Mentioning Google+ gets you banned from Facebook ads | Hacker News Reader

Mentioning Google+ gets you banned from Facebook ads

plus.google.com

126 pointsbtilly24 comments

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.

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.

refusing ads != banning an account

First, it is very unlikely that Facebook already added the G+ logo to their image filter. Second, I don't know why would a human-review be required, they could just filter out the google+ URL, it's much easier and faster than your image trademark filter theory and requires no human-review.

So how will this automatic system verify of you are the trademark-owner (or has the right to use it) or not?

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.

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.

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.

That's a big "if".

Aren't there anti-competitive laws that forbid banning competing ads?

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.

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.

And Facebook ads do appear on gmail...

And do they also appear in google+?

google+ doesn't have ads yet.

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

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?

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

This is funny. Compare this to the following:

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

Deleted comment

You're making it sound as if this guy is trying to recruit users to Google+ when he in fact is trying to get more followers on Google+. As for the analogy, do Apple stores use an advertisement platform where businesses can purchase ads, making it the stores' main source of income? If not, it doesn't seem like a fair analogy.

Turns out that there are many ads for other social platforms/dating networks/etc. So whats the difference?

Deleted comment

Maybe, but actions like this are just pr-desasters that are a million times more harmful than the initial ad!

I really dont understand their decisition...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com