That would be a terrible move. Nobody would want to work with a company that acts so childishly. It would also alienate all of the people who support the cause.

Facebook has not changed its policy with regards to hate speech as far as i'm aware, so these companies don't need to return to use FB services until it does. (Unless of course the protest was always meant as a 2 week gimmick at the expense of FB's reputation).

It appears other companies are acting potentially childishly. That doesn't mean it's a good move for Facebook to act childishly.

I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share!

> I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share!

Overall spending is bigger than blue chips? I feel like that's a citation needed. I've worked for companies spending 1 million+ on twitter advertising channel alone, so I'm curious how SMBs could get anywhere near close that level of spend in one channel per month forget about across multiple.

There are a lot more SMBs than Fortune 500s.

Why ban them when you can ignore them at no cost and accept their money again in the future?

If the decision is beyond your control then letting clients go graciously is good for business. They might be in the market for your services again soon.