

Mentioning Google+ gets you banned from Facebook ads - btilly
https://plus.google.com/100125012078853567494/posts/c6S1scoujvJ

======
reso
PLEASE Note the comments in the previous post on this:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2770237>

Summarized:

1) Trademarked images are banned from Facebook images, and Google+ is a
trademarked image!

2) Considering the volume they deal with, it is very unlikely this case ever
got to a human-review. It was more likely caught by an automated system
looking for trademarked content.

Its amazing what conclusions people will jump to. A few days ago I saw a
status update on G+ claiming Facebook doesn't send email notifications if you
mention G+ in your status. I tested it on my own account and discovered it was
entirely false.

~~~
breathesalt
Also, it clearly looks like he violated facebook's ad guidelines:

 _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._

~~~
vaksel
refusing ads != banning an account

------
dasil003
This is one of the stupidest things Facebook has ever done.

Yes it's far stupider than all the privacy gaffes and whatnot, because at
least there they were trying to push the envelope and change the world to
their advantage.

Trying to censor Google+ is ridiculous given the incredible hype and press
it's getting. All it does is make them appear weak.

In this case it's obvious what they should do. Publicly they should ignore
Google+, privately they should watch it and see what they can learn.

~~~
k-mcgrady
This is not stupid at all. Why would Facebook advertise a competing product on
their own ad network? That would be ridiculous. It does not make them appear
weak either. Letting it happen would make them look stupid. Banning it is the
right business decision.

~~~
true_religion
He's talking about banning mere mentions of Google+ in your status messages,
or wall posts. If this were true, then Facebook would be rightly subjected to
a Streisand effect.

~~~
ceejayoz
That's a big "if".

------
arkitaip
This has got to be a variation of the Streisand effect. By not letting this
slide by, people start perceiving Facebook of fearing Google+. And why would
you fear a competitor if not because you believed the market would respond to
their advantage and your detriment. And it that is true, i.e. Facebook doubts
itself, why should the users and, more importantly, the customers, i.e.
Facebook's advertisers.

------
vaksel
crap like this really annoys me.

They disable the entire account over a violation in one campaign. No warnings,
nothing.

And you can't even get the account unbanned, since their customer support
refuses to even look into the issue.

Adwords is notorious for that too.

Fortunately it's very easy to create a new account to advertise with.

------
patrickaljord
And Facebook ads do appear on gmail...

~~~
bluelu
And do they also appear in google+?

~~~
patrickaljord
google+ doesn't have ads yet.

------
socratees
Elsewhere, Anonymous gets banned from Google+ because they violated some
community standards. Here's the HN discussion link.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2771246>

------
earbitscom
I think before jumping to conclusions about this it ought to be confirmed that
this doesn't actually violate their normal policies. Do they let you promote
your Myspace page? Your dating profile? I mean, this person is advertising,
"Come over here and be my friend on this website." It's not exactly a quality
ad he's running. Can anyone point to equally vain "personal" ads on other
platforms that are being allowed?

~~~
earbitscom
A perfect test would be an ad, "Come follow me on Quora".

------
arihant
This is funny. Compare this to the following:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=Search>

