Google Adwords Censored

2003 December 18

tags: Al Franken, Blather.net, Dave Walsh, George W. Bush, Google, Molly Ivins, oppressive advertising guidelines, Paul Krugman, the New York Times

by thudfactor

I recieved email today from Blather.net letting me know (among other things) that Google pulled their Adwords accounts because Blather.net contained language critical of George W. Bush.

Google told Dave Walsh:

bq. We permit sites containing commentary, analysis, and opinions, as long
as they do not advocate against specific individuals, groups, or
organizations. Please keep this in mind as you change your site and post
future essays.

In other words, only very lukewarm political opinion is allowed. Molly Ivins probably wouldn’t be able to get in. And, as I did a few other searches, it seemed that either 1) people really aren’t taking advantage of Adwords or 2) Google really is enforcing this as much as possible.

I did find Adwords for the New York Times under “National News.” The New York Times frequently contains content by Paul Krugman, who could be considered to advocate against Bush. Likewise an Adword for “Morons.org” when searching for Democrat, and “Regime Cards”:http://www.regimecards.com/page/page/522514.htm (Regime Change Begins at Home!) when one searches for Al Franken. But for the most part, advocacy advertising was rather thin.

Also, Blather was *not* removed from the index — just the AdWords program.

So what do you think? Are these oppressive advertising guidelines, or just a very vague editorial policy impossible to enforce properly?

Comments leave one →

2003 December 19

Sharon permalink

Don’t forget: Only governments censor.

When a corporate entity chooses to exclude your content from their branding, they haven’t stepped on your First Amendment rights in the least. They’re running their business the way they think best. _And_, they are contractually obligated to their shareholders to run their business in a way that makes money, and no other.

So, we’re free to criticize Google for their editorial policy, and Google is free to drop whomever from their program, and that’s how it works. To enforce otherwise, on either count, would be too much governmental interference.

2003 December 19

John permalink

A missaprehension.

People than other governments censor. “Censor” is not a word reserved for govermental entities. The American Heritage dictionary defines the verb form of the word “censor” as “To examine and expurgate.” Censor as a noun is “A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.”

The strict limitation you are thinking of is this: censoring is only prohibited of the US Government by the First Amendment. And even this is not entirely accurate, as censoring is what the FCC does for broadcast materials.

You are correct that Google has a legal right to censor materials under its control, as does any other corporation or organization. I’m not claiming their action is legally actionable, however; merely whether or not it is morally objectionable. It is, however, still censorship.

Move aside, and let the man go through.

Google Adwords Censored

Get Free Updates

Search

Recent Comments

Twitter

Archives

About Thudfactor