I'm not responding to the main thrust of the article. As I said, I believe the ads in question should be banned. I'm responding to this part of the organization behind it as written in the article:

> In its press release, Global Witness seems to suggest that Facebook is not taking the Brazil attacks as seriously as the social platform took the US attacks last year when the company implemented “break-glass measures” to prevent civil unrest from spreading on Facebook.

It is not actually Meta's responsibility to stop civil unrest. Companies shouldn't be in the business of telling the populace how to respond to their government, and insofar as they fail to meet this ideal, democratic watchdogs should not be blessing this unholy alliance of corporations and government.

The way I read it is “they did it in the US but not in Brazil”

> It is not actually Meta's responsibility to stop civil unrest

Not their responsibility. Their interest.

I am not a Brazilian law expert but in my country facilitating unrest is a crime. Facebook needs to abide to the laws of the countries it wants to operate in. If it doesn’t, it risks facing sanctions or even a national ban.