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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Exactly. You don't see ads for the Superbowl on competing networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I never see Comcast commercials on my Charter Comm network or AT&T commercials for broadband.
Because Intel not allowing AMD to use x86 wasn't an issue. Nope, nothing anti-competitive.
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Nothing stops your local provider from replacing those with local ads to block them"
Except for FCC regulations and contracts, and the inclusion of non-replacement clauses in their network contracts. The system is set up such that national broadcasts leave a chunk of time for local broadcasters, and local broadcasters leave a chunk of time for cable and other companies. Nobody overwrites anyone else's ads, because they actually can't.
Incidentally, the government can and does overwrite those time slots: that's what the EBS is for.
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, Interesting)
That's definitely arguable. Google would be in deep antitrust if Facebook suddenly and mysteriously disappeared from all Google search results.
Not running the ads are one thing. Banning the account is another. If he can prove that he was negatively impacted by what was essentially punitive actions by a company for using a competitor, he might have grounds.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the terms of service between Facebook and the developer. If mentioning a competitive social media service in an ad is a violation of the TOS, then they're within their rights. If it's NOT mentioned in the TOS, they can change the TOS, take the the "offending" ads and tell the developer not to post any more such ads. It's not clear for me that the ad in question violates Facebooks TOS, because he's trolling for a Google+ invite and that's not cross-promotion.
Here's the issue: Facebook solicits d
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.
Re:Nah, we're outraged. Send the ad police! (Score:5, Informative)
Assume I am that developer and running those ads. Now Facebook comes and says "listen dude, we have blocked your ads. We are sorry. We feel your ads are negatively impacting us. Please either change them or run them elsewhere. Yes, we know it's not nice; yes, we know we might lose a bit of cash; but please understand our motives". Now I would be a bit pissed at them but I would understand.
I would even appreciate their approach.
But what they did is piss-poor judgement and reaction. Disabling the account altogether for clouded (yet duh!-style obvious) reasons? "We can't tell you why"? That's utter bullshit.
See, that's the difference between "some company nicely trying to protect their business" and "some company stomping on you head-on to protect their business".
Many, many EULAs say "we can disable your account for any reason or no reason" (anyone playing World of Warcraft? Yes? read it: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/termsofuse.html [blizzard.com] - "BLIZZARD MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU."). Sorry for caps, guys, it's the original shit.
And guess what. They actually DO it. Whether you hear of it or not is a different story. Most people don't publicly complain, and if they do, they don't gain momentum unless they're celebrities.
I was playing a rather crappy MMO and in our group's internal chat we were typing in Romanian. Now the game masters had no issue with private chatrooms using non-english languages; but they had a problem with their filtering bots. See, Romanian has a word (translated to English, it means "How") which is spelled "cum". And their filter reported me numerous times for abusing this word. So my account got banned (one game master actually was pressed enough to mention why). Needless to say, the account never got reactivated.
Anyway, the point is that companies AFFORD to be unethical. And they got your agreement to be so. Kinda sad if you think about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it just as unethical to run the ad for Facebook's competitor in the first place?
Facebook just banned him for no reason. They didn't actually say "we're banning you for advertising a competitor".
If Facebook isn't willing to admit the reason why they banned him, then Facebook doesn't get the benefit of being able to claim the reason is ethical.
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.
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure that I'd call Facebook a monopoly, but "market share" is a bad way to think about social networks, since if you add up everyone's market share you end up with more than 100%--people are on more than one network. Network effects are key here--people don't want a Facebook account because of specific features of Facebook, they want a Facebook account because everyone else has a Facebook account. So if you're looking for a competitor to Facebook, you don't just want a different social network, you want a different social network that all of your friends also belong to. And depending on who you are and who your friends are, Facebook may very well have a monopoly on that product.
Really, when you join Facebook, you aren't just becoming a customer, you're becoming the product--you're becoming the reason other people want to join Facebook, and the reason advertisers and app developers want to do business on Facebook.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The anti competition laws apply only to monopolies. So you're not disobeying until you hold a monopoly position.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this really any different than Google getting investigated for allegedly boosting results of its products? I think the jury is still out on whether or not that's been going on, but just because it's their site, doesn't mean that they can do what they like. There are certain responsibilities and limitations which come into play when you're that dominant in an industry.
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: (Score:3)
Is this really any different than Google getting investigated for allegedly boosting results of its products?
People still trot out this canard? for the record, the search results have never been altered. What some idiot blogger complained about is that for specific search terms, Google would use its own stock charting results above the results, instead of, say, Yahoos. That's identical to it providing direct definitions for words, doing calculations from the search bar or any other heuristic that resulted in Google very clearly saying "here's the data we think you were looking for", and then placing below it the s
Re: (Score:2)
What is irksome is when companies have terms of service but then ignore them or rewrite them on a whim if it happens that the terms are beneficial to someone other than themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone else posted below that the terms include a catchall at the end, Terms of Service, section 11 "Special Provisions Applicable to Advertisers" number 13 "We may reject or remove any ad for any reason."
Like I said in another comment, you may as well be signing a blank piece of paper.
Re: (Score:2)
It happens..the tobacco industry is forced to advertise smoking cessation. The casino industry is required to advertise to help some gamblers quit gambling.
Those are specific laws invoked generated by enabling legislation (the casinos) or as a result of losing a legal battle (tobacco). They have nothing to do with competition.
Re: (Score:2)
on a side note, I wonder when Facebook will start disabling all users using a Gmail account for their email address.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? Have you ever heard of MySpace?
Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the most interesting 20% of my Facebook friends are on Google+. Perhaps the percentage is even higher.
So, as far as I'm concerned, everybody's already on Google+.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here. There is a massive overlap between my facebook friends and my G+ contacts, and I expect, eventually, to have more contacts in G+ than Facebook, much like I have far more twitter followers than facebook friends. The reason is that I only connect to people I know in Facebook, and the stuff I post there is stuff I share around to my friends for fun. Already there are lots of people who have me in their G+ circles that I don't actually know — that's fine as long as I can filter out the noise
Re: (Score:2)
It does not help that Facebook has partnered with Microsoft and is therefore blocking lots of Google ads from their site and being as aggress
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"?
Same story, different day... (Score:5, Interesting)
When will companies realize that putting your head in the sand and pretending the competition does not exist will make it go away? This is a stupid move on facebook's part. If you are scared of the new competition, than innovate and make your product better. Otherwise you will end up like Blockbuster, GM, and countless others examples throughout history.
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you have to try hard to miss the point, or does it come natural to you?
GM bad blockbuster tried to ignore the competition, and adopt on there own speed instead of being nimble.
Facebook is doing the same that. That was the posters point, dumbass.
Re: (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.
More people will notice now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But the next million times it happens (or pre-empted from happening due to chilling effects), it won't land on Slashdot's main page. So the expected-value analysis is probably still in Facebook's favor.
Re: (Score:2)
the Streisand Effect...
Funny that this article was submitted by Barbara.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that the number of people just 'discovering' Facebook via a Google search now is significant? Maybe it would cause problems for some older people who don't understand the difference between the Google search bar on their homepage and the address bar.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate the people that look for facebook by typing facebook into the google thingy.
Also... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Also... (Score:4, Funny)
> Did you mean: Google+
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be leveraging an advantageous position in one market in order to gain an advantage in another...?
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't that be leveraging an advantageous position in one market in order to gain an advantage in another...?
No, Google is everything. There is no 'other'.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who routinely type urls into the search bar and don't know what the address bar is for. For those people, anything Google blocks then ceases to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a new browser option to eliminate the address bar entirely, specifically for people that can't type URLs? After all, if all you do is use Google and bookmarks, what possible use is the address bar?
Re:Also... (Score:5, Informative)
68,000,000 people per month google the phrase "www.facebook.com"
I take it you've never seen analytics for a website.
Many, many people use google as a sort of fuzzy address bar. They mash in something resembling the URL, and google sends them there.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A friend of mine does that routinely. She'll type in the complete URL in the search field, then click on the top result that comes back. Says it works fine, and told me where I could shove my helpful suggestion about the address bar...
URLish searches are fine (Score:3)
If you use Chrome, it hardly matters whether you type a url, a search term, or a URLish search term. I don't even think about it anymore. Just mash my fingers down on the keyboard and either I get where I meant to go on the first try, or the one more click on the search results and I'm there. Anyone got a problem with that?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yay for sending everything you type to google.
I do associate "g" keyword with google in Firefox, so I can explicitly google for something in the url bar when I want.
I also associate "w" with wikipedia.
w facebook
g facebook
Like that.
Search a URL for quick links & anti-phishing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope that you sir, are a perfect typist and never ever make typographical errors, especially when entering a URL. Thus you will never have to take advantage of the fact that if you enter the incorrect address into a Google search first it will direct you to the correct address and/or warn you of most malicious phishing sites that you may inadvertently visit via your much praised "address bar".
Furthermore, if you use most browser's "address bar" to incorrectly enter a URL and wind up at a phishing site, it will bring you back to the same phishing site automatically when you enter the partial URL via auto-completion search.
However, now Firefox and Chrome (unsure about IE) coordinates with lists of phishing sites in order to bring this functionality to their respective "URL / search bars" (they have no plain "address bar" available, even FF searches your history). Note that this feature most likely provides the anti-phishing provider with a list of every URL you visit online... Conversely, everyone can take advantage of the Google URL search features (including quick links to subsections of the site) regardless of the browser they are using.
Finally, I would also like you to shove your helpful suggestion into the previously recommended place considering that you do not seem qualified to be suggesting either against or for either URL entry technique, and I would recommend that you yourself follow the technique your insightful friend rightfully remains using before you make more uninformed suggestions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll do that if I can't remember whether it's a .net .com or .org TLD. I'd rather give a little bit of money to Google than to link farmers.
Re: (Score:2)
1. How many of those people realize it's a search engine and not an address bar?
2. How many of those people actually typed it in an address bar but their web browser's address bar is also a Google search bar?
Re: (Score:2)
The first time I saw someone do this at work, I thought "are you fucking retarded?" then I saw literally dozens of other people doing it. Mind blowing.
Re:Also... (Score:5, Funny)
I think there was a case last year where, for a day, Google returned someone else's blog as #1 when searching for Facebook (FB itself was #2). The blog comments instantaneously filled with hundreds of angry, misspelled, all-caps rants by people infuriated that Facebook wasn't letting them log in. It was hilarious (wish I could find it now).
seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
At the very least they should have changed their ToS and then notified him of what he's violated.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's just an automated message that gets sent out identically any time someone is banned.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Nonsense (Score:2)
This is such nonsense. If he has violated it, tell him where. Giving a non-specific reason and telling him to try and work it out for himself is ridiculous.
(Yes, obviously this is a "we are banning you but no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity then.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but that's not legitimate in this case. The rules are the rules and if you want people to live up to them, then they have to be clear. If they won't tell him what the violation was, then they have a responsibility to give the money back and not to spaz out if the ad gets relisted.
One of the things about rule of law is that it doesn't work if the people being expected to live under it aren't clear as to what specifically the laws are. Granted this is just a contract, but the same logic applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time ToS such as these do have clauses stating that they reserve the right to remove anything, anytime, for any reason, more or less.
Give it another month. (Score:2)
At this rate I bet that $1B valuation and IPO will be all smoke.
Does Google allow Facebook ads? (Score:3)
A lot of companies have ads set to display when a user searches for their company name. That's not apparently the case for Facebook.
But has anybody seen a Facebook ad in the context of any other search terms on Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that Google bans Facebook ads, that would be a tremendous antitrust violation. More likely, Facebook either doesn't bother to advertise or only advertises for search terms that you haven't entered. I personally ignore the ads so I wouldn't know.
Plus, it would be counterproductive given that Google+ is largely being sold by not being Facebook, ads for Facebook likely remind people that they want in on Google+
Days of the Facebook are numbered (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Days of the Facebook are numbered (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe in your circle of friends. But a billion posts in 2 weeks seems to disagree. Plenty of people don't use or want those extra "features" facebook throws at you but instead just want a way to keep in touch with friends in a more mature fashion than "john answered 6 or 8 questions right about marie, can you do better?"
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.
Re: (Score:3)
it's that it just does a hell of a lot less than Facebook
Such as? I suppose I don't have to spend time each week trying to permanently block whatever stupid game people feel the need to spam me with. It makes spamming people who don't care a bit more difficult... I'm not constantly regaled to "like" or "friend" non-human corporations for no benefit to me... Not having games is a plus to me, I have Steam, I have a smart phone with a market place, I have a Wii, I have a DS, and I have a PS2, so I don't really care about Facebook games.
I don't see a down side ye
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not talking about games. But there are other things that Google+ misses out on that Facebook has. I mean, events is a biggie, the number of concert events that correlate to concerts that I go to is increasing on facebook, and on most of those events, there has been discussion amongst attendees about public transit options, door opening times, etc. So this isn't just a "Integrate Google Calendar and Events is solved" thing, because you need to have the "forum" atmosphere attached, or it's not a substitut
Beginning of a Pattern? (Score:5, Funny)
In a nutshell: "Your account has been disabled, we won't do business with you anymore, and we can't tell you why." Did I miss something? Did Verizon [slashdot.org] buy out Facebook? Or are we simply seeing the beginning of a pattern in the way business is going to be conducted in the future to avoid the expense of having to pay a human being to deal with customers, and to avoid the possibility of writing anything specific that could be used in court or the media?
What ever happened to being blunt and frank, like when the Cleveland Stadium Corp responded [lettersofnote.com] to a complaint with a reply on company letterhead that read:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Will you announce it on your wall?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
You'll need to disable adblock to see it (Score:2)
Can you say, "Streisand Effect" (Score:2)
When will some organizations learn... stuff like this is best ignored, not banned.
Overly Dramatic? (Score:2)
I'll get riled up when I see Facebook ban a legitimate Google+ ad. I don't doubt they would, but I don't see evidence that the ban is because it's for Google+. Suppose I put an ad on Facebook that says, "Hey everyone, Friend me on Facebook!". I have a feeling it might get the same treatment.
No G+ for under 18s? (Score:3)
Facebook's values (Score:3)
I take it then that Facebook happily stands behind ads for penny auction scams, "consumption loans" with exuberant rates, suspicious herbs etc.?
Google, please get G+ finished so we can ditch Zyngabook once and for all.
Facebook says: (Score:3)
We take this as a serious competitor/
I call B.S. on this whole story (Score:3)
'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.'"
Facebook is an American company. Since when did any American ever use the term "advert"? Seriously, Americans do not say this. The shortened form of "advertisement" in the U.S. is "ad," not "advert." Any claim otherwise makes me want to see the actual text of the original email, if one did indeed exist. Furthermore, companies do not let random employees write emails about corporate policy and send them out without having them reviewed and vetted for language. This sounds like someone (from the UK) is using the press to hype up his own business at Facebook's expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is dying
Unfortunately, it will take several years before this becomes clear to the masses - even MySpace is still limping along, there are some people who still use it... Sure, Facebook is the new MySpace, but the death-spiral is a multi year event.
Re:Fuck yeah (Score:5, Informative)
If Facebook doesn't IPO soon, the multi-year death-spiral will hit their investors first.
Re:Fuck yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
If Facebook doesn't IPO soon, the multi-year death-spiral will hit their investors first.
I think they missed the IPO boat. Investors are already nervous about FB.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would have already happened, but have you priced silver lately?
I'll take one :) (Score:2)
Re:Anyone want an invite? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the bigger concern is that they'll have to back off ass raping their users' privacy because of Google.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
As far as raising taxes goes, it seems
Re: (Score:3)
Job killing tax hikes. That's a laugh. How many jobs were killed under the lowest tax rates ever since the 1940s? Wait, I'm sorry, history for you doesn't exist prior to January 2009... (And you thought creationists were easy to make fun of with their 6000 years of history...these folks whitewash the day they were born from the map!)
Here's another fact your side loves to trot out: 47% pay no federal income tax.
You know WHY that is?
Well, once they pay for little things like food, shelter, clothing...there
Re: (Score:2)
Facts? We don't need no steenking facts!!
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:Job-killing Tax Hikes (Score:5, Informative)
History contradicts your assertions.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg [wikimedia.org]
Tax rates for the rich were high through the "golden age" of the 50's and 60's: in fact, in 1953, when unemployment was lowest, the tax rate on the rich was close to its highest.
Jobs are created when money is in circulation. High taxes on the rich take money out of hoarding and put it into circulation. When taxes are low, the rich hoard money: sure, there's some investment in enterprise, but there's far more speculation in commodities, real estate, currencies, metals, etc. Except for real estate, these don't create jobs: commodities do fine without speculation, and real estate only produces jobs when it's residential or commercial and new and not-bubbly, not when it's about buying up farmland in central Africa (like some major funds now do).
Tax rates haven't been as low as they are now since the beginning of the Great Depression. It's periods of low taxation that sequester money and deprive free enterprise of demand for its products (that is to say, of the supply of money). Under low rates of taxation, only the super-wealthy gain, while the economy rots away, whereas under high rates of top-bracket taxation, the entire country grows richer, including the ultra-rich, but they just get richer more slowly.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, please keep voting Republican... I'm so close to buying my own Boeing 747 and would hate to also have to forgo buying another Bentley for my daughter if my taxes are raised back to pre-2001 levels.
And someone wants to sell you that 747 and bentley. And someone wants to sell the parts and tools to make them, etc. It's called trickle down, my friends. And a trickle is better than unemployment.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook gave Michael Lee Johnson a withering stare.
"You know what you did," she said.
"And if you don't know what you did, that's even worse. Pig."
You dated her, too?