Facebook Bans Advertiser Pushing Google+ Follows

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.

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.

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

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2330342&cid=367...

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.

I see facebook ads on Google search. Google also allowed Bing's ads. http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/ads-for-new-microsoft-bing-...

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.