3 ms·

How is controlling what advertising appears on your site "evil"? I don't get all the hand-wringing over companies that want to build profitable platforms. Are u

How is controlling what advertising appears on your site "evil"? I don't get all the hand-wringing over companies that want to build profitable platforms. Are users harmed when Facebook disallows Google+ ads on their site?

ristretto 15y ago
How is it not (for developers), when competing networks make less than half in revenue than adsense and are provably much less safe (the excuse they used for the ban). For your second question, users are harmed when they are disallowed from doing things they want to. The fact that they are the only ones in the world doing that makes it evil (to me). You may think that kicking the other drivers out of the race is a valid way to win an F1 game, but that's evil.
- guywithabike 15y ago
  Following your analogy, Facebook isn't kicking people out of an F1 race, they're disallowing competitors from adding their own engine parts to Facebook's car. Sounds reasonable, right? Still, that's a tortured metaphor.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    A better (still horrible) analogy would be more like saying if you build cars for F1 you can't do it for NASCAR and use the same parts or use the same drivers and sponsors etc...
    - chc 15y ago
      A better analogy would be a software company that makes the leading operating system who penalized OEMs that produced computers with competing software installed.
  - ristretto 15y ago
    I wasn't making an analogy at all. The fact is, facebook has lured developers to work for free in their "open" platform and now prevents them from expanding to other platforms. Reasonable but unethical, a little courtesy towards developers wouldn't hurt. SN is not such a saturated market that they can afford to impose a monopoly. Maybe they'll remember that when they are losing developers.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I have a problem with not allowing integration. That requires no link. That would mean that if I play an mmorpg on Facebook and Google+, I can't use my same character.

ristretto 15y ago

How is it not (for developers), when competing networks make less than half in revenue than adsense and are provably much less safe (the excuse they used for the ban). For your second question, users are harmed when they are disallowed from doing things they want to. The fact that they are the only ones in the world doing that makes it evil (to me). You may think that kicking the other drivers out of the race is a valid way to win an F1 game, but that's evil.

guywithabike 15y ago
Following your analogy, Facebook isn't kicking people out of an F1 race, they're disallowing competitors from adding their own engine parts to Facebook's car. Sounds reasonable, right? Still, that's a tortured metaphor.
- nkassis 15y ago
  A better (still horrible) analogy would be more like saying if you build cars for F1 you can't do it for NASCAR and use the same parts or use the same drivers and sponsors etc...
  - chc 15y ago
    A better analogy would be a software company that makes the leading operating system who penalized OEMs that produced computers with competing software installed.
- ristretto 15y ago
  I wasn't making an analogy at all. The fact is, facebook has lured developers to work for free in their "open" platform and now prevents them from expanding to other platforms. Reasonable but unethical, a little courtesy towards developers wouldn't hurt. SN is not such a saturated market that they can afford to impose a monopoly. Maybe they'll remember that when they are losing developers.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

I have a problem with not allowing integration. That requires no link. That would mean that if I play an mmorpg on Facebook and Google+, I can't use my same character.