

Facebook Bans Advertiser Pushing Google+ Follows - nns1212
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2094579/Facebook-Bans-Advertiser-Pushing-Google-Follows

======
fpgeek
I think the big mistake Facebook is making here is showing fear. Every time
they close down a path for contact export, spread FUD (e.g. Zuckerberg leaving
Google+ for "privacy" reasons) and so on they make it very, very clear that
they're terrified of Google+'s potential and they're going to do everything
they can to stop it.

The problem is that Facebook isn't the late-90s Microsoft. They don't have the
raw monopoly power to stop people from leaving for Google+, they need to
persuade them. And every move they make to try and force people to stay
(instead of enticing them) makes more people want to leave.

Perhaps the Ad ban story isn't what it seems, I'll reserve judgement on that.
But it certainly fits the Facebook's overall Google+ pattern.

Contrast this with Twitter's reaction. Google+ circles can be used
asymmetrically, so they're equally in danger. However, unlike Facebook,
they've ignored Google+, at least AFAICT. When Google+ was announced I
actually thought Twitter was in the weaker position, but I'm starting to think
I was wrong.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Facebook is reacting to Google+ the same way they reacted to Twitter's rapid
growth. They copied Twitter's features (basically reinvented themselves as
Twitter for people you know IRL) and blocked Twitter from accessing the graph.
Same thing here.

------
nextparadigms
A friend of mine asked if he would get banned from Facebook if he invited his
friends on Google+ (on the wall). Facebook would never do that (I hope), but
it's weird that he had to ask that. I think people are finally seeing Facebook
for what they really are - a company that wants to keep all your data locked
in.

~~~
blub
Yes, Facebooks wants to keep all your data locked in. It's quite surprising
though that people look for salvation to a company that wants to analyze that
same data to serve you ads...

~~~
danssig
And it's at least as surprising that people see google as so very different.

~~~
warfangle
The major difference is Google's non-trivial dedication to providing you
portability to your data.

------
thurn
Facebook implies his account was shut down for reasons unrelated to the
Google+ ad:

[http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2330342&cid=367...](http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2330342&cid=36794708)

~~~
rfurmani
Plus there is this comment:
[http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2330342&cid=367...](http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2330342&cid=36794780)

"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."

~~~
true_religion
Here's a screenshot of the original message:
<http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8840/prooft.gif>

You're reading a misquote.

------
radiosnob
I can almost understand Facebook protecting its own interests.

But its stuff like this that bugs me: "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."

my emphasis. if you going to block/ban something, at least have the decency to
say why.

~~~
int3rnaut
It could be just a time issue though--if they had to write out a reason as to
why the account was disabled it could be a very hefty operation depending on
their standards. You're right though, It would be nice if they'd do it.

------
nns1212
I see facebook ads on Google search. Google also allowed Bing's ads.
[http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/ads-for-new-microsoft-
bing-...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/ads-for-new-microsoft-bing-search-
engineon-google-search/)

Facebook doesn't have the same spirit. It knows that Google+ is far better
than what they have to offer.

------
paulnelligan
Ironically, he's getting far more publicity out of being banned than if they
would have just left his ad up ...

~~~
rmc
This is the well known <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>

------
Jabbles
Weren't all these cases found to be because the advert included a (the
Google+) trademark? Do users have the right to use it in their ads?

IANAL but Google have strict rules on how you can use their logos:
<http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html>

And facebook ads' terms of service is pretty clear about having the right to
use them: <http://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php>

~~~
thrill
FB would have no idea if the user had permission to use the G+ trademark or
not, unless Google had complained, which has certainly not been a part of this
story so far.

------
maurycy
Let me make it clear: I did not bother to read the article.

The headline says that Facebook bans advertisers pushing Google+ follows.
Obviously, no one reads anything but the headline. News by a news, and the
audience spreads the news as a fact, really.

It's _very_ harmful for Facebook.

Few days ago there was a meme that Mark Zuckeberg has stepped down. It was a
rickroll. Interesingly, it surprised me. After a minute, I've realized that,
actually, I _expect_ him to resign. Google+ is _that_ good.

~~~
blub
What is it with this give-up-and-die attitude? If you had a company and a new
competitor appeared I suppose you would resign immediately and close doors?

------
evolution
Obviously that seems logical. Tomorrow if G+ opens ad platform and Faecbook
starts advertising I'm sure google won't approve those ads. Its against policy
as well, any direct threat to their business will not be approved.

~~~
nostromo
Not true -- lots and lots of Google competitors advertise on Google. Apple
(iPhone), Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. all are allowed to advertise on Google.

I don't see any reason to think they would change that if/when they bring
advertising to G+.

~~~
vaksel
Google has their hands in a lot of pies, if they banned everyone they competed
with, they'd lose 90% of their adwords advertisers

------
scottshea
They should probably concentrate more on moving away from mySQL; that
albatross around their neck will be much worse in terms of Google+ than
someone looking for Followers.

