Facebook Bans Google+ Ads 548
Barbara, not Barbie writes "Not content with making it hard for people to export their Facebook contacts to Google+, Facebook has now banned all ads from app developer Michael Lee Johnson, who ran an ad saying 'Add Michael to Google+.' Facebook sent him the following message: 'Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.'"
Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Facebook really didn't disable this guy's account for running a Google+ ad they have effectively become an ad for Google+ themselves.
More people will notice now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No - Facebook aren't doing anything here to stop the competition, nothing says they have to advertise their competition within their own service.
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're allowed to be as anti-competitive as you want until you have a monopoly position and the government gets involved. Facebook hardly has a monopoly on social networking, there are literally dozens of competitors in the space, and at least 5 of them have substantial market share.
Days of the Facebook are numbered (Score:3, Insightful)
Was this a wall post? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article lists various places in the terms of use that he might have violated, but this excerpt seems most likely:
""We may refuse ads at any time for any reason, including our determination that they promote competing products or services or negatively affect our business or relationship with our users."
Which seems overly-broad and anti-competitive. What exactly constitutes an ad? Can I express my interest in something only if facebook isn't developing a competing product?
Re:Same story, different day... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that GMs or Blockbusters troubles started when they refused to advertise their rivals in their own stores or showrooms...
Re:Same story, different day... (Score:2, Insightful)
His suggestion had nothing to do with the topic at hand, banning an ad for a rival network does not imply they are burying their heads in the sand, nor does it imply that they are suffering from a lack of innovation - learn to think for yourself, you pathetic little shit.
Re:Days of the Facebook are numbered (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how you can say this so vehemently about a service that is still very much "beta".
As for me, since I am neither a "farmer" nor a member of the "mafia", the part of Facebook that Google+ does "a lot less of" is not the part of Facebook I ever used.
They are obeying the law (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really how that works. You're supposed to obey the law without the government having to go in and enforce it.
As stated, they are not a monopoly. There is freedom of speech, but there's not a REQUIREMENT that if you are a service you are required to take any advertising, no matter the content. It's perfectly legal to refuse to carry any ad, on whatever grounds.
I don't see why Facebook, or any company, should be required to participate in its own demise.
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. You don't see ads for the Superbowl on competing networks.
Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (Score:1, Insightful)
So 40k in a year in jobs that took 278k to create. That's almost 14 years to recoup the loss at 100% tax. This seems inefficient to me.
I got it! He DID violate the TOS!! (sort of) (Score:4, Insightful)
then section 14 "Termination" number 1 "If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you."
So the guy ran afoul of section 11 number 13 and was then terminated because he created "risk." Risk of loosing users. Lame.
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Facebook disabled an account. Now if Google removed their competitors from Google search results, then it would be the equivalent.
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I have no Facebook or Google+ account (and I plan to have neither).
For me this tells that Facebook is being scared. Probably they are right. They
do not trust that they would be able to maintain their customer base in the face of Google+
and other competitors if compared service. Face it: they do not offer anything that that
others could not. All the power of social networking sites are in the numbers, nothing else.
So they are very rational when they do all they can to minimize exposure to competitors.
So I think they do everything they can to stop competitors (but stay within the law I hope).
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if really everyone has heard of Google+ (which I doubt), it gives an extra incentive to get a Google+ account: It makes obvious that Facebook can cancel your account at any time without giving you a reason....
You mean like the following from Google's terms of service: "you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you"?
Re:Same story, different day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two kinds of people who are against tax increase. Selfish, rich people who couldn't care less if a million people died as long as they got a million bucks more, and dumb poor people who swallowed the hype and think that by paying 10% less tax they could afford anything and would be better off.
It's actually that simple.
The only entity in a country that is interested in creating jobs for the sake of getting people employed is the government. Nobody else benefits from someone being employed as directly, aside of the employed person himself. They, and only they, have the ability to create a job and an interest in creating one. The "rich people creating jobs" myth is just that. A myth. Imagine you're rich. Now where would it cross your mind to "hmm... I should create jobs, ya know..."? You might want something accomplished, but that means you will try to create as few jobs as possible. Why? Because that costs your money. DUH!
Re:Nah, we're outraged. Send the ad police! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unethical != Illegal. You can think (as I do) that Facebook is acting unethically without thinking they're acting illegally.