Censorship on the Right (Sidebar)

Posted By: Glenn HaumanPosted On:

Seems that Oceana has had some ads censored by Google:

Oceana recently bought two ads with Google for its Web sites oceana.org and StopCruisePollution.com. Only two days after the ads started running, Google shut them down…. They tell us that they will not run any ad containing or linking to a Web site with “language critical of Royal Caribbean” or “the cruise industry”… Never mind that none of their written policies include such a rule, and only one of the two canceled ads even mentions Royal Caribbean in the first place.

We sympathize. So we’ve decided to block all of Royal Caribbean’s Google ads, and we strongly encourage you to do the same (the URL for you to do so is at https://www.google.com/adsense/filter. And if Google doesn’t get their act together, we’ll pull their ads all together.

27 comments on “Censorship on the Right (Sidebar)”

  1. It says “Google AdSense is for web publishers who want to make more revenue from advertising on their site…” so that doesn’t really apply to bloggers who have no intention of accepting ads (other than the banner ads that appear on top of the blog as the price for free blogging).

  3. Sounds to me like Google is choosing to side with an advertiser that (probably) brings in more income for them than a protest site that attacks that first advertiser. It’s not censorship, but a business decision.

  5. Of course, as I sit here reading this entry, to the right of the page are four Google ads for Royal Caribbean cruises…

    Same here. You sure you blocked them, Glenn?

    Is google doing a shady thing maybe?

  6. “Google uses search-based technologies to match advertisements to the content and context of web pages – so the ads you see are related to the information you are viewing.”

    So, therefore, the more we talk about this particular subject, the more ads we see to get this particular thing?

    Hmmmm.

    Free visits by Lucy Liu. Free visits by Lucy Liu. Free visits by Lucy Liu.

  7. Jessica Alba, Kristen Kreuk, Salma Hayek and Tiffani Thiessen wearing nothing but whipped cream…Jessica Alba, Kristen Kreuk, Salma Hayek and Tiffani Thiessen wearing nothing but whipped cream…Jessica Alba, Kristen Kreuk, Salma Hayek and Tiffani Thiessen wearing nothing but whipped cream…

  9. hmmm sock puppets, sock puppets

    anyone?

    Anyhu while it is a business thing i can understand one of those ads taken down but if the other has no mention it should remain.

  10. Is Google’s *actual* letter to Oceana posted anywhere, so that we can see what they really said rather than just a couple of very short excerpts? Maybe they gave other reasons.

    davidh

  11. Royal Caribbean ads? Well, kinda– they aren’t from them directly.

    I’ll have to see what can be done about that– Google only filters by URL, not by keyword.

  12. ON the topic of censorship of sorts, I just saw a banner ad at my family’s website for “family edited dvd rentals”, with no nudity, violence or swearing. I hope they got someone’s permission to reedit someone’s work…

    monkeys.

  13. Well, at the minimum, they violated the trademark policy, with the add which mentioned Royal Carribean.

    http://www.google.com/permissions/trademarks.html

    But hey, truth and both sides doesn’t really matter here, does it. Companies should be forced to run any ads, regardless of whether it’s a good business decision.

    I’m going to buy an ad in Fallen Angel trashing DC. If they don’t let me, it’s censorship right?

    NOT. Jesus folks…

  14. Um. A business decision is censorship now? *laughs* Enough BS, please.

    If Pepsi were a major sponsor for my (non-existing) business, I would NOT take on an ad from a company/organization TRASHING Pepsi. It’s common sense.

  15. This is not censorship on the part of Google. I’m sure there are plenty of other venues that Oceana can tout their cause. I just don’t understand this sort of overreaction. It’s the “sky is falling mentality” and yet again another distortion on the real meaning of censorship.

  17. Jerry: Well, at the minimum, they violated the trademark policy, with the add which mentioned Royal Carribean. http://www.google.com/permissions/trademarks.html

    GH: As you can see, that doesn’t seem to be stopping the four advertisers at left from using Royal Caribbean’s trademark.

    Glenn, those are for Google’s trademarks, not Royal Caribbean’s.

    Which of course means I’d like to see where in the ads they used a Google trademark incorrectly…

    …but it doesn’t matter anyway, since all such contracts usually reserve the service’s right to shut down such ads at any time for any reason…

  18. Glenn, wrongful censorship is when someone tries to keep you from expressing yourself elsewhere, or anywhere. Not when they choose not to allow you to do so in their venue. If Google tried to stop Oceana from running ads anywhere else, THAT would be wrongful censorship.

  20. I don’t recall ever seeing ads for Royal Caribbean on this page in the past, but I definitely haven’t been any since this thread began. In fact, right now, the ads by Google on the side of the screen are all comics related. I’m pretty certain they usually are. Above those we have a list of PAD’s books available via Amazon.com; and above those are PAD’s links.

    Maybe the people seeing Royal Caribbean ads have visited websites related to cruise ships at some point and the cookies for PAD’s blog are putting related ads here. Maybe, but that would imply that I’m seeing comics related ads because I’ve been to comics-related sites, or the specific sites (such as Mile High) in the ads, and I haven’t. Not on this computer. At least not since I last cleared the cookies.

    The comics ads are probably there because PAD works in comics and there’s a logical connection. Don’t see any connection with Royal Caribbean or any other cruise line.

    Rick

  22. I hate censorship but:

    I use Google every day to search the web, I don’t have to pay for it, there are very few ads – it’s great. I want to continue using it, and for that to happen, they have to make money somehow – so choosing a major advertiser over a minor one when they’re mutually exclusive is fine with me, I ignore the ads anyways.

    Now if they were censoring or manipulating the main search results… that’s when I’ll kick up a fuss.

  23. Glen’s showing his wild liberal tendencys again by not allowing capitalism to work in another business.

  24. Glen’s showing his wild liberal tendencys again by not allowing capitalism to work in another business.

    Gosh, Yogi, I thought that one of the tenets of capitalism was having free and open access to the marketplace. Which is what Google claimed they were doing.

    And when I found out they weren’t doing that, I responded by modifying my own commerce decisions– the terms on which ad space would be sold on this site. Which, as I understand it, is another tenet of capitalism.

  25. Sounds like a conflict of interests to me. They’re being funded by a group who sees them(Google) as a product of some sort, so it wouldn’t make sense for them to run ads critical of the hand that feeds. As long as they gave the organizations their money back I don’t see what the problem is.

  26. I’m laughing so hard at the utter hypocrisy in Glenn’s post that I can’t think that straight. I’ll try again later if I can stop laughing.

Comments are closed.