It’s not a witch hunt, but it is a problem…
I made a TikTok/Reel yesterday about Meta's decision to eliminate "Tarot" and "Astrology" as options for ad targeting Tags. I removed it because I want to be more transparent with what's going on than a 20-second video will allow, and I could sense people were scared. I think we need to talk about the WHAT and WHY here.
First, nothing I post is ever to scare folks, but I want to make people in the community aware of the changes being made. Many of us found success on Instagram. It's how we came to reach our customers and expand our businesses. However, an aspect of what we do feels "high-risk" to large corporations, especially if you're a reader.
A year or two ago, you all may remember when point of sale systems such as Square and Stripe were shutting down metaphysical business' ability to take payment without warning. Here's the thing: these businesses were legitimately in violation of the terms of use for these companies. So, they were within their right to shut them down. But, it's essential to talk about WHY "occult" businesses are against the terms of use. These companies have large risk management teams who assess the risk for chargebacks. While there are many very legitimate metaphysical businesses out there, many spiritual businesses make outrageous and even dangerous claims. These businesses often result in chargebacks when they can't deliver on their promises. Those chargebacks cost payment processors money to process. So, blanket restriction of these types of companies in terms of use is their way of mitigating risk.
What we're seeing with Meta is no different. We have a massive issue with reader impersonation accounts. Instagram can't even handle the volume of reports they are receiving daily. When we make reports, we get canned responses saying that the accounts are not being removed and our reports have not been reviewed due to high report volumes. We also talked about how Meta is deep in financial trouble and grasping to maintain some semblance of relevancy. In short, they don't have time to deal with this properly. So, they're simply not prioritizing it.
When you think about readers, what are the two primary types of readers that come to mind? Tarot readers and astrologers. Blocking these specific two ad target options slows the growth of the community through paid ads. A smaller community means a smaller impersonation issue. It's like the infomercial/meme where Phil Swift is trying to slap Flex Tape on the leaking jug of water. Meta is trying to make the issue more manageable for themselves by slowing the growth of our ability to reach new customers through targeted ads. It's not a witch hunt. They're not out here banning witchy accounts. But, it does affect our community. If you're a reader or a deck maker, this directly communicates a message of de-prioritization rather than directly addressing the core issue. Readers didn't ask for these impersonation accounts. Indie deck makers didn’t ask for the illegal deck counterfeiting operations selling through IG Lives that they constantly have to report. They're victims here. Many indie deck makers also use targeted ads to help Kickstarter reach to bring their (tarot and astrology) projects to life. This change does have an immediate effect on us as a community. How do you target a tarot deck Kickstarter ad campaign without the word “tarot?” But, Meta is choosing to shorten our reach rather than protect us. That's the issue here. It's not a giant conspiracy. It's just large corporations doing what large corporations do in Capitalism.
Now the hashtag issue. Meta is not banning witchy hashtags. Hashtags are relatively dead, in general, with the new algorithm changes. So, unless you are doing Reels, it is hard to get reach. You can read the previous blog for more information on that. I'm not going to re-hash it here. But, the point is, the reason you do not see more tarot flat lays or astrology infographics in your feed, and you get a ton more reels from people you don't know is that this is what Meta is prioritizing right now.
We have to look at the issue cumulatively. This communicates that we are not a priority to Meta as a community, and here's the thing: They are within their right to do this. But, we also have choices to engage where we're more welcomed and protected. The thing is, people are married to the app because it's a long and time-consuming process to build a following on a new platform. At some point, we have to be more concerned with diversifying our businesses and engaging in spaces that protect us than worrying about an arbitrary follower count at the top of our feed.
These companies have no vested interest in our businesses. This is why diversification is so important. If Meta goes down, it's not great to have all of your small business eggs in that basket. We also have to encourage folks to find us on other platforms, preferably platforms we have some ownership of.
So, no it's not a witch hunt. No, you're not being banned. But, yes, this does affect our community, and it communicates a message of de-prioritization. But, it's critical to understand the WHY, and that WHY is far less conspiratorial than first meets the eye.
