Topic: Why social networks ban cryptocurrency? (Read 235 times)

One of the reason is to avoid scammers that use social network like facebook for advertisement of their ICO since many user uses fb a lot.

in many countries they are not legally regulated and that's why they can cause some problems

It is well known that social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc., in addition to the Google search engine have announced a ban on all advertising & promoting the initial sales ico and this after the outbreak of the phenomenon of deception and monument and the mass of encrypted currencies that have no projects in The latter has negatively impacted the market .
And the reason for the decline in the market value of some currencies intended and famous, but there is a positive side is the emergence of some currencies that have a goal and projects to promote advertising and there are currencies that create a search engine with Blockchain technolog .

They're not that far from being suspicious especially ICOs for alt-coins, I believe social media, in general, don't wanna take risks and only accept big crypto propagandas.

Obviously, regulatory issues are the driving factor here. If it were because of the existence of scams, there wouldn't be an "open" internet in the first place.
Social networks would need to forbid posting links in general...

Thanks for the clarification, because I was stumbling around trying to reason it out in my head. Makes more sense that they would only consider countries with internet access, as it is rather data-skewing to consider those that it is not even a possibility for. I imagine we can assume the rate of adoption will remain rather consistent as these countries gain internet access, so it would be more representative for them to do it the way they've done it. Appreciate the link, gave me some good reading. It just seems like their wording was a bit goofy at certain parts, it comes off a little misleading. I understand their intentions, but saying "It was surveyed by more than 29,000 Internet users in the world’s largest eight cryptocurrency markets" and then expanding this niche to formulate the conclusion "The survey revealed that 75% of people globally are “aware” of cryptocurrencies". It would seem more appropriate to conclude something like "The survey revealed that 75% of people within countries that have operating cryptocurrency markets are "aware" of cryptocurrencies". I wish they were more concise with their wording, because "only 50% really understand its meaning" makes me wonder if they are talking about 50% of the 75% that are aware of cryptocurrencies or of the total population surveyed. It also leaves me with the question "What did they use to quantify the "meaning" of cryptocurrency?" Either way, it clears up my original question even if it leaves me with more.

Because there are many scammer use these to scam money.

Exp with google adwords, you can use a fake site to take people into there a take their money

As we all know that scammers were using cryptocurrencies to execute their scams and ultimately it was affecting the goodwill of cryptocurrencies. On the other hand, It was also affecting the users of social media sites and it was damaging the engagement rate on it so instead of giving any second thought, giant advertising platforms banned crypto ads (especially ICO related) to prevent their users from such practices. However, I am sure that in the coming years, we would see better and matured policies from this platforms regarding crypto ads. No doubt, current policies are affecting the growth of genuine projects too.

I think FB will need to seriously revise their policy regarding cryptocurrencies if they're gonna have their own one. Time will tell, I suppose.

there was some news that FB going to have own crypto. How is this going with his policy...

I dare you to show me at least 2 ICO's from the last 4 months that actually did something good for the community instead of creating a shit/non-working/unnecessary product. The sad truth is that 98% of all ICO's are a money grab scheme and that 95% of all projects don't require millions like most are asking. Facebook just did the math and decided that it's not worth checking 100 projects to allow 1 that maybe won't mislead their costumers.

I agree that many ICO are scam. But in my opinion, the state authorities press on social networks to artificially slow down the distribution of information about the cryptocurrency. As this will accelerate the outflow of funds from countries.

Why not ban the scammers then? What would happen with the world if every time somebody was cheated by a product everybody would ban the product so that it can't happen again? They are lazy and don't want to check who is promoting what, they prefer to ban it all like true professionals

In my opinion, it is because of the scammers. A lot of scammers using social networks to cheat a lot of people by posting there and get some of their information or maybe get some money from them. Well, we can't blame social networks, let's just accept the fact that there are a lot of scammers now and it is really hard to avoid some to stop them from doing it.

IIRC I saw those numbers in this medium article, which data was taken from this one: How many people actually own cryptocurrency?

After reading the second article, looks like he is talking about some specific countries (US, UK, Germany, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, China and India) and not literally the whole world (mainly countries where people don't have internet)

Centralized social media sites, responsible for trading your data, preferences, watching and analysing your habits are going to get screwed pretty soon. You can keep fooling people for some time, but eventually they will turn into networks that offer more privacy and control. I'm sure the analysts working in those multimillion dollar companies are aware of that. Also, banning adds because some of them are scams is a shitty policy. It's like banning all people from entering public parks because some of them are littering.

Bill Gator has a great point and I would love to see the research you mentioned as well.  The math does not support that claim.

Here is an interesting link for a more in depth read on this topic:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-11/real-reason-why-facebook-banned-all-crypto-ads

I would be really interested in reading that research myself, because that sounds quite difficult to understand for me. Only 50% of the people in the world even have access to the internet. This would prove to be quite the obstacle when trying to spread the good word about cryptocurrency, at least in my estimations. I know that it is possible to use paper wallets outside of the internet, but I can't practically understand how these people would have knowledge of cryptocurrency without access to internet. Do you remember where you read that?

Pretty much what TryNinja and mjglqw said.

Not bitcoin per se, but there are rumours about Facebook running their own cryptocurrency project in the future.

The bans was never to stop adoption. The bans was because of the increasing number of cryptocurrency scam ads on these platforms (e.g. DavorCoin, BitConnect, the recent BunnyToken, etc). These social media sites just banned crypto ads all-together instead as ignorant people keep falling unto these investment scams. Couldn't blame their decision to ban ads, to be honest.

People complain that good projects wouldn't get publicity. But to be honest, I've never seen a single ad of a good project. All of the ads are either for cloud mining or ponzi schemes. If a project is good enough, it will gain organic publicity. We have r/cryptocurrency and we have bitcointalk for publicity of good projects.

Not adopting Bitcoin or any other crypto, but making their own.

You are crazy if you think that stoping cryptocurrencies ads at Facebook will have any impact in the adoption. I have seen a recent research that claims that 75% of the world already know about cryptocurrencies (even that a majority of them don't understand about it).

Facebook is actually trying to protect their users against scams and shitcoins. I remember seeing ads on Facebook about those "get rich" ICO's with a 50% investment bonus, and they end up failing or running up with the investors money. Now imagine your regular Joe not that much tech savvy scrolling through Facebook and seeing an ad like this. He will probably think that the ad is legit since it's on Facebook and will end up investing into this shitcoins.

A great number of cryptocurrencies is fraudulent indeed, while spam from them is very high. In addition, ICO and cryptocurrencies are still unregulated and risky activities.

Wasn't Facebook talking about adopting Bitcoin, or some type of crypto, as a currency on their site?

I'm more of a conspiracy theorist and I think it might be done in order to stop adoption,
like those who don't want crypto to be adopted(big bankers) 'force' the platforms not to list crypto.
Then fewer and fewer 'every day people' who aren't much into computer stuff in general, won't be exposed to crypto,
and maybe never read about it? 

To be fair, most cryptocurrencies are more similar to gambling or pornography than anything else. Most ICOs these days are bringing nothing into the market, except a promise to become rich. They've banned cryptocurrencies, because of the airdrop spam that is taking over their platform. The same way we dislike airdrop spammers around this forum, they dislike them everywhere else. It is not organic marketing and it is wasting resources while doing nothing except being obnoxious.

Obviously, all cryptocurrencies and related products are based not only on the trust but also on specific mathematical algorithms and business models. In other words, cryptographic is not a deception, but the decision to ban such advertising by companies such as Google and Facebook actually equates the cryptocurrency to gambling or pornography.

In the end, paradoxically, it is possible that such a ban will actually have positive effects. It encourages all participants to avoid any automated types of advertising. Probably, the trust between the participants will increase due to interpersonal communication and stable partnership relationships within the community. In the long run, perhaps the leaders in the online market will change their decision, but so far  it makes sense to use those marketing tools that attract the target audience of your product and provide convenient and trustful communication.
What do you think?