Facebook Bans User's Ad Campaigns For Displaying Google+ Ad
from the all-i-see-is-sand dept
There's a longstanding myth about ostriches that, when frightened, they will bury their head in the sand and pretend the danger isn't there. This, of course, is ridiculous. Such horribly unadaptive behavior would have been bred out of the species by the evolutionary process (or by whichever God you believe in tweaking his code a bit) as hungry African predators would have delighted in seeing stationary feathery meals. See, that isn't how you behave when you're threatened. You don't just pretend like the threat doesn't exist.Unless you're Facebook, of course.
As reported by CNET, apparently a user of both Facebook and Google+ wanted to cross-pollinate his social networking farms and, since Facebook is still the more fruitful territory at the moment, decided to take out an ad with Facebook to get folks to add him on Google+. These two are, of course competitors, currently vying for users attention and loyalty. Apparently Facebook believes the best way to do that is to not only block this gentleman's Google+ ad, but all of his ads on Facebook. The notice he received?
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.In other words, we're banning your ads because we're banning your ads. The CNET article tries to dig into Facebooks advertising TOS, but basically comes up with nothing other than that they reserve the right to ban for any reason including promoting competing products.
So Facebook, embroiled in a war to win the hearts and minds of internet users, is pretending that the war doesn't exist. There is no Google+, at least not in Facebook-Land, where everything is milk, honey, and Farmville requests. We know why ostriches didn't evolve this kind of behavior.
So what's going to happen to Facebook if they keep their heads firmly entrenched in the sand?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, bans, google+
Companies: facebook, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just a friendly reminder
We were good friends for a while. The thing is, it's time to part ways. I'm allowing some great things to happen on my new site! Things that haven't been done before. The problem is, the complaints I receive for doing them. So to make everyone happy, I've put a block to third party apps.
Then, I allow anyone to work with my pages, making them as big or as small as they want. The thing is, people are great to work on their pages, and make them look great! The problem is, most people aren't that good at it. :(
Nowadays, I love how to allow people to communicate over a great period of distances. I let them communicate through even your network. Sadly, when people see your ways of making a social network, they don't come back. Can you please help me figure this out?
Sincerely,
Myspace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zuckerberg...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zuckerberg...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zuckerberg...
Pretty sure that's not true. It was rumored, but is not the case. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20079889-71/zuckerberg-back-atop-google-openly/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zuckerberg...
In other news... facebook is so 2009. It sucked then, it sucks now. And for someone majorly disliking all this social network crap and the cool words you try to use to make it sound cool, like ecosystem and crap like that... well G+ makes it more interesting. For now. Until it becomes so 2011 and something better comes out... and then the fad dies and all these shitty sites stop popping up... I know I know, I'm not well... then again neither are those 500M facebook users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Zuckerberg...
They redesigned the site, making it hard to find your current friends, but easy to invite new ones.
They also gave everyone instant messaging by default, and made you just ignore people if you don't like IM.
They also gave game developers an API to allow your friends to annoy you with stupid game messages to the point that you really have to question the value of friends to begin with.
I found a bunch of "lost" friends on facebook... and oddly enough, they're hardly ever on facebook.
Myspace lost because there was too much fluff all over the place. Very few people want to automatically hear your favorite songs and see your favorite vids, and if they do, they know how to click a link. Facebook figured that out, but they put all the links on the main page. Fail!
When I get on Google+, hopefully they will have even less fluff, and let me chop out what's there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't news, and it's not just Google+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't news, and it's not just Google+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't news, and it's not just Google+
Rather, it obviously shows awareness of the competition.
Sort of a misfire of an article if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't news, and it's not just Google+
Hmm, if you read the entire piece, you'd note that isn't exactly what happened here. Reportedly, Facebook banned ALL this guy's ads, not just the G+ ad....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't news, and it's not just Google+
I'm tired of 'form letters' like this. They are basically a bully with authority. I had a high school vice principal pull this crap on me: he pulled me into his office and then said "what did you do wrong?" and repeated that line of questioning for 15 minutes. Waste of time because i didn't actually do anything, and all he taught me is that there are people in this world that will use the full weight of their authority to push you around and make you think you are wrong.
Putting into the letter "we won't tell you what you did wrong" is pretty similar bullshit. It shows that they are afraid of their competition, but are desperate to not show that fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
1. Google Fan Boys (of which I suppose I am one) joining G+ because it's just like Facebook - but it's not Facebook.
2. Facebook non-apologist who will stick with Facebook because they like the games.
3. Google haters who refuse G+ and will stick with FB until MS gets their Soc Net going....
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook to be come the game platform...for now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory xkcd
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/918/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nitpicking
Of course, if such behavior were triggered after the ostrich had a chance to reproduce, there would be no a priori reason to expect that it would lead to extinction. It might even be adaptive if offspring that can fend for themselves get a chance to escape while the predators occupied themselves with the stationary adult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nitpicking
If you want a good conundrum, try to figure out how humans evolved to have menapause (i.e. "voluntary" sterility). Bonus points if you don't look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nitpicking
I did do a search about ostrich offspring and found this list of facts. Among them:
If true, this is kind of curious, and suggests somehow that possession of others' offspring enhances the fitness of one's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nitpicking
> of both pairs' offspring
There is no way this is true.
The only bird I know of that is raised by other parents is the Cuckoo. Its parents lay it in other birds nest, it hatches early, and pushes all the other eggs out of the nest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nitpicking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nitpicking
Quote:
Source: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ostrich
Quote:
Source: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RIAA
On a serious note about some animals behavior:
Possums stay very, very still hoping that predators loose interest(i.e. defensive thanatosis, playing possum) and so do a lot of other animals.
opposums and vipers are apparently in an arms race, maybe that is why Facebook keeps getting more venomous by the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nitpicking
Most birds do (except, I believe, Owls.) They have part of their stomach called a craw/crop/croup, which is a pouch in their throats where food is "pre-digested" before hitting the stomach. Birds eat rocks, pebbles, and sand to aid in this digestion, but it doesn't affect their flight characteristics because it is only a small amount.
It is often fun watching chickens do this...the pecking they do on the ground isn't for worms, but for pebbles and sand granules which they store in their crop to help digestion.
It is also why some people find sand/dirt in bird poop, because the stuff gets cycled through the system and they have to eat more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is FUD.
What sane business provides advertising to their direct competitors? None of them. You know why? 'cause it would be stupid.
There's definitely a story to be had with the original article, in that FB banned his whole account instead of just a single ad. that's a knee jerk reaction taht should have been handled better. But Timothy Geigner tried to spin it off as if facebook was trying to ignore its problem. THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. I dont see anyway to come to that conclusion at all.
TECHDIRT: I don't care how popular Dark Helmet is. STOP POSTING FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
I have satellite TV and I see commercials for competitors all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This article is FUD.
Coke/Pepsi etc...
This person has obviously never seen ads and therefore must be a pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
Er, other than television stations, radio stations, restaurants that post menus from other eateries in their waiting areas, etc. Besides, the "ad" wasn't "hey, leave facebook and come see how awesome G+ is". It was just "add me on G+". Why is that such a big deal?
"But Timothy Geigner tried to spin it off as if facebook was trying to ignore its problem."
Er, yeah. By banning ALL the user's ads out of some kind of misguided fear that he'd psot another one. That was the point....
"TECHDIRT: I don't care how popular Dark Helmet is. STOP POSTING FUD."
I'm popular? Well, there's a first time for everything, I suppose....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This article is FUD.
Nah, yer not popular. We constantly vote you funny and insightful because we are all scared that Dark Helmet's Legal Notice Writing Group is gonna send us some kind of notice. It's a chilling effect kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This article is FUD.
Er, yeah. By banning ALL the user's ads out of some kind of misguided fear that he'd psot another one. That was the point....[/quote]
Seriously, there is no correlation there at all. Your entire point was that facebook was being ignorant of their problem, and then you provided EVIDENCE that they were being proactive about their problem.
Black is white, up is down. The very definition of FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This article is FUD.
How is banning this guy's ads ignoring the competition? Really, that makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This article is FUD.
Well, I care how popular Dark Helmet is. In fact, he's so popular that Hothmonster gave him the kickassic nickname "Penis Joke." Meanwhile, I got saddled with the easily mishandled and often-ignored nickname "CLiT." So, I care.
(I'm sorry. I didn't catch the rest of your whatever.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This article is FUD.
The Penis Tickler
Laughable Penis
The Penis Clown
Balls McPenisJoke
Taint Funnier
Purple Helmet
hmmm nothing great, ill stick it deep in my thought hole and see what comes out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This article is FUD.
Err.
Sorry dark helmet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is FUD.
I don't recall Google banning search results For Firefox or Opera or Windows Phone 7 or Blackberry. But these are all direct competitors to Google. Google even pays Mozilla to make it's search engine the default in Firefox. Even though Google has it's own browser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vendor Lock-in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vendor Lock-in
You can call Zuckerburg on it all you want, but that's how he got rich. That's how THOUSANDS of entrepreneurs have struck gold in the marketplace. there are countless case studies that prove vendor lock-in is a vital key to long term success. (see razor blades, ink toner, everything microsoft has ever touched, etc)
Of course, that doesn't mean we have to like it. But just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not a viable business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vendor Lock-in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vendor Lock-in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook shill or DH hater?
Maybe you should edit one in for consistency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook shill or DH hater?
He was probably distracted by the nature documentary unfolding in the comment threads. (Yes, I realize that this timeline makes no sense as the comment thread didn't develop until after he posted his penis-joke-free post, but if you look at it from the view of a late-coming commenter [there's part of a penis joke], it all makes a sort of cosmic sense and also explains why some of my posts are heavily edited by others before they make it out into the wild.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least give a reason
According to the Facebook advertising 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."
But since they don't say what was violated, maybe that wasn't it. Maybe it violated this section: "Ads cannot require viewers to click on the ad to submit Personally Identifiable Information (such as name, date of birth, phone numbers, social security number, physical addresses, or email addresses) on the landing page." Since Google+ requires a name, this could be the real reason!
Or maybe he violated the section prohibiting using the "&" symbol to mean "And", or ending a sentence with elipses... I guess we'll never know.
Oh, and by the way... Plenty of internet sites accept advertising for competing sites. I can understand not doing it, though, if your product is inferior and people only use it because it's what they've always been using and their friends all use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave Facebook, Join G+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FB is ignoring Google+ at it's peril-but that's a good thing.
That's why FB sucks so bad now-all those annoying and in-your-face ads, invites and groups for games that you would never find in the bargain bin of of Salvation Army Stores.
I hate Google-I'll admit that right now-but FB really is the pits,-I have an account there, too and at G+.
Let's see who doesn't suck so hard in two years time. My bet is on G+ because they've seen the pit that FB is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch Dogs DLC Unlocker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]