Topic: WSJ editorial: FB and google crypto advertising bans may be anti-competitive (Read 161 times)

Yes, I saw that. It looks like they ended the ban, maybe in response to that editorial.

Many ICOs are outright frauds, however some of them are essentially small businesses that are trying to raise money in their early stages. Historically speaking, these small businesses have failed at a very high rate -- just look at how many businesses have gone out of business here on the forum.

I also remember seeing many advertisements for non-existent counterfeit miners, and likely fraudulent cloud mining contracts before the ban was instituted.

I would say that verifying the identity of crypto related advertisers and limiting the scope of advertisements is probably generally speaking a good thing, and will prevent confidence in crypto in general from being eroded. With that being said, the author cited another supreme court case (noted above) that says that noble social causes (such as to prevent fraud) are not legal grounds to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Facebook was previously also banning for example Coinbase from advertising, which is an on-ramp for retail customers to buy crypto and use it to buy things in a P2P manor. However Facebook also has a messenger service in which users can send money to their friends in a P2P manor, which likely competes with Bitcoin.


 

I think its good that someone is looking at things from another point of view that was not open to people before because a lot of crypto enthusiasts have accepted "fate" about this two advertising giants refusing to allow crypto related ads on their respective platforms and this could actually open up a new line of discussion if given the right publicity and even relying on pronouncements made by the highest court of the land. I have maintained that the reason posed by there people had been a flimsy one though because scam activities are still being carried out on Facebook without any relationship to bitcoin or crypto currency.

The issue now is, there is difference between pronouncements of the courts and the enforcement of such judge. Who will then enforce this one in favor of bitcoin. Which then means we are still at the mercy of an organisation recognised by law to enforce this judgement as this is where the problem lies to ensure that the "may" in the judgement is "should".

I also hold the same opinion about the advertisement bans as most of the  people do. Because the ban on ads by the ICOs had an indirect bearing on the restriction on spread of scammers and their ICO information. Such kind of defrauders use to publicize wrong information, thus making innocent people trapped into the vicious web of the money minters. And as far as the point of government telling the people about the conduct of the business, that is true because there are many people who resent this kind of interference. 

I'm glad the banned the advertising for crypto ICOs since the vast majority of those were straight up scams or were terrible business ideas.  I've heard rumours that facebook will either create their own coin or end up buying coinbase outright and integrating into facebook.

I am split on this one but the good news is Facebook have lifted the ban somehow as they are allowing some cryptocurrency ads to be shown in their website again. To answer your question I don't think it is anti-competitive as they are like offerings from a company to answer your questio, simply put it this way have you seen IPOs of companies to be advertised in Facebook? I don't think so as these investment opportunities does not need to be promoted as they are investments. It is like saying that Facebook is also promoting to invest in their ICOs.

Facebook decided[1] to end the ban when it comes to cryptocurrencies but leave it for ICOs and binary options. I'm honestly in favor of these advertisting bans. ICOs are most of the time a scam (whether they fail to deliver the promised product or they run off with the money) not to mention that we have multiple altcoins that serve for no purpose at all. IMO, It's just bad publicity for bitcoin and crypto in general so these ban is protecting the users.

[1] https://web.facebook.com/business/news/updates-to-our-prohibited-financial-products-and-services-policy?_rdc=1&_rdr

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial published today (paywall), the advertising ban on Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrency services from being able to advertise on Facebook's and Google's advertising platforms may be against anti-trust laws.

The rationale, according to the author, who is an antitrust attorney, is that GooglePay, and Facebook Messengers p2p payment service compete with Bitcoin and related services such as Coinbase. The author also noted that both Google and Facebook have announced initiatives for various blockchain- and crypto-related projects.

The author cited Lorain Journal v. U.S. (1951), in which the US Supreme Court held that businesses may usually “refuse to accept advertisements from whomever it pleases,” they may not refuse advertisements that harm its competition.

The publicly stated reasons for the bans is that crypto-related ads had a very high rate of fraudulent and deceptive advertising, however the author notes the US Supreme Court held in FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association (1990), that “social justifications for the restraint of trade don’t make the restraint any less unlawful.”

---

What are your thoughts on the advertising ban?

In general, may in the Bitcoin sphere probably do not like the idea of the government telling companies how to conduct business.