in 2016, when The Wall Street Journal reported Facebook had overstated its video-viewing statistics for more than two years. Facebook acknowledged it had inflated reported viewing times by as much as 80%, and agreed to undergo audits by the media industry’s measurement watchdog.
In 2017, several companies—including P&G—pulled their spending from Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube after they found their ads running alongside extremist and racist content on the site.
The pullback didn’t make a major dent in the company’s finances. Still, advertisers believe that the YouTube boycott did cause Google to work more aggressively at policing its content, ad executives said.
The Google brand safety crisis “really changed Google. They put proper tools in place and have been super responsive,” said one of the people. Google declined to comment.
Verizon Pauses Facebook Ads
Verizon became the biggest marketer yet to say it will pause its advertising on Facebook, even as the social network mounts a campaign to persuade its top advertisers to stay put.
Facebook executives have been emailing and calling advertisers and ad agencies over the past week to convey that they are taking seriously the concerns of civil-rights groups about the hate speech and misinformation on the platform.
Unilever To Halt U.S. Ads On Facebook And Twitter For Rest of 2020
Facebook to start labeling posts that violate its rules but are deemed newsworthy.
Consumer-goods giant Unilever PLC said it would halt U.S. advertising on Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. for at least the remainder of the year, citing hate speech and divisive content on the platforms, a significant escalation in Madison Avenue’s efforts to force changes by the tech companies.
Within an hour of the move being announced, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a set of new policies designed to combat voter suppression and better protect minorities on the platform. He didn’t mention Unilever’s decision.
Unilever, whose many household brands include Dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise and Lipton tea, joins a growing list of companies that are boycotting Facebook for varying lengths of time, including Verizon Communications Inc., Patagonia Inc., VF Corp., North Face, Eddie Bauer and Recreational Equipment Inc.
“Based on the current polarization and the election that we are having in the U.S., there needs to be much more enforcement in the area of hate speech,” said Luis Di Como, Unilever’s executive vice president of global media, in an interview.
“Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society,” the company said. Its Facebook ban also will cover Instagram.
The Facebook advertising boycott came after civil-rights groups including the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP called on brands to pull ad spending from Facebook for July. The groups said the social-media giant hadn’t made enough progress enforcing its policies on hate speech and misinformation.
Among the new policies Mr. Zuckerberg announced on Friday, the company will begin labeling posts that violate its policies but are deemed newsworthy—giving Facebook the option of labeling President Trump’s posts, as Twitter has done recently.
Facebook will also put in additional safeguards to prevent voter suppression and shield immigrants from ads that depict them as inferior.
Mr. Zuckerberg said he would continue working with civil-rights groups and others to set effective policies as the election approaches.
“I’m optimistic that we can make progress on public health and racial justice while maintaining our democratic traditions around free expression and voting,” he said.
After Mr. Zuckerberg’s live-stream in which he announced the new policies, Rashad Robinson, president of the civil-rights group Color of Change tweeted that the remarks were “11 minutes of wasted opportunity to commit to change.”
Twitter wasn’t a target of the civil-rights group’s boycott call, but it has also come under scrutiny on Madison Avenue.
In a statement to The Wall Street Journal, Facebook said it invests billions of dollars every year to keep its platform safe and has banned 250 white-supremacist organizations from Facebook and Instagram. It said artificial intelligence helps it find nearly 90% of hate speech before anyone flagged it.
“We know we have more work to do,” the company said, adding that it would continue to work with Global Alliance for Responsible Media—an ad-industry group created to improve the digital ecosystem, and of which Unilever is a founding member—as well as other experts “to develop even more tools, technology and policies to continue this fight.”
“We have developed policies and platform capabilities designed to protect and serve the public conversation, and as always, are committed to amplifying voices from underrepresented communities and marginalized groups,” said Sarah Personette, Twitter’s vice president of Global Client Solutions, in a statement. “We are respectful of our partners’ decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time.”
Facebook has taken some steps in recent years to better police its platforms, adding workers and developing new technology. That has resulted in the removal of hate speech and other objectionable content.
“We acknowledge the efforts of our partners, but there is much more to be done, especially in the areas of divisiveness and hate speech during this polarized election period in the U.S.,” Unilever said. “The complexities of the current cultural landscape have placed a renewed responsibility on brands to learn, respond and act to drive a trusted and safe digital ecosystem.”
Mr. Di Como said Unilever would like to see a reduction in the level of hate speech on the platforms and wants independent companies to measure and confirm that progress has been made.
Unilever, which is one of the biggest ad spenders in the world, said it would shift its U.S. ad dollars that have been earmarked for Facebook and Twitter to other media. Unilever spent $42.3 million on Facebook ads in the U.S. last year, research company Pathmatics Inc. estimates. Unilever declined to comment on its ad spending.
The big tech platforms have been under increasing pressure—from politicians, outside groups, and their own users—to crack down harder on misinformation and hate speech. Facebook, in particular, has become a target because of its position that political speech, including comments by President Donald Trump, generally shouldn’t be fact-checked and removed.
Tensions have been heightened since the widespread U.S. protests spurred by the killing of George Floyd, and the resulting national dialogue about race and police brutality. But many concerns about the platforms have been festering for years. The Anti-Defamation League, for example, has long pushed Facebook to view Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech.
Corporate advertisers, whose ad spending is the financial foundation for tech giants, have applied pressure as well—sometimes quietly, behind the scenes, sometimes in public. The latest boycott represents a substantial escalation, especially with the addition of bigger players like Unilever and Verizon. Verizon said it was pausing its advertising until Facebook can create a solution that makes the company comfortable.
Motives for joining such boycotts can be all over the map. Some companies see a chance to get positive attention for taking a stand on a social matter. Others are worried about their brand’s association with controversial content—and, if history is a guide, they may return to advertising when the dust settles. Some see an opportunity to strike a blow at the powerful digital platforms.
And for others, ad boycotts are a moral fight that is worth having even if it hurts their business.
For many companies, pulling ads off Facebook is a difficult proposition, because it is such an efficient marketing vehicle and has so much data on consumers to help target ads. Unilever said it isn’t removing Facebook and Twitter ads in non-U.S. markets because the divisive content is currently more pronounced in the U.S.
Unilever has been a leader in demanding that tech giants clean up the digital ad ecosystem. It has pushed them to police advertising fraud and has been outspoken about the lack of transparency in Facebook’s and Google’s metrics that show whether advertising is working.
Unilever also has taken stances on social issues: This week, it said it would discontinue the name “Fair & Lovely” for its international skin-lightening cream, acknowledging it reinforces the racist notion that light skin is better. The product will still be sold. The company has also been working to eliminate stereotypical portrayals of women in its advertising.
Procter & Gamble Co., another consumer products giant that is highly influential on Madison Avenue, said it is reviewing all platforms on which it advertises for objectionable content. Facebook is included in that review, according to a person familiar with the matter. The company’s marketing chief, Marc Pritchard, on Wednesday vowed that the company wouldn’t advertise “on or near content that we determine is hateful, denigrating or discriminatory.”
Clorox To Halt Facebook Ads Through Year End, Joining Advertiser Push On Content
Company cited ‘an increasingly unhealthy environment for people and our purpose-driven brands’.
Clorox Co. said it would pause advertising on both Facebook and Instagram.
Clorox Co. said it would temporarily stop advertising on Facebook Inc.,joining a parade of other companies that have moved to halt ad spending on the social-media giant over how it has handled speech on its platforms.
The company behind its namesake cleaning supplies, Kingsford charcoal and other consumer brands said Monday that it is pausing buying ads on Facebook through December to take action against what it said was hate speech, “which we believe will increase through the balance of the year.”
“This creates an increasingly unhealthy environment for people and our purpose-driven brands,” Clorox said in a statement about its decision.
A Clorox spokesperson said the pause in spending is global and covers the main Facebook platform as well as the company’s Instagram unit.
A Facebook spokeswoman didn’t have a comment regarding Clorox’s decision, but said the social-media company invests billions each year to ensure safety and continuously works with outside experts to review and update its policies.
The company has banned 250 white supremacist organizations from Facebook and Instagram, she said, adding that artificial intelligence allows Facebook to find close to 90% of hate speech before users report it.
Last week, Unilever PLC, the consumer-products company behind Dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise and other items, said it would halt ad spending on Facebook and Twitter Inc. for at least the remainder of the year, pointing to hate speech and other divisive content.
Coca-Cola Co. announced a wider pause on Friday, saying it would temporarily halt spending on all social-media platforms for 30 days.
Other companies have also moved to boycott Facebook for varying lengths of time.
Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has said the company was making further changes to its platform. Facebook will add labels to certain posts and forbid advertisements that claim specific groups of people pose threats to the physical safety, health or survival of others, according to a Facebook post from Mr. Zuckerberg on Friday.
Civil-rights groups had pushed advertisers to pull advertising spending on Facebook for July to protest what they said was the company’s failure to halt hate speech and misinformation on its platform.
The Facebook Ad Boycott Gains Steam. Analysts Say Buy On The Weakness
Even as large brands such as Coca-Cola and Starbucks have joined the boycott of Facebook over civil rights issues, Wall Street has largely shrugged off the consequences for the stock.
By Monday, the number of Facebook’s (Ticker: FB) eight million advertisers that have pledged to choke off spending on the social media company’s platforms had climbed above 150, with Starbucks (SBUX), Procter & Gamble (PG), Coca-Cola (KO) and others adding their names. Still, Facebook’s underlying business has shrugged off controversies in the past, leaving it churning out profit just months later.
Investors appeared to see Friday’s 8% drop as a buying opportunity and Facebook shares advanced 2.1% to $220.64 on Monday, in line with the gain for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Raymond James analyst Aaron Kessler wrote in a Monday note to clients that Friday’s pullback was a buying opportunity, citing the minimal impact of past boycotts—specifically several that temporarily affected YouTube—the seasonally slow period for advertising, and the fact that Facebook has announced several policy changes to address the concerns that led to the boycott.
In a phone conversation, Pivotal Research analyst Michael Levine said he expected Monday’s boycott total to be higher than it was. Part of the issue for some advertisers is that deploying an effective online marketing campaign that excludes Facebook is a significant challenge.
“Facebook is very tone deaf, and this isn’t the first time they have been revealed as tone deaf,” Levine said. “Companies don’t like them. They just don’t. But there’s no way to buy around them. They’re too big.”
He said brands have an easier time cutting off spending when they aren’t using Facebook for direct-response campaigns—those in which a Facebook advertisement is the beginning of a funnel that results in a sale to a customer if successful. The companies that run direct-response campaigns closely monitor the return on ad dollars spent and would be loath to cut off the revenue.
MKM Partners analyst Rohit Kulkarni wrote in a Monday note that his team views the rising number of companies joining the boycott as a near-term risk to the stock. Procter & Gamble alone accounts for roughly 0.5% of Facebook’s ad revenue. The overall risk totals roughly 5% of the company’s revenue. Kulkarni recommends buying the stock amid the weakness.
The boycott emanated from a coalition of more than five civil rights groups, including the NAACP and Anti-Defamation League. The groups started the campaign earlier in June with a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times, urging brands to pull their Facebook spending in July. The organizations say Facebook has failed to combat hate speech and voter-suppression efforts on its platform, among other things.
Facebook appeared to respond to some of the pressure on Friday, announcing a series of policy changes aimed at combating misinformation, hate speech and voter suppression. Facebook has previously defended its efforts to police hate speech on the platform, saying its internal efforts find and remove 90% of that sort of content before it is reported by members.
Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,Facebook Labels Trump Posts,
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.