Facebook’s banning of crypto ads last month does not appear to have been made by Facebook, but as a result of months of pressure from the FBI and other regulators who are now putting pressure on Google, reports TrustNodes.

Jason Roy, Senior Investigator at the Manitoba Securities Commission and Chair of the Canadian Binary Options Task Force, said:

 

“What happened is that Canada’s Binary Options Task Force as well as the FBI explained to Facebook what the concerns were and that these types of ads are leading to people becoming victims.

We’ve been talking to Google and had similar discussions and are waiting for them to take similar action.”

 

Sponsored

This” explanation “lasted for months, with Facebook finally caving in . We’ve been talking to Google and have had similar discussions and we’re waiting for them to take similar steps.”

This “explanation” lasted for months, Facebook finally collapsed. We are very happy,”said Roy, who now seems to be trying to force Google to do the same.

 

“My hope is that Google will enact a similar policy, where they specifically name products like binary options, ICOs and cryptocurrencies,” Roy said.

 

 

Reportedly, Roy and the FBI have been discussing the issue for months, but Google doesn’t seem to be too impressed, with a representative stating “We already ban and enforce against misleading ads and misrepresentation (across all categories).”

Sponsored

Raising the issue of why Roy and the FBI want cryptos or ICOs to be named specifically, given that there are many legitimate cryptocurrencies and ICOs.

“There’s just been an explosion of different ICOs and new tokens and crazy offerings. You’re seeing ICOs that are raising large amounts of money and there’s nothing behind them in certain cases, but members of the public are so hyped they’re throwing money at them,” Roy said.

So, suggesting that people need to be protected from themselves in a kind of nanny state where Google and Facebook is acting as law enforcement for the U. S. government:

“We would look at what they were doing and determine if this is an activity that can be registered and if they had in fact registered,” he said in the context of determining what ICO is legitimate.

Therefore, ignore many jurisdictions that do not require registration. Just as they seem to ignore the fact that the law, even in the United States, is unclear as to whether registration is necessary, because the classification of tokens as securities is now subject to a court decision. Although the legislature of the State of Wyoming has explicitly stated that these are not securities.

This backstage pressure therefore seems to be undue pressure from the executive, giving the impression that Facebook had made a free decision, not that it had apparently been pressured.