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.

Facebook is reacting to Google+ the same way they reacted to Twitter's rapid growth. They copied Twitter's features (basically reinvented themselves as Twitter for people you know IRL) and blocked Twitter from accessing the graph. Same thing here.

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.

Yes, Facebooks wants to keep all your data locked in. It's quite surprising though that people look for salvation to a company that wants to analyze that same data to serve you ads...

And it's at least as surprising that people see google as so very different.

The major difference is Google's non-trivial dedication to providing you portability to your data.

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

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

Plus there is this comment: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2330342&cid=367...

"Facebook is an American company. Since when did any American ever use the term "advert"? Seriously, Americans do not say this. The shortened form of "advertisement" in the U.S. is "ad," not "advert." Any claim otherwise makes me want to see the actual text of the original email, if one did indeed exist. Furthermore, companies do not let random employees write emails about corporate policy and send them out without having them reviewed and vetted for language. This sounds like someone (from the UK) is using the press to hype up his own business at Facebook's expense."

Here's a screenshot of the original message: http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8840/prooft.gif

You're reading a misquote.

It's silly to do this to this user. It's like when Amazon showed they could remotely delete books from the Kindle, they choose the wrong book to demonstrate that on (1984 or Animal Farm)

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.

It could be just a time issue though--if they had to write out a reason as to why the account was disabled it could be a very hefty operation depending on their standards. You're right though, It would be nice if they'd do it.

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 ...

This is the well known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

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

FB would have no idea if the user had permission to use the G+ trademark or not, unless Google had complained, which has certainly not been a part of this story so far.

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.

What is it with this give-up-and-die attitude? If you had a company and a new competitor appeared I suppose you would resign immediately and close doors?

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.

Not true -- lots and lots of Google competitors advertise on Google. Apple (iPhone), Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. all are allowed to advertise on Google.

I don't see any reason to think they would change that if/when they bring advertising to G+.

Google has their hands in a lot of pies, if they banned everyone they competed with, they'd lose 90% of their adwords advertisers

Trivially false: See the approved ad for Facebook Ads on a Google search for 'advertising':

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=advertising

Are you sure about that?

I just searched for "find friends" at Google and got a Facebook ad (among others). Personally, I'd expect Google to have confidence in Google+ and take whatever ad money Facebook wanted to throw their way. I'm sure they reserve the right to block all kinds of ads (including those from competitors). I just think what they actually do is more important than what they decide to keep in their back pocket.

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.