Comments:French broadcasters barred from saying "Facebook" or "Twitter" on air

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Wish they would do that here in America.

I'm also quite sick of CNN ending every story with "and let's see what Twitter says about this" or their constant pushing for people to join their corporate facebook groups.

This is just ridiculous. If Facebook and Twitter cannot be mentioned on-air as it is 'advertising', then does that mean all brands should be edited out? What do you say if you want to take a drink a cup of tea out of your Thermos flask, throw your frisbee and play on your Playstation 3 before cleaning the room using a hoover?

Flask, flying disc (although I wasn't aware frisbee was a brand name), games console, and vacuum cleaner.

What if you want to Google something? Can you watch something on YouTube?

Search engine, video website.

Oh, I give up. :)

<chuckles> It is workable... Just ludicrously forced.

Remember that the BBC has rules about this too, although they aren't always strictly followed. Blue Peter famously had to refer to Sellotape as "sticky backed plastic", and there's the stock phrase "other brands are available".

Of your examples thermos and hoover are well genericised now anyway. The others it will depend on context.

How encompassing is the rule? Broadcasters often have their own twitter feeds that they mention on air - the whole point being that they are popular and thus a greater chance of something useful or interesteing being tweeted. Its no good quoting a site that viewers or listeners by and large havn't heard of. So is it just the verb to "tweet" or the noun "facebooker" that are banned? Other sites are obviously not different and/or innovative enough to warrent such gloabal reknown as facebook and twitter; the playing field isn't level so why should they all be treated equally?

Title should read, "French broadcasters barred from mentioning social network names on air". As it currently reads, although factual, it is misleading the reader.

True. This article would be illegal if it were in French television instead of Wikinews. Quite ironic!

Zut alors! Quel Catastrophe! :-D

Why not list the top ten social networks at the bottom of an article and/or advertisment , simple ,that even's the playing feild up .

Then those social networks not in the top ten would still be at a disadvantage

As a Canadian, I have long known that the French are basically insecure and are therefore afraid of losing their culture. But, it really makes them look pathetic and weak when they feel it necessary to legislate their insecurity.

How long, do you think, before this becomes incorporated into some offshoot of la Loi 101?

"symbols of Anglo-Saxon global dominance" Would someone point out to Mathew Fraser that the Angles and Saxons came from a geographic area that includes modern day France

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon

2) Related to nations which speak primarily English; especially United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia.

It's not Mathew Fraser who needs to be clued in, it's the French, who regularly talk about "Anglo-Saxons" and who give the word its modern sub-meaning.