Twitter needs a policy, maybe not that strict. But they need to do something to combat the ever increasing porn spammers. Seems like I get a new porn follower a day.
What about not using blog comment signatures for personal gain?
opeyre
· 3 months ago
So, does that mean that when a user posts a link to an iTunes song or Amazon item they cannot link it to their affiliate account?
MichaelApproved
· 3 months ago
I think it's meant more to keep developers from building websites like Sponsored Tweets from building a Facebook version.
Still it's ridiculous that they are telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do with your updates. If someone doesn't like your status updates they can unfriend you.
Preventing spam accounts is one thing. Preventing you from displaying an ad to your legitimate follower/friends is far different and absurd.
Anthea Daugherty
· 3 months ago
As an America Atty IMO, that is really weak contract language. Says much but says nothing.
Ron Hekier
· 3 months ago
I'm not sure this is a case of Facebook not wanting to allow users to "pollute the whole ecosystem." Rather it may be a case of Facebook not wanting competition for revenue generated from their own Facebook ads.
girasol
· 3 months ago
This is exactly it.
Re: other comments: I've not had a problem with spam on Twitter. I block followers who are spammy or porny. I only follow people I'm interested in following, not every person who follows me. I get a lovely, relevant and interesting stream of tweets throughout the day. It's become my main source of news in my line of work.
Wandergirl
· 3 months ago
Seems kinda silly to me. If someone I was following (on twitter) or friended to (on facebook) sold their status and started posting paid ads, I would unfollow/unfriend them pronto. Why have another rule when the people can speak with their actions?
Asif Youssuff
· 3 months ago
Definitely an interesting move from Facebook, since no one likes spam. However, it’s not as interesting as them actually banning applications or themselves from advertising to you in your own feed — or to follow a more “google” like model of permissive advertising.
Not that twitter has anything of the sort either, but you can opt out of advertising on twitter — not so on Facebook.
Gary Cameron
· 3 months ago
Regarding Rule #1: Facebook does not have nor do they require my real date of birth. The most they need to know is that I am over 18.
Regarding Rule #2: I agree. The Internet is way too commercial. I also use Firefox with a the AdBlock Plus plug-in so I rarely see commercial advertising.
Regarding Rule #4: Exactly how do you police this?
Matt
· 3 months ago
So, I can't use my status for MY OWN commercial gain, but if I install an app, and they make a commercial gain by updating my status, that's ok? That seems backwards.
Justin Parks
· 3 months ago
I said it before and I will say it again, social media will have to find a way of smoothly integrating economics and business into the system.
If advertising revenue is on the way down and these new regulations and rules are becoming increasingly more controversial things are going to change not because we want them to but because they have to. After all nothing in life is free.
Tom Harvey
· 3 months ago
I think the stance is a good one because it appears to be only a matter of time before Twitter does the same as the amount of spam messages on there is unbelievable and must generate complaints in the masses. By accepting paid advertising you encourage more of the same behaviour and a lack of quality content being shared around the platform.
gwoodard
· 3 months ago
Twitter spam however is at least 90% controllable by careful following.
nwjerseyliz
· 3 months ago
I'm not sure how they will control this for people who have sponsored Tweets and then have a Twitter feed of updates on their Facebook account.
dealshouter
· 3 months ago
Your facebook profile is yours. You should be able to sell your status if you so choose. Facebook ought to remember that it is us who are making them money and they should allow us to also profit from our activity.
gwoodard
· 3 months ago
This is totally hypocritical and completely unmanageable. They wont think twice to use anything you upload but they come out with this BS?
rousso
· 3 months ago
Well as far as I can see from the abstract screenshot, this clearly refers to "your personal profile" and not any Facebook Fan Pages. Of course this can always be amended but probably this shouldn't currently block you from selling status updates of a Facebook Fan Page.
Chana Hercenberg
· 3 months ago
The way Facebook could automate an enforced system like this, is to watch for:
1) frequency of repeat posts - with a replicated bylines 2) words like: "sponsored" with patterns that follow it like ("Sponsored Post: 20% Off the new HP Mini - Today Only!" etc...) (ps. this is NOT a real ad ;), but it would be cool if it was, right?)
It would not be full-proof, but Facebook tends to take a more liberal view on banning members, in general.
I would be very curious to see if they actually enforce this, because there are many other ways that people can sell other parts of their profile. I definitely understand their spam consideration, but it would be wiser of them to actually make use of this drive, than to ban it. Facebook is looking for new ways to monetize, as it is. And there are many tasteful ways this can be used and integrated into the system. I'm very surprised these social networking companies have not yet developed better monetization models in place.
All Comments
James F.
Owner, TwitterBackground.com
Still it's ridiculous that they are telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do with your updates. If someone doesn't like your status updates they can unfriend you.
Preventing spam accounts is one thing. Preventing you from displaying an ad to your legitimate follower/friends is far different and absurd.
Re: other comments: I've not had a problem with spam on Twitter. I block followers who are spammy or porny. I only follow people I'm interested in following, not every person who follows me. I get a lovely, relevant and interesting stream of tweets throughout the day. It's become my main source of news in my line of work.
Not that twitter has anything of the sort either, but you can opt out of advertising on twitter — not so on Facebook.
Regarding Rule #2: I agree. The Internet is way too commercial. I also use Firefox with a the AdBlock Plus plug-in so I rarely see commercial advertising.
Regarding Rule #4: Exactly how do you police this?
If advertising revenue is on the way down and these new regulations and rules are becoming increasingly more controversial things are going to change not because we want them to but because they have to. After all nothing in life is free.
1) frequency of repeat posts - with a replicated bylines
2) words like: "sponsored" with patterns that follow it like ("Sponsored Post: 20% Off the new HP Mini - Today Only!" etc...) (ps. this is NOT a real ad ;), but it would be cool if it was, right?)
It would not be full-proof, but Facebook tends to take a more liberal view on banning members, in general.
I would be very curious to see if they actually enforce this, because there are many other ways that people can sell other parts of their profile. I definitely understand their spam consideration, but it would be wiser of them to actually make use of this drive, than to ban it. Facebook is looking for new ways to monetize, as it is. And there are many tasteful ways this can be used and integrated into the system. I'm very surprised these social networking companies have not yet developed better monetization models in place.