Here’s an interesting little bit of news for you. We’ve learnt that regulators in France have banned the words ‘Facebook’ and ‘Twitter’ from use on TV and radio.
Some people might say that the French have acquired an unfair reputation for being obsessed with frustratingly pedantic rules and regulations, but this latest ruling would suggest that reputations are sometimes earned.
French broadcasting regulators have issued the following ruling: TV and radio show hosts must refrain from uttering ‘Facebook’ or ‘Twitter’ unless it’s in direct relation to a specific news story on the subject.
So, for example, a French TV presenter is barred from saying something like: “Follow us on Twitter for more updates on this story”. No reference must ever be made to connecting to Facebook or Twitter to discover further information on a news story.
And why would French regulators wish to impose such a ban? Well, it seems that mentioning Facebook or Twitter is deemed to be promoting commercial enterprises, according to French broadcast regulator CSA.
CSA spokesperson Christine Kelly said that clandestine advertising aside, any reference to Facebook or Twitter shows preference for those two social networks, to the exclusion of others.
“Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition. This would be a distortion of competition. If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s Box — other social networks will complain to us saying, ‘why not us?”
This is a strange one indeed. It’s unlikely that anyone will take to the streets in protest over this move, but to completely ignore two of the most popular social networking platforms on the planet seems unnecessary at best, and a little draconian at worst.
I think its a forward thinking by French government!
I meant a good forward thinking! And by the way, they are not banning these social networks from the country, they just don’t want to give preferential treatment to anyone and in this “sue anybody the way you want” world, tomorrow some small time French social network might sue the TV station
Amazing story. I understand their point but this is 2011. You could wish the world was different but it isn’t. Facebook and Twitter are companies, sure, but they are also global phenomena which you can use to reach your audience and interact better. The only thing this will do is disconnect them from their audience and the world. Suckers.
@sathya That seems very unlikely. If you are a small social network you will spend your time becoming bigger, not preventing Facebook or Twitter from being mentioned. That won’t do you any good.
Refreshing!
@Jozias Dawson F5
Ha! This is just pathetic. Why not ban mention of the word ‘book’ because that’s a commercial product. Or newspaper? Perhaps, indeed, the word ‘television’ could be construed as commercial – after all, you have to buy televisions, don’t you? I agree with boris that these people are pedantic suckers.
Leave sony ,,catch this latest hack : ACER Hacked : 40,000 Users Data, Source Codes & Server Compromised : http://www.thehackernews.com/2011/06/40000-users-data-source-codes-server-of.html
Ad guys will certainly have to work harder.
How in the world is forcing someone to alter their speech patterns with the threat of physical violence “forward thinking?” You’re a mush headed reactionary if you really believe that.That a technocrat even has the authority to determine what words people say is un-fucking-believeable.
“Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition.” What a typical, phony appeal to egalitarianism. Why should you care if there are other networks struggling for recognition? Is there some quota of the perfect or appropriate number of social networks handed down from divinity? What if they also mention Foursquare? Is that the proper number of social networks?
It sounds a bit self-righteous, but would you let TV presenters use “Marlboro” for “sigarette” just because it is the best selling-brand
it’s like tying your shoes after you take them off… it doesn’t make sense
@Boris I understand Facebook and Twitter is a global phenomenon, but these days law suites for every small thing has become a phenomenon as well, plus an easy route to get the most visibility in social/internet graph! (Never heard who Lodsys was until few days ago!)
Not really supporting French TV (which I understand is one TV station operated by French gov?) in anyway, but at the core of their decision there sure is some logic and it isn’t entirely illegal
@Brett Ruiz Well no one is being forced to “alter” anything here, it is just that they (French TV) chose not to advertise, indirectly, for a selected private company (which Facebook and Twitter are) while neglecting the rest.
I’m guessing all French TV is sponsored and paid for in full by the French government. If not, it would seem that a TV network broadcasting on their own dime (or 10 Euro-cents; European coins don’t have names as far as I can tell) should have the right to choose which networks to share their content on. I’m certainly not posting my blog updates on Myspace; I’m going to tell people to follow me on Facebook or Twitter.
Is this a joke? like the French.
@iginio gagliardone It is a good question but history already answered that one; we xerox stuff and we Google information. If you want to engage with your audience as a TV Show it doesn’t make sense to do it on 10 social networks at the same time. You pick the winner, whatever that may be at that time, and promote that so people can find you.
“[...] but to completely ignore two of the most popular social networking platforms on the planet seems unnecessary at best, and a little draconian at worst.”
As they reveal their added value through acquisition of several members of the same social circle, social networks adoption is based upon social coercion. Namely, “friends” pressuring other “friends”.
Whatever the plot may be, this approach of the CSA seems more about preventing nation-wide coercion and even more massive adoption of leading services than about “ignoring” them. I don’t think many people do not know about Facebook or Twitter in France, anyway.
While I disagree with the implementation, I think It’s a good thing to raise people awareness toward the fact that their favorite, supposed-to-be-free, services are also private companies generating revenue with their personal information.
But why should only two actors of the wide Internet ecosystem be concerned ?
I see shame Apple promotion everyday for instance.
They should also ban using the words “weapons of mass destruction”, “Terrorist”, “wikileaks”, “Alqaeda” since there are other smaller bombs, whistle blower websites and murderous groups that don’t get as much recognition.
Um, no. Newspaper, book, and television are to social networks what The New York Times, War & Peace, and Panasonic are to Facebook. You are making reference to banning nouns, and this article is talking about banning proper nouns. While I may not agree with the decision to ban the use of words on television, I think you missed the difference there.
This doesn’t seem like a well thought out rule,because now no private company can be mentioned. So even if they said follow us on diaspora then people will start saying, why not Facebook or Twitter ? So now they have lost the ability to gain a following on the internet and with the internet becoming ever more a resource for news it doesn’t seem like a smart move.
Ha… hahah… HAHAHAHA!
I’m sure if facebook was french they wouldn’t be moaning about it.
I like how the only options on this site are to post to Twitter and Facebook. So where is this competition then?
Yes, this is amazing. Especially for other social networking site owners, maybe they will get by and be able to be talked about in the French markets someday. I would be flattered if they promoted my social networking site.
After thinking about it for a while and being embarrased at first i think you could also see it in a positive light. Let me explain my thoughts. Imagine french TV people would say “Connect with us on the Social Networks” instead of “Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook” as this regulation does impose. I guess this all what this regulation essentially is about, no more no less. And what effect would that have for the TV companies? Right, imho to be present and active on more platforms than just Twitter and Facebook or, at least, it would give them a touch of acting really professional and souvereign in Social Media. It’s not twitter, it’s not Facebook (and who knows wether they will die the myspace death in some years) it’s about being reachable in every way (digitally) imaginable, that is being a totally Social Media savvy TV station. Seeing that regulation like this gives it a very progressive touch imho. But maybe i’m just a Social Media Consultant full of wishful thinking :)
The problem with diverse social networks is that if I am on one and you are on another we can’t talk to each other, so of course we all need to be on the same one!
Matthew Fraser I think explains this action as: “deeply rooted animosity in the French psyche toward Anglo-Saxon cultural domination.” Fraser writes that “sometimes this cultural resentment finds expression in French regulations and laws.”
It’s just the French being classic French isn’t it?
Well, this is actually the case for ANY commercial brand on french TV and radios. They just put a certain emphasis on these two because nobody seemed to remember that rule.
However, I’m still waiting for the day when they do the same for iPhone, I’m sick of all these people advertising Apple for free.
re: ““Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition?”
–
”There’s only one [social networking] company that’s lucky enough not to be affected by the general conditions. Its output seems to be plentiful and always available [..]. But who gets the benefit of it? Nobody except its owner. Would yousay that that’s fair?”
“Most of us don’t own [successful internet companies]. How can we compete with a man who’s got a corner on [social networking]? Is it any wonder that he can always [get traffic], while we have to struggle and wait and lose our customers and go out of business? Is it in the public interest to let one man destroy an entire industry?”
“It seems to me that the national policy ought to be aimed at the objective of giving everybody a chance at his fair share of [social networking traffic], with a view toward the preservation of the industry as a whole. Don’t you think so?”
(words of Orren Boyle slightly reworded, replacing ‘iron ore’ with ‘social networking’ from ‘The Top and the Bottom’ – Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand)
Here’s the deal: I am not buying for a fimto-second the fact the French media is banning Facebook and Twitter out of the Goodness of their hearts and in sympathy with the poor, “struggling!” social netwroks worldwide!
And I couldn’t help but wonder: What if Facebook was a Frecnh creation, would it be banned for the same reason?
Are you smelling enviness in the air? objectivity is such a lonely word!!
Facebook charges me around £1 per click to advertise on their pages, I think the TV companies simply now want to start receiving revenue from Facebook etc…..Nothing sinister, just Market forces finally kicking in, I would expect to see other money hungry broadcasters following suit in the coming months.
I’m french and surprised most complain only because it makes their business harder. There is a law in France that forbides those free ads for Apple, etc… I do not see the problem: it’s just an anti-monopole law, something American have forgotten long time ago if I am judge after the place of Google and Microsoft on their market :)
This said, as french firms may have a greater influence (because their CEOs and French politics live in the same word), this interdiction might have taken some more time for a french firm than for an american one. But I do not see any feeling of inferiority here. Do not project too much.
Well spoken spamla and agree.
I am surprised at the controversy around this and the unnecessary hyping of the story by saying “twitter and facebook have been banned from French TV is hardly helping a serious debate. The issue here is around commercial advertising. Why should a public service broadcaster promote a single private sector company at all, never mind for free and helping to reinforce a monopoly? We should be moving towards a social platform where it doesn’t really matter where you go, they are all connected. My blog updates appear on Facebook, my Flickr updates appear as links on Twitter, my tweets appear on LinkedIn. The data is shared across the entire social web. Saying “goto twitter to follow our updates” is not only commercially incorrect for a public service broadcaster, it’s entirely wrong for a social media branding point of view. As a brand, they should have a social media page on THEIR site with THEIR branding and THEIR list of social media platforms they happen to be using. Using widgets, I can see their updates on that page from whatever platform happens to be providing the content. I’m sure if a US broadcaster said “fire up Internet explorer (a brand) to view our site” we would regard this as odd, so why do we not think it strange when people say “goto twitter to see our updates”. Social media is about the data and the interactions, the platform is simply a convenient way to access it. We should be pushing the data and the interactions rather than advertising the platform it happens on. Facebook is keen to counter this of course, it wants to promote facebook the brand and not go down the way of myspace the link destination/repository. I do think we should be moving more towards the use of APIs, links and widgets rather than fragmenting brands across umpteen social media sites with their own different URLs, branding and control. All companies, but public sector ones for commercial reasons especially so.
@Craig Cockburn For a “noob” you certainly put forward a good point. I think what you proposed would be a great idea.
@Robert Klent Thanks for the comment – I’ve been involved with social media for a while, (see http://www.napier.ac.uk/alumni/news/Alumniinthenews/Pages/CraigCockburn.aspx)
but was drawn to comment on this article having seen Hermione’s update on social media http://www.facebook.com/hermioneway/posts/10150269348791983?notif_t=feed_comment_reply we’ll that’s just my view anyway. Would be good to see more people joining the debate (on their social media platform of choice of course)
@Craig Cockburn I take your point but the thing here is that Facebook and Twitter are unrivalled at what they do. This is not the case with Internet Explorer. And it’s for that reason alone that it would sound odd saying “fire up Internet Explorer and look at x or y website”. There was a time when it wouldn’t have sounded at all odd to say “open netscape and look at such and such a website”. This cultural preference is why we call a hoover a hoover, even when it isn’t a Hoover. So, until that changes, and there are genuine cultural alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc, then why insist on an artificial form of words?
@spamla “I do not see the problem: it’s just an anti-monopole law”
The problem is that there is no such thing as an ‘anti-monopoly’ law. Only by way of government force can a monopoly exist in the first place. As some folks have pointed out in regards to IE, there are other competing technologies out there. (what they fail to recognize is that there are also other competing social networks – which is part of what this French politician is saying as well)So why then is ‘facebook’ so ‘big’ in the market? Sure, in part the appeal of a social network is to be ‘able’ to network – the fact that it ‘is’ big helps keep it big because people want to interact with as many people as possible. It’s one of the pros of a facebook.But facebook isn’t the first (nor will it be the last) social network. Facebook isn’t the ‘only’ social network. It’s just the ‘biggest’ social network. Why? Because people’want’ to use facebook.
So if you pass laws to ‘forbid’ people from using facebook, is it stopping monopolies? No, it’s stopping people from doing what they ‘want’ to do. Anti-Monopoly law is a euphamism for anti-free market or – simply put – anti-liberty laws.
A responsible consumer does not need a regulated industry! A company with no customers (in a truly free market) FAILS! No more! Gone! A company that behaves irresponsibly in the eyes of it’s consumers only needs it’s consumers to act [responsibly] on that perception to either influence a change in the behavior of the company or to render it to extinction.
But of course, most people prefer to abdicate their ‘acting responsibly’ to a government body and then suggesting that is the ‘responsible’ thing to do. As if.
If a TV station uses Twitter and Facebook, why shouldn’t they mention it? If they don’t want to promote one company over another, they can stop using the product.
@spamla There are no documented recent cases of a monopoly existing in the United States.
@Craig Cockburn You make the best argument I have yet heard against public broadcasting.
Hi,
i’m french.
It’s forbidden for a simple rule. As you said it, they consider it as a promotioning commercial.It doesn’t apply only on facebook and twitter, but on every brand: on french programs you can’t say coca cola / apple / chanel …… We are used to this rule :)
it’s not a question of not supporting a brand, it’s a question to not influence consumers. that’s it.
if they want to promote their facebook page or twitter account, they have to do it in another way
@lililes Yeah, that makes sense if there are serious competitors. But in this cae it means they couldn’t invite people to meet them in Second Life, ask them to find them through Google, buy second-hand stuff on eBay or meet them in a virtual game on the XBox. The alternative: “Find us using a search engine on a social network where our name start with @”. That isn’t progress, or fair, it is just weird.
living in a cave?
What are calling “documented” ? Maybe no one has recently been prosecuted for it, but worldwide and in the USA too, Microsoft owns around 95 % of the desktop computer market. Lot of circumstances, in the legal system but not only, make it sustainable. It seems a little unfair no to call it a monopoly.
@spamla Cool! Lets turn this into a Mac VS PC discussion! :-)
@Scott Webster Wood Strictly speaking, no, there is not such a thing as an anti-monopoly. However, some laws are designed to avoid what we called “distorsion de la concurrence”. An american can understand it in french already: means distortion of competition. Principle is to make everybody compete on the same ground, or at least, to try to achieve it, you need to have rule. Thus, if you prefer to play games where they are no rules, like in a state of nature, you’re either unconscious either a big troll. No one is sure of its survival in such a state, and you’re not as well.
After that, which rules we prefer depends a lot on the people, I think a centralized politic power, as we have with our french State may have some advantage, since it might protect more the people, which elected its gouvernants, than some multinationals that are not subjected to the same rules and obligations of taking at least a little the wealth of the people in mind.
Whatever thanks for your very liberalist defense of our liberties :)
@Boris PC includes Linuxes ? But no, thanks for your kind invite. Maybe some others here may explain how wonderfully designed and user-friendly the Mac interfaces are, comparing to Windows. But I feel I lack of arguments, and it would totally deviate from the topic here.
@lililes It’s kinda strange though. If I say contact me through Twitter or Facebook, yes I am excluding other companies. But wouldn’t the same count when I’d see contact me by phone, that’s an unfair competitive advantage to companies selling faxes, computers and other communication devices.