Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Bans Google+ Ads

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the a-friends-list-too-far dept.

Advertising 548

Barbara, not Barbie writes "Not content with making it hard for people to export their Facebook contacts to Google+, Facebook has now banned all ads from app developer Michael Lee Johnson, who ran an ad saying 'Add Michael to Google+.' Facebook sent him the following message: '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.'"

cancel ×

548 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36792988)

As the crazy left continues to suggest job-killing tax hikes, I just wanted to take a minute to assure that you will vote against such lunatic measures in the future. Raising taxes on ANYONE, rich, poor, or otherwise means they have less money to spend ... both to directly employ your husbands and daughters, or to purchase the products that they make at their jobs. We need lower taxes, not higher taxes. I've placed all of my funds to money-market in anticipation of the upcoming political stalemate and market crash. You will thank me. I will be the one purchasing your product and financing your project once all other funds are gone. We in this country need to get back to fending for ourselves, and not relying on the sociaL safety net. This is the way it was done when we were great. We can be great again - just stop feeding the bunnies, get back to real Type-A personalities getting shit done - no health care for slackers, no welfare, no unemployment - if you're unemployed, you don't have money. Period. Get rid of that job-killing tax on employers, the ones who create wealth. It's the worst possible tax you could have. I will vote 1000% Republican in 2012, and hope for your sake that you will too. Fareed Zakaria is completely loony. P.S. Who is the hot blonde chick on the Kindle commercials? And anyone else like cheerleaders who can do the splits?

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793042)

Yes, please keep voting Republican... I'm so close to buying my own Boeing 747 and would hate to also have to forgo buying another Bentley for my daughter if my taxes are raised back to pre-2001 levels.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1, Offtopic)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793044)

I always have to wonder. Where do the anti tax hikes people think the money goes? It's not like the government isn't going to spend it, and that the people they give it to aren't going to spend it (at least not significantly less so than the people who held it in the first place, and in most cases, they are more likely to spend it).

Which means ... taxes create jobs. More jobs than you would get without taxes. I think the success of the stimulus has pretty much proven that to all but the very stupid.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793088)

There are a LOT of stupid people.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793200)

That argument is, in general, good, but the current situation calls for tax hikes to pay off debt. They're frankly necessary, because the debt has to be paid somehow, and increasing revenue along with cutting spending is the way to do it. But, paying off debt runs the inherent risk of feeding extreme political rhetoric: the right can now say that the money isn't being re-spent in America to create American jobs, but rather being poured into debts that only [pick one: punish the rich, enrich bankers and the rich, enrich the Communist Chinese; note that these positions are not necessarily true or even consistent, but rather rhetorical].

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (1, Offtopic)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793216)

Source please?

Last report I saw said that is cost 278,000 to create every job that was created from the stimulus bill. I'm not disagreeing with you, since I have no numbers on how much consumer spending it costs to create one job. I would be interested in learning more.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793266)

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If you've got a job that pays $20k a year then you're probably looking at an additional $20k or so in overhead, and that's for jobs where you're just providing a service, now since the stimulus money was largely focused on construction and infrastructure, you'd be looking at a hell of a lot more than that in materials.

Additionally, a lot of the stimulus spending was on things which we should have been spending money on already. The government wasn't going around damaging infrastructure just to give people a job, that was largely done by neglect and a refusal of the citizens to pay the taxes to maintain it.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (2, Insightful)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793434)

So 40k in a year in jobs that took 278k to create. That's almost 14 years to recoup the loss at 100% tax. This seems inefficient to me.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1, Offtopic)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793428)

The source is just reality of numbers. The government spends everything it takes in, and then some. Poorer people with less money spend a larger fraction of their income than rich people (who can afford to save / hold back).

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (0, Offtopic)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793292)

We're not talking about taking tax money and spending it in the US, we're talking about taking tax money and spending it on paying off China so they keep lending us money so we can become even more indebited to them.

Right now, China (and perhaps the Saudis) are financing $0.46 of every dollar the US government spends. When it creeps past $0.50 we might very well see someone from China sitting down with the President and Congress to decide how the money coming from China is going be spent - after all, they will pretty much own over 50% of the budget. Does this really sound like a good idea?

Sure, raising taxes would be great. We should also consider a "wealth tax" not just a income taxes. Right now, the folks making the most money aren't receiving it as a salary subject to income taxes but they are getting it as capital gains which is taxed at a much lower, fixed rate. That means that an income tax increase isn't going to affect capital gains income at all and would therefore be totally non-productive. I really want to see someone proposing that it should be illegal to have more than a couple of million dollars and the government should just take it all. That would really fix the economy, now wouldn't it? Make the US the home of poor people once again. Eliminate wealth in the US and give it all to the government to spend.

So how come Obama hasn't pushed any of his WPA-like programs that he was talking about during his campaign? Instead of spending over $200,000 per job with his stimulus program, how about some real government-paid jobs for millions of people? Fix unemployment by hiring people, not paying four times as much to someone else to hire someone.

Come on, if what we want is a real government-sponsored economy where the government actually supports people, then bring it on! Let's see it happen and see the results.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1, Offtopic)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793354)

In a pure economy, you can't spend money you don't have. But in a credit-economy, that unfortunately doesn't hold true. So cutting taxes by itself doesn't stop the blockheads from charging it and increasing national debt. That generally only works so long though before they start cutting back spending. But governments in general are notorious for loose spending, since the ones cutting the checks are not dealing with their own money. So it all tends to boil down to lack of fiscal responsibility. (which Greece is finally reaching the end of their rope on)

Getting partisan, it's generally safe to say that republicans lower taxes and raise national debt, democrats raise taxes and lower national debt. It's "seesaw economics". People get tired of high taxes so they vote in republicans who lower taxes, raise debt, and depress the economy. People get tired of high debt and poor economy and vote in democrats that raise taxes, lower debt, and recover the economy. Rinse and repeat. The voters drive the cycle.

I really don't have a stance on whether taxes need to be raised or lowered. It really doesn't matter, one way or another, every dollar the government spends needs to be paid for, either now, or later. So many people just don't understand/realize that. Spending is the true issue, and we the people generally have very little say in that. If you lower the spending, you can lower the taxing, it's just that dead simple. All we can do is vote for congresscritters that we hope will be more sensible with the spending, but it never seems to materialize. It all comes down to greed really, every representative tries to get things for their state, leading to pork. But it's not just one or two or ten of them doing it, they pretty much all do it. And once you get into that situation, the only "losers" are the few that don't do it, so the result is, nobody wants to stop. And so it never ends, or at least not until you can get just about everyone to agree on fixing it at once, which is really hard to do.

The whole issue of "pork" comes down to compromise, need, and greed. If group A has a legitimate need for X, they can't get it without "compromise", which often means giving group B their Y as well, which very often is an unnecessary luxury. Group B is being greedy, and can get away with it because group A requires their help to get what they need. As a result we all are forced to pay for the unnecessary Y. That's the essence of pork. Find a way to fix that, and you can actually lower taxes without raising debt and damaging the economy.

Also, trying to simply say "taxes create jobs" ignores that circle of finance, specifically "jobs pay taxes". It doesn't make money, it just moves it around. The only way for a country to actually make money is by clearing a higher margin on exports than it loses on imports. (again money only moves, but from outside the country to inside it)

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (0, Offtopic)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793424)

The greatest marking job of the past several decades was the one used to get average folks who will never ever have at the very least $500,000+ to their name to vote against their own self interests.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (-1, Offtopic)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793436)

Actually, it's the other way around. When taxes on the rich are low, business owners take the profits out of the business for "job-creating" items like big houses, cars, boats and bribes^Wpolitical contributions. As tax rates rise, owners leave more and more money in the business, spending more on hiring and R&D. But keep up the noble work of shilling for your plutocrat masters. I'm sure one day one of them will pat you on the head for your loyalty.

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (0)

andydread (758754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793254)

Sean Hannity? What are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:Job-killing Tax Hikes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793370)

I know you're trolling but I also know there really are people who think what you post. You see capitalism works best when money moves around. Right now money is consolidating into large corporations and the wealthy. Profits are at all time highs. Cash on hand for corporations is at all time highs. The theory that more money in the hands of corporations and other 'job makers' is failing. Job growth is abysmal. Corporations are cutting back as profits climb. The system is becoming more fragile. Socialism is a symptom of failed capitalism.

If the wealthy do not want society to take their money from them (taxes are the nice way) then they need to decide to reinvest in the society that made them wealthy. Food and shelter are what matters to society. History has shown that this can be achieved with a healthy capitalist system. However, current events is showing that system is sick. My hope is that the wealthy remember that a high tide lifts all boats. So to all that are reading this, remember, a hungry neighbor is a potential enemy. Care for your fellow man or we will all suffer.

Well, that's one way to advertise.... (5, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793006)

Even if Facebook really didn't disable this guy's account for running a Google+ ad they have effectively become an ad for Google+ themselves.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793018)

Yeah, can't help wondering how people that incompetent could have been so successful to begin with - "no, you mustn't advertise our competitor, let us do it for you".

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793030)

However, if they did, isn't it anti-competitive?

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793102)

No - Facebook aren't doing anything here to stop the competition, nothing says they have to advertise their competition within their own service.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (4, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793406)

nothing says they have to advertise their competition within their own service.

Exactly. You don't see ads for the Superbowl on competing networks.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (4, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793112)

You're allowed to be as anti-competitive as you want until you have a monopoly position and the government gets involved. Facebook hardly has a monopoly on social networking, there are literally dozens of competitors in the space, and at least 5 of them have substantial market share.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793280)

That's not really how that works. You're supposed to obey the law without the government having to go in and enforce it. If the government had to bring people into court every time somebody got in their car, that would be absolutely ridiculous.

FB, definitely does have a significant enough share of the market that things like this aren't legal. If MySpace was doing it nobody would care because they're not relevant, FB OTOH is the largest site in a niche where size does in fact matter.

They are obeying the law (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793402)

That's not really how that works. You're supposed to obey the law without the government having to go in and enforce it.

As stated, they are not a monopoly. There is freedom of speech, but there's not a REQUIREMENT that if you are a service you are required to take any advertising, no matter the content. It's perfectly legal to refuse to carry any ad, on whatever grounds.

I don't see why Facebook, or any company, should be required to participate in its own demise.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793440)

The anti competition laws apply only to monopolies. So you're not disobeying until you hold a monopoly position.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793154)

In what other world do you live that a corporation must be forced to advertise for a competitor? Seems like everyone immediately loves to scream anti-competitive at the first sign of stress between two companies. It's called competition.

Facebook shouldn't be required to advertise for a competitor. They are a privately owned company and in no way would this ever be considered anti-competitive.

That said, Facebook better get it's shit in order if it hopes to compete, or become the next MySpace. Google+ doesn't have much of a community as of yet, just a bunch of accounts without a lot of activity. It lacks anything compelling for now but that could easily change with just the whim's of it's user base, or some new feature that hasn't been thought of. People have a short attention span, and Facebook is already on thin ice.

Even if Facebook really didn't disable this guy's account for running a Google+ ad they have effectively become an ad for Google+ themselves.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793420)

It happens..the tobacco industry is forced to advertise smoking cessation. The casino industry is required to advertise to help some gamblers quit gambling.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793186)

They're not violating a law, they're just being dicks. But the public doesn't care about the former, only the latter.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793298)

Is this really any different than Google getting investigated for allegedly boosting results of its products? I think the jury is still out on whether or not that's been going on, but just because it's their site, doesn't mean that they can do what they like. There are certain responsibilities and limitations which come into play when you're that dominant in an industry.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793122)

we'll see if this even makes it out of the geekier side of the online news forums. It's the 'other' forums where the advertising would be effective since most everyone here has already heard of Google+.

on a side note, I wonder when Facebook will start disabling all users using a Gmail account for their email address.

LoB

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793336)

never mind, I see TFA is on C'net

LoB

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793124)

I'm not sure the Streisand Effect applies here. Everyone's heard of Google+ by now, and there's no way Facebook could ever prevent that, with Google's dominance in the advertising world.

But the one big reason that Google+ will be dominated by Facebook has nothing to do with whether people have heard of Google+ or not. Instead, it's that nobody's on Google+, and everybody's already on Facebook.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793334)

Everyone's heard of Google+ by now

Not even remotely true. I'm not sure what you sample was - but my anecdote is that I ask people almost every day if they have signed up for G+ yet and most of them look blank and ask what the heck is a Google+. This is working in an IT company. Granted, many of them don't follow IT news online and don't have IT related hobbies at home - and those are the ones who haven't heard of G+. If some IT people don't know about it yet, I imagine in other industries nobody knows about it.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793368)

Oh really? Have you ever heard of MySpace?

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (4, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793384)

I think the most interesting 20% of my Facebook friends are on Google+. Perhaps the percentage is even higher.

So, as far as I'm concerned, everybody's already on Google+.

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793400)

wasn't "everyone" once on MySpace and I recall something called AOL once used by "everyone" too. Don't forget, Android OEMs often do deals with Google which include Google services like their app store, gmail, google chat, google voice, google maps, etc. Preloaded with a gmail account. That's lots of devices every day with users who could easily switch social networks.

It does not help that Facebook has partnered with Microsoft and is therefore blocking lots of Google ads from their site and being as aggressive about it as if Microsoft was at the helm.

LoB

Re:Well, that's one way to advertise.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793412)

I'm not sure the Streisand Effect applies here. Everyone's heard of Facebook by now, and there's no way MySpace could ever prevent that, with Facebook's dominance in the hipster world.

But the one big reason that Facebook will be dominated by MySpace has nothing to do with whether people have heard of Facebook or not. Instead, it's that nobody's on Facebook, and everybody's already on MySpace.

Same story, different day... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793040)

When will companies realize that putting your head in the sand and pretending the competition does not exist will make it go away? This is a stupid move on facebook's part. If you are scared of the new competition, than innovate and make your product better. Otherwise you will end up like Blockbuster, GM, and countless others examples throughout history.

Re:Same story, different day... (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793220)

I'm sorry, but I didn't realise that GMs or Blockbusters troubles started when they refused to advertise their rivals in their own stores or showrooms...

Re:Same story, different day... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793268)

you stupid fuck. he was suggesting they innovate. learn how to read.

Re:Same story, different day... (1, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793296)

His suggestion had nothing to do with the topic at hand, banning an ad for a rival network does not imply they are burying their heads in the sand, nor does it imply that they are suffering from a lack of innovation - learn to think for yourself, you pathetic little shit.

Re:Same story, different day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793392)

Of course, did they have an advertising system? (Something others can use for doing ads, not just an in house self promotion.)
That's why those companies aren't part of this discussion, other than being companies that tanked for some reason...

More people will notice now... (5, Insightful)

kullnd (760403) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793050)

Funny thing is that alot less people would have noticed such a stunt had Facebook just left it alone... Thanks to their decision, I didn't even have to log into Facebook to see the ad, he doesn't have to pay for the impression of the ad to me, and Facebook doesn't get the money for it! ... Sweet Deal

Re:More people will notice now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793176)

I was just thinking what a creative way to circumvent my adblock that was.

Re:More people will notice now... (2)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793252)

But the next million times it happens (or pre-empted from happening due to chilling effects), it won't land on Slashdot's main page. So the expected-value analysis is probably still in Facebook's favor.

Re:More people will notice now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793348)

the Streisand Effect...

Anyone want an invite? (0)

chalsall (185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793052)

Anyone want an invite? Post your e-mail address here, or e-mail gplus@wabbit.com.

If you e-mail me, I promise not to give your e-mail address to any spammers, nor use it myself other than to send the invite.

Certainly better than posting it publicly here!

I'll take one :) (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793322)

jeremy.firefox.addon@gmail.com. It's my public addy for my Firefox plug-in, so I don't mind posting it here. Thanks! :).

Fuck yeah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793054)

Facebook is dying

Re:Fuck yeah (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793140)

Facebook is dying

Unfortunately, it will take several years before this becomes clear to the masses - even MySpace is still limping along, there are some people who still use it... Sure, Facebook is the new MySpace, but the death-spiral is a multi year event.

Re:Fuck yeah (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793270)

MySpace has entirely changed its focus from the individual to the collective though. It's still one of the better ways for local business or underfunded (and some very well off) bands to get themselves out there without needing to spend the money on web design, hosting, and storage/transfer. Yes, there are still individual profiles, but largely the only ones updating are bands and businesses.

Re:Fuck yeah (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793376)

The timing is excellent, however. Shortly before Google+ was announced, I saw someone estimating a $1trillion estimate for the future valuation of Facebook. Now we are seeing that 75% of capital markets executives at investment banks believe that the multi-billion dollar valuations for many private companies are too high. [thestreet.com] . Some people are calling the Facebook IPO the greatest short opportunity ever [wallstreetdaily.com] .

If Facebook doesn't IPO soon, the multi-year death-spiral will hit their investors first.

Re:Fuck yeah (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793306)

It would have already happened, but have you priced silver lately?

Also... (5, Funny)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793078)

Also in the news, Google bans Facebook from it's search results. Facebook complains, fails to see the humour of the situation.

Re:Also... (-1, Flamebait)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793152)

Who goes to Google to find Facebook? The only Facebook-related thing Google is good for is finding the Facebook page of an individual who probably doesn't even want to be found. Google actually should ban Facebook from its search results.

Re:Also... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793206)

The people who routinely type urls into the search bar and don't know what the address bar is for. For those people, anything Google blocks then ceases to exist.

Re:Also... (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793314)

Isn't there a new browser option to eliminate the address bar entirely, specifically for people that can't type URLs? After all, if all you do is use Google and bookmarks, what possible use is the address bar?

Re:Also... (5, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793214)

68,000,000 people per month google the phrase "www.facebook.com"

I take it you've never seen analytics for a website.
Many, many people use google as a sort of fuzzy address bar. They mash in something resembling the URL, and google sends them there.

Re:Also... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793286)

A friend of mine does that routinely. She'll type in the complete URL in the search field, then click on the top result that comes back. Says it works fine, and told me where I could shove my helpful suggestion about the address bar...

Re:Also... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793324)

I'll do that if I can't remember whether it's a .net .com or .org TLD. I'd rather give a little bit of money to Google than to link farmers.

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793372)

I just use my bookmark...

"I don't need to remember my own phone number, I can just look it up in the phone book." Albert Einstein

Make yourself a good place to mark down sites you goto... Save yourself some time.

Re:Also... (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793426)

1. How many of those people realize it's a search engine and not an address bar?

2. How many of those people actually typed it in an address bar but their web browser's address bar is also a Google search bar?

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793262)

You have NO idea how "regular people" use the web. :) People reach sites by clicking on the first Google hit and strongly believe that it's what they were looking for despite all evidence to the contrary.

My favorite example is this article that was the first hit for "facebook login" a while ago. Read the oldest comments first: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php

Re:Also... (5, Funny)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793284)

I think there was a case last year where, for a day, Google returned someone else's blog as #1 when searching for Facebook (FB itself was #2). The blog comments instantaneously filled with hundreds of angry, misspelled, all-caps rants by people infuriated that Facebook wasn't letting them log in. It was hilarious (wish I could find it now).

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793290)

A few months ago this

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php [readwriteweb.com]

was on the first Google page for "facebook login". A few precious comments:

Margaret Beck
i don't understand this
Like Reply
2 weeks ago 2 Likes

Margaret Beck
why should i subscribe by e-mail
Like Reply
2 weeks ago 2 Likes

Margaret Beck
why can't i get into facebook--i signed up wks ago

Be shocked.

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793332)

Banning Facebook from its search results would probably damage it more than Facebook - being that Google is in the search business and all. Your search engine can't find Facebook, but Bing can? That sound you're hearing is the sound of everyone updating their homepages to bing.com.

Funny - the captcha for this post is 'profits'

Re:Also... (4, Funny)

poind3xt3r (890661) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793312)

Facebook

> Did you mean: Google+

Re:Also... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793396)

Wouldn't that be leveraging an advantageous position in one market in order to gain an advantage in another...?

seriously? (5, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793080)

They tell him they can't identify which part(s) of their own Terms of Service have been violated and then tell the guy if he has any questions he should review their terms of service for the answers. WTF over. The term Sophomoric comes to mind.

At the very least they should have changed their ToS and then notified him of what he's violated.

LoB

Re:seriously? (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793300)

Of course, that's just an automated message that gets sent out identically any time someone is banned.

Re:seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793374)

I love it when people get charged with offenses that the other party refuses to identify. Obviously you wouldn't have said anything in the first place if you didn't know what I did wrong, would you? Reminds me of the ref in the SA World Cup who wouldn't say who or what the offense was on the US team that drew a penalty or most of the prisoners in Gitmo.

Pretty much describes most software error handlers too. "An error has occured!" usually means "Obviously I know what the exact error was but I'm too lazy of a programmer to specify what caused the error because then I'd have to write a bunch of custom messages and all that extra code."

Nonsense (2)

Toam (1134401) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793082)

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.

This is such nonsense. If he has violated it, tell him where. Giving a non-specific reason and telling him to try and work it out for himself is ridiculous.

(Yes, obviously this is a "we are banning you but not explicitly saying why, mwahaha!" but it is still bullshit)

Re:Nonsense (1, Informative)

tempo36 (2382592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793146)

I once got the exact same thing from eBay once... ----------- Your listing has been removed. Our decision to remove your listings was based on several factors. Please take note that this removal is not to question your item thus a help in making your listings better, in making you a better eBayer and to improve your future sales. - Community members have expressed concern with the authenticity of previous items Due to the concerns stated above, please don't relist these items. If you do, your listings will be removed and you may be subject to range of actions, including buying and selling limits or suspension of your account. This helps protect you from receiving negative Feedback or low detailed seller ratings and also prevents eBay buyers from potentially bad shopping experiences. ---------------- When I called and asked what concerns had been expressed since I had 100% feedback I was told that there is no way to access the specifics of why the item was removed and that I should....read the ToS.

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793204)

Ultimately, what they mean is that they want to be able to remove listings whenever they feel like it. It is certainly their right to do so, but then they should say so in their terms of service. Now they include some bullshit in their terms of service and then go on to disregard the terms with impunity.

Re:Nonsense (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793282)

Most of the time ToS such as these do have clauses stating that they reserve the right to remove anything, anytime, for any reason, more or less.

Re:Nonsense (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793194)

Giving specific reasons would encourage people to poke at you to find weaknesses.

Re:Nonsense (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793218)

Security through obscurity then.

Re:Nonsense (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793344)

I'm sorry, but that's not legitimate in this case. The rules are the rules and if you want people to live up to them, then they have to be clear. If they won't tell him what the violation was, then they have a responsibility to give the money back and not to spaz out if the ad gets relisted.

One of the things about rule of law is that it doesn't work if the people being expected to live under it aren't clear as to what specifically the laws are. Granted this is just a contract, but the same logic applies.

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793242)

The reason for no explanation is that it's a form letter they send to anyone who has violated their guidelines. It's easier and faster to send out violation notifications if they don't have to have a human point out the exact guideline that was violated, not because the guideline doesn't exist yet.

Give it another month. (1)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793092)

At this rate I bet that $1B valuation and IPO will be all smoke.

Does Google allow Facebook ads? (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793100)

A lot of companies have ads set to display when a user searches for their company name. That's not apparently the case for Facebook.

But has anybody seen a Facebook ad in the context of any other search terms on Google?

Re:Does Google allow Facebook ads? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793346)

I truly don't think Facebook needs ads or Google at this point. Like Google, they are basically making sure you can't use anything electronic without seeing them. Also, Google marketing has managed to make Google the new word for search and Facebook has people asking for Facebook invites as if they're asking for a phone number. Really neither of them need each other. And both of them are obviously afraid of each other. If I were Facebook right now, I'd be looking to create my own YouTube and search engine.

Re:Does Google allow Facebook ads? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793366)

I doubt that Google bans Facebook ads, that would be a tremendous antitrust violation. More likely, Facebook either doesn't bother to advertise or only advertises for search terms that you haven't entered. I personally ignore the ads so I wouldn't know.

Plus, it would be counterproductive given that Google+ is largely being sold by not being Facebook, ads for Facebook likely remind people that they want in on Google+

Days of the Facebook are numbered (3, Insightful)

hotfireball (948064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793116)

The Facebook is doomed. They understand that and they are trying to do anything possible to stop people running away. But it is inevitable: Google+ is much better place to do things like that.

Re:Days of the Facebook are numbered (0, Flamebait)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793192)

Really? Because almost everyone I know on both Google+ and Facebook has pretty much already stopped using Google+ and gone back to using Facebook exclusively. It's not that Google+ isn't pretty. It's not even a critical mass thing. it's that it just does a hell of a lot less than Facebook. Sure it may be more private by default but in exchange for everything Facebook offers, given that one can also do a hell of a lot to make a Facebook profile private... (more in some ways than with a Google+ account)... it's just not worth the trade off for most people.

Re:Days of the Facebook are numbered (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793276)

Maybe in your circle of friends. But a billion posts in 2 weeks seems to disagree. Plenty of people don't use or want those extra "features" facebook throws at you but instead just want a way to keep in touch with friends in a more mature fashion than "john answered 6 or 8 questions right about marie, can you do better?"

Re:Days of the Facebook are numbered (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793358)

I'm not sure how you can say this so vehemently about a service that is still very much "beta".

As for me, since I am neither a "farmer" nor a member of the "mafia", the part of Facebook that Google+ does "a lot less of" is not the part of Facebook I ever used.

Beginning of a Pattern? (5, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793138)

'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 a nutshell: "Your account has been disabled, we won't do business with you anymore, and we can't tell you why." Did I miss something? Did Verizon [slashdot.org] buy out Facebook? Or are we simply seeing the beginning of a pattern in the way business is going to be conducted in the future to avoid the expense of having to pay a human being to deal with customers, and to avoid the possibility of writing anything specific that could be used in court or the media?

What ever happened to being blunt and frank, like when the Cleveland Stadium Corp responded [lettersofnote.com] to a complaint with a reply on company letterhead that read:

Attached is a letter that we received on November 19, 1974. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

Very truly yours,

CLEVELAND STADIUM CORP.

Re:Beginning of a Pattern? (1)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793178)

And this is why I'm ready to jettison Facebook.

Re:Beginning of a Pattern? (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793316)

In a nutshell: "Your account has been disabled, we won't do business with you anymore, and we can't tell you why." Did I miss something? Did Verizon [slashdot.org] buy out Facebook?

There is a slight difference between the two: Verizon takes customers' cash without telling them why; Facebook refuses to take a customer's cash without telling them why.

Re:Beginning of a Pattern? (2)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793352)

Posting to unmod a wrong mod.

Was this a wall post? (5, Insightful)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793172)

This article and summary are unclear about how the advert was posted--presumably it was a wall post.

The article lists various places in the terms of use that he might have violated, but this excerpt seems most likely:

""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."

Which seems overly-broad and anti-competitive. What exactly constitutes an ad? Can I express my interest in something only if facebook isn't developing a competing product?

Re:Was this a wall post? - No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793438)

It was an ad, in the FB ad system (there is currently a screenshot of it in the article), and it was his advertiser account that got blocked for violating the TOS you sign up to as a FB advertiser. This has nothing to do with what you as a user post on your wall.

It is quite common for companies to deny competitors the right to advertise on their site/service. It only becomes a possible anti-competitive case if you are in a monopoly situation (like the case against Google now for prioritizing their own services over competitors in search results).

You'll need to disable adblock to see it (2)

petegas (1327443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793222)

In the linked story, the ad is still being pulled from a server that adblock will remove, so disable it to see it.

This Just In (1)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793224)

The horseshoe industry has forbidden all its workers from mentioning the word "automobile". Said their representative, "Then and only then can we endeavor to preserve a way of life we have all come to know and love".

Interesting Strategy (0)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793230)

This is an interesting strategy on the part of Facebook. Their fear is that Google+ will grow large enough to reach critical mass and then they will have to compete based upon merit instead of their already established position. This move adds fuel to the fire of Facebook being inferior to Google+, but at the same time reduces the visibility of Google+ to the market of people on Facebook. Facebook seems to be betting on the strategy of making it hard to migrate away and keeping as many users as possible ignorant of the existence of Google+. It is probably good business, although Google ill probably be smart enough to buy the needed marketing on television and through their own ad distribution channels.

But that doesn't really matter because Facebook is already reviled for its privacy policies and poor customer service. One more instance is a drop in the bucket. And if Google+ does gain critical mass, Facebook will have to do a "turning over a new leaf" campaign anyway. So in my assessment, this is scuzzy and underhanded and probably a smart thing to do.

Re:Interesting Strategy (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793394)

I think the bigger concern is that they'll have to back off ass raping their users' privacy because of Google.

Go to court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793288)

hopefully he will get the judge that ruled in favour of the customer in the Verizon case

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/204218/Customer-Asks-For-Itemized-Bill-Verizon-Tells-Her-To-Get-a-Subpoena

Overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36793320)

Most of you are giving this "story" way too much credit. This incident was probably just a single person in Facebook's terms of use violations department who saw an ad for a competing product (which IS against Facebook terms of use), sent a form letter to the guy and thought nothing else of it. Also, the number of people who aren't already on Google+ who will notice & care about this story is not far from zero. The average Facebook user spends their time playing Farmville, not trolling Slashdot.

Can you say, "Streisand Effect" (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793342)

When will some organizations learn... stuff like this is best ignored, not banned.

Change name of Slashdot to Plusdot? (1)

rafe.kettler (1946264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36793422)

Seriously, does _every_ article have to be about Google+? Sheesh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>