3 ms·
PLEASE Note the comments in the previous post on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2770237 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2770237 Summarized: 1)
by reso 15y ago
PLEASE Note the comments in the previous post on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2770237 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2770237
Summarized:
1) Trademarked images are banned from Facebook images, and Google+ is a trademarked image!
2) Considering the volume they deal with, it is very unlikely this case ever got to a human-review. It was more likely caught by an automated system looking for trademarked content.
Its amazing what conclusions people will jump to. A few days ago I saw a status update on G+ claiming Facebook doesn't send email notifications if you mention G+ in your status. I tested it on my own account and discovered it was entirely false.
- chris_engel 15y agoSo how will this automatic system verify of you are the trademark-owner (or has the right to use it) or not?
- patrickaljord 15y agoFirst, it is very unlikely that Facebook already added the G+ logo to their image filter. Second, I don't know why would a human-review be required, they could just filter out the google+ URL, it's much easier and faster than your image trademark filter theory and requires no human-review.
- breathesalt 15y agoAlso, it clearly looks like he violated facebook's ad guidelines: 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.
- vaksel 15y agorefusing ads != banning an account