Today Facebook has posted a note to its blog indicating that it’s proposing an update to its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities — one of the site’s documents that establishes user rights and Facebook’s Terms of Service. The post notes that these changes “mostly include clarifying changes and minor updates”, but there is at least one change that has some significant implications: Facebook users are banned from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”, with selling status updates to advertisers explicitly being singled out as a violation.
This stands in stark contrast to Twitter, which permits (or at least, doesn’t actively discourage) so-called “Sponsored Tweets”, which typically include a link to an online store along with a tag indicating that a tweet was sponsored. The idea behind such updates is that users can share products they like with their friends and make money in the process, but it’s a system that can quickly devolve into a spam fest. With plenty of services in this space that include Izea and Magpie, the PayPerPost model is becoming disturbingly popular on Twitter.
Of course, Facebook offers Pages which do allow for commercially-sponsored updates. But the distinction between the two types of profiles are quite clear, and I don’t object to status updates from celebrities endorsing a product nearly as much as I would if it came from one of my friends who became overly-greedy.
One other significant change comes in the way Facebook regards users who are accessing the site from countries that the US has an embargo against. The current terms state that users “will not use Facebook if you are located in a country embargoed by the U.S., or are on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals.” Facebook has now revised this to only apply to commercial activities, with the new proposed terms stating:
We strive to create a global community with consistent standards for everyone, but we also strive to respect local laws. The following provisions apply to users outside the United States:
1. You consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States.
2. If you are located in a country embargoed by the United States, or are on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals you will not engage in commercial activities on Facebook (such as advertising or payments) or operate a Platform application or website.
These changes are only proposals so far (Facebook users now have a week to submit their thoughts on the changes), but I’d be surprised if there are many objections.
One sidenote: Facebook is running its Governance section so that users can have their say regarding how the documents are written. But there’s apparently no way to see the diffs between each document — in other words, you have to put them side by side and look for any difference in wording manually. To make this even more frustrating, Facebook is arbitrarily inserting rules in the middle of numbered lists rather than adding new rules to the end. Fortunately Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt says that the company will look into addressing these issues, so they may well be resolved the next time the site proposes a change in its TOS.
Good housekeeping.
ho-hum.
They are just rabble rousing — making trouble for twitter by cutting off a potential source of revenue.
I am not surprised. In my opinions it’s the difference regarding corporate policies and marketing strategies. I remember Digg is also being very strict on affiliate programs, MLM promotion, etc. to its users. If you promote those listed above on Digg, your account might get banned. Apparently, Twitter’s strategy is a little different than Digg and Facebook and it’s might partially explain why it’s so popular now.
+1 = Facebook
This is why Facebook will never beat Twitter. You are telling me that in an already closed wall garden, I cannot even talk about a product?
Lame
no. you just have to give your real opinion as opposed to an opinion that someone paid you to have.
whats the distinction between loving facebook and loving facebook because they pay me? Ive seen facebook employees using their status updates to promo new fb features… where is the line in this hypothetical moral world?
interesting comment.
when you own nothing, you’re owned.
Facebook is a fad. Invest accordingly.
There is a ‘next’ approaching. These issues are endemic of a service trying to be something it can not sustain in the long run.
Divide the FB user count by at least 5 for a true count. How many brands do you create? Why?
The feed must be owned.
Just not by you.
But you would only know for sure that a post was sponsored if the user disclosed it. And full disclosure that one’s message is sponsored is considered the ethical thing to do.
So, it’s almost like Facebook is penalizing those who disclose a sponsored update vs. one where a person keeps this relationship a secret.
I agree Michael. But we are getting into merky stuff. What counts and what does not count for being paid? Reeks of Apple App store thinking.
Glad you clarified that.
if i thought a product was great, why wouldn’t i be able to sell it over FB? it just makes no sense to agree to all these restrictions. the web is supposed to be about freedom.
Michael, it’s a leap to say that payment negates authenticity. People all day long get paid by employers and say things they fully believe that are consistent with continuing to get paid… there’s essentially no difference. And the power of the endorsement comes from the relationship, which disappears if you turn out to be a spammer who doesn’t believe in products you recommend.
yeah Michael but I see this as meaning that no form of commercial post is allowed – which would mean no hyperlinks to anything you sell – no matter if you say it in *your own words* or someone elses – I mean I rarely use sales copy any more, I guess it is one way to cut down on apps on facebook – including my friendfeed which links to my RSS for new products in my coffee shop for example.
I’d like to know if this means I can’t advertsie my own facebook groups and facebook pages on my personal profile too ?
Facebook will never beat Twitter? I think you’re confused about who is on top and who is the up-and-comer. Facebook has far more users, and they have revenue (not “more revenue,” just “revenue”). If the game was over today, Facebook has obviously won.
We’ll see- Twitter’s monthly growth is twelve times that of Facebook’s, so the question is also one of potential- where will we be at in 12 months?
See compete.com: http://siteanal...m+facebook.com/
+100 to Facebook.
-100 just to bring us back to level ground…your opinion doesnt count, you get paid for it. Just facts from you sir.
So you are ok with fb censoring what I broadcast to my circle? What should fb have a say in that? If I spam my friends I will be left with no friends. The environment corrects itself.
true I have a lot of content that could be classed as a violation by facebook if these new rules come into operation – my facebook buddies have been used to me sending out sales related bits for ages – people only click if they are interested – I’ve not had one complaint in regards to my status update posts – if someone things my products and services are crap they are the type to tell me, instead they know it is just me flogging my wares as usual – you wait they will come up with a “premium” or “pro” option soon where you can pay a monthly fee to add links to your profile – they know low paid marketers will pay this fee – weldone facebook – you have found a revenue model micropayments – just like YUWIE !
How much money do you make off your content? Users on Facebook and Twitter provide Content. Content the websites then turn around and make money off of.
If Evan Williams years ago decided to not let users insert Google Adsense into their Blogger posts…Google would not have interest in buying them. It’s called = volume. 60 million pages on Twitter = volume. 250 million pages on Facebook, institute a partner ad program and you have a new revenue stream for a select few of their users.
Everyone, including you Mike need to think about the long term effects here for brands. Its called a new distribution of content. And if you want to minimize how much revenue they make off their content. Then they will go elsewhere. Starting a property where content providers can make money may be the next big thing. Ask YouTube/Google, they are finally starting to figure it out.
Provide the opportunity for users to NOT see the sponsored posts/updates is where the real opportunity is at. Related: how do you control 250 million users? Is some czar going to be in charge of reporting links that are sponsored?
@Darren. Agreed. Pretty much every popular UGC site supports monetisation by users in some way.
It is possible FB is just trying to protect the space from spammage. But it seems drastic to disallow any attempt at monetisation at all.
I’m tempted to think FB is just trying to position itself so it can secure every possible advertising channel and prevent users from cutting into any revenue generation.
All the more galling since user content like photos can be used by third party advertisers.
yes excately – big brands like Coke and KFC are people that talk about companies to get banned too ?
If I say “wow I sure had a tasty big mac last night” on my profile – is that sponsored advertising or me telling by mates I’ve been stuffing my face again ?
What if I added a link to the very type of burger I ate on their website ? to I have to add a disclaimer to every post like eBay sellers of yore did ?
i.e
NOTICE: Facebook I am in no way affiliated or endorsing the “said burger” (featured in this status update) for financial profit or gain – this link to mac dees is a non commercial personal reference for my friends and relatives to show how greedy I really am ONLY.
+1
Interesting about the embargo thing.
I wonder how this applies to applications like games and virtual currencies?
If someone in an embargoed country plays Zynga’s Texas Hold Em poker, for example, and uses Offerpal to get chips, they are impacting:
Facebook: platform serving this up
OfferPal: allowing the transaction and collecting payment
Zynga: selling a service/product.
Any idea how these arcane laws flow through to all these folks?
technically, they only deal directly with offerpal
Facebook Apps are clearly labeled as such, and their output can be ignored across all of your friends.
Sponsored social content tries its damndest to operate within obfuscation, not within transparency.
I wonder how strictly the ‘commercial gain’ clause will be enforced. There are a lot of FB apps and third-party sites that ask users to post pre-worded status updates to advertise their service without pay (”Facebook User has found out What Vegetable They Are. Find out for yourself too!”).
In fact, it seemed like FB themselves encouraged this when apps were first being developed.
apps are not allowed to give incentives to users to publish things on their profile, so if an app does that, they would ban it.
It’s about time. Facebook is really only about the status now. They have to buy twitter to survive.
Hey if they hope to make Myspace money (without all of the garbage ads) they need to be able to wrangle every last dollar out of each user. This is a small group (based on average amount of users) and if it were really a quality control (experience) issue, well that’s a self regulating problem. I’ve already stopped viewing updates from people who post too much junk (zynga).
Don’t be surprised to see a new advertising platform that allows advertisers and members being able to connect and work out a deal to promote a product for a price. Oh and Facebook gets their cut of course.
Mike hates PayPerPost (which really is about SEO) so it’s no surprise that he’s against Facebook status update shilling.
This is however quite different, because there’s no link love connected to anything coming from Facebook.
I think that Facebook needs to be careful. When they’re getting press from USAToday (Aug 5th article) about how businesses can promote skillfully through FB, taking this on without kid gloves could be dangerous. Although it seems that every bad move they make is accepted eventually.
is that even legal? so if i put on my facebook page that i think techcrunch is the best tech blog in the world, they are going to do what exactly? ask me nicely if i actually think that, audit my accounts, delete my status?
me thinks a product is in the works at planet zuckerberg.
“using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”
So
1. begin removing links to where you work.
2. Don’t talk about work.
3. Don’t talk about any new ideas you are working on.
Mike references mlm, affiliate links, etc, but the exact wording is open ended. “commercial gain”
you know that ain’t true. they won’t go after users unless someone reports you. this basically want to be covered in the case some spammers starts paying users to get cheap advertising
“I don’t object to status updates from celebrities endorsing a product nearly as much as I would if it came from one of my friends who became overly-greedy.”
Interesting…. I would much rather get a product endorsement from a friend whose preferences I know and trust than from an impersonal celebrity. I can always block updates from “friends” whose tastes I don’t agree with.
However, it is important that Facebook be able to monetize this, which they won’t be able to do if the user is the one getting paid. It is the price we pay for being able to use this service for “free”. Facebook will use you to advertise to your social graph and they will reap the proceeds. In turn, you get to spy on people you went to high school with.
This is why Facebook > Twitter.
Twitters’ a spammers’ heaven and more than 20% of accounts there are spambots. Even those Izea lowlives use Twitter for their purposes.
But Facebook will ban all these a-holes.
Now that FB owns Friendfeed, they’ll be even better.
Buh-bye Twitter!
lol you don’t have to care about spammers if you unfollow them…
I don’t know, so many celebrities have endorsed Twitter and invested time etc into it- I really can’t see them all switching to Facebook, at least not anytime soon… Twitter has mega PR momentum now.
“So you are ok with fb censoring what I broadcast to my circle? What should fb have a say in that? If I spam my friends I will be left with no friends. The environment corrects itself.”
Spot on sir. The environment really should be self-correcting otherwise value-based and subjective decisions will have to be made on what is commercial and what isn’t.
mmmm that McDonald’s 2 cheeseburgers for 2 bucks was a great deal…is that now spam or simply an opinion? Fine line and one best avoided imo.
The provision on “commercial gain” is far too general. If I share a link to a new post on my blog (that has Google Ads) with my friends, would that constitute using my personal page for “commercial gain”? Or, if I work for a company (say Facebook), and our company releases new products that I worked on and I want to share the release with my friends via my status update, am I violating the Terms of Service?
Obviously, the generality is meant to provide Facebook with the ability to make the determination as to which users are violating the provision, but it will hardly seem fair to users when Facebook begins arbitrarily suspending and terminating accounts for violating this provision.
On top of that, for a company trying to increase its profitability, I would hardly think Facebook would want to allocate valuable resources towards adjudicating which personal pages violate “commercial gain” and which do not. In my humble (but accurate) opinion, Facebook has enough self-policing tools in place for its users to govern the content they see from other users. Why would Facebook want to extend the effort and resources to position itself on the potentially costly slippery slope of policing this issue?
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.
I think it’s a great move: FB users are happier with this, FB also has better control over ads inventory, its bread/butter, which has huge potential as we have seen increase on ROI from FB ads.
This is a great move by Facebook. But I have an issue with the last point of the article. FB is the only large company I know that actually lets users have a say about their TOS and you’re complaining that it’s not served to you on a silver platter. And you think that legal documents should be written for convenience so that any changes are attached at the end, instead where its appropriate? I mean, seriously.
that seemed like a good idea when you wrote it, didnt it? Let me get on my knees and say thank you for all my rights in this world. I mean, seriously.
But how do they know if something is sponsored or not? If my status update says I’m kicking back with a bottle of Stella, will they just assume I’m a shill, even if I’m just mentioning a brand I happen to be fond of?
And then there’s the whole commercial gain thing. If I share my blog posts on Facebook, isn’t that technically commercial gain?
Twitter will allow users to insert google adsense into their Twitter pages along the right hand side within the next 2 months. You tell your friends to visit and click on ads, you have a arbitrage click fraud system running on 60 million pages. You then have a position where Google buys Twitter within year end.
It’s really that simple people. See: example: http://www.blogger.com
TECH CRUNCH….EITHER YOU ARE INFRINGING COPYWRITING THIS ARTICLE OR THE WASHINNGTON POST IS
http://www.wash...9081102691.html
? – ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT?
-1
We’ve received requests for a redlined version of the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to help people better understand the updates we’re proposing. We’re working on this and plan to post it to the Facebook Site Governance Page soon. Thanks for all the feedback and comments you’ve already provided. For additional updates, please become a fan of the Facebook Site Governance Page (http://www.face...bsitegovernance).
I am a very Loyal facebooker and have to say, I (as well as everyone I’ve talked to) that trying to Police people and limits what they can say is going to put you in hot water. People like facebook for the freedom, and being able to talk about whats on their mind. If people want to tell their friends about a deal or savings somewhere they should have the right to do so. You can start policing everyone’s status and sending them warnings and closing their accounts and watching as the next Social network comes along with the freedom to speak and watch your company dwindle away. Or are you of the delusion that because you are big today you will be big forever? You know as well as anybody your business has a shelf life, 10 yrs from now people are going to be remembering facebook when they are all members of the “new/better” social network. Do ou really want to diminish your shelf life to 2-3 years?
You will be creating the perfect opportunity for the next Social Network to come along that will pride itself on freedom of speech and allowing people to help out their buddies small struggling business. Do you know exactly how many people are even on facebook for the community benefits of having people know about their business or product, or music or Art? My guess is that when you put the shackles on everyone’s ability to speak freely you will be able to find out pretty quickly as you count them jump ship to the next social network.
I sincerely hope you guys really think about this one.
Good Luck.
But how will they distinguish between someone’s genuine endorsement of a product (or indeed sarcasm and irony) and a sponsored status update.
E.g. Torrango loves the refreshing taste of coca-cola
Could me a whole wealth of things depending on the context.
Actually thinking further, why not allow sponsored updates – after all these are your friends you’re pushing this stuff to, not random followers. Like a tupperware party etc
You can’t effectively police a site where users generate all the content. If Facebook prevents users from openly sponsoring products, they’ll still do it, just not disclose.
It looks like there are two factions at war in FB – the one that understands that they’ve grown up from the early days when it was just for college kids and that they have to open up, and the other that longs for these early days and won’t accept the new reality.
I don’t think they’ll be able to survive for long with that split personality. Either one faction wins (hopefully the “open up” faction), or they get MySpace’d themselves by Twitter / whatever comes next.
Right so all “business networkers” are now going to have to pretend they aren’t selling anything – not link to any of their blogs/article or outside content on their personal profile that is in anyway linked to their on-line job.
guess like you said, people are just gong to have start giving their e-mail address out as status update – “if you want to contact me for any reason…wink wink just contact me by e-mail nudge nudge” secret code for skint marketers…