Don’t think so, unless I’m missing a clarification that came later in that massive thread. The Google policy prohibits obscenty, not profanity (granted, there’s an overlap).
Thing is, them’s the breaks. If you want Google money, you have to adhere to Google terms - and all participants agree to this arrangement in advance.
I stumbled across a trope with a picture of unclothed anime boobies once. It was months ago and has probably long been deleted, but yeah, some corners of TV Tropes aren’t exactly pure as the driven snow.
Anime tits have long been against policy. It’s actually been a point of contention amongst those who are completely anti-censorship. It’s not like they weren’t trying to remain within the guidelines. And it’s not like they’ve ever received so much as a warning from Google before.
And do note that they still aren’t entirely sure what’s wrong–it’s not like Google cares enough to actually tell anyone why they stopped the ads. FastEddie’s had to do a bunch of teethpulling, all while trying to fix the coding on the site himself.
Yeah, they’re being overly cautious at first just to be sure there’s nothing objectionable on the site.
And while it’s true about agreeing to the terms, there’s the simple fact that there are quite a few sites that do not qualify–but they don’t get individually reported. Furthermore, since Google matches the ad words to the words on the page itself, it would be trivial for them to automatically not show any ads on the offensive pages, so that the site wouldn’t be put in financial straits.
Anyways, as I’ve said before, an unenforced rule is not a rule. A rule that is selectively enforced is just a way to be big dickhole. A rule that is selectively enforced against someone smaller than you without any regard to how it would affect them is just pure Evil.
But, as you imply, what can we do about it? I seriously doubt my pledge to adblock Google, give it fake information from now on (so they don’t even get that from my searches) while still using it is ever going to impact them at all. I doubt I could bother them by even using Bing.
This is actually the one thing that bothers me so much about this. A wiki by definition is going to have infringment problems. But does Google do what they get for YouTube, which lets users flag improper content? Nope. The entire site has to be restructured.
The same site that was approved for Google ads in the first place.
Perhaps, although “everyone else is doing it!” isn’t something I let my kids get away with as an excuse.
Dunno. I sympathise with their plight - and I guess the site evolved into possible infringement under their feet, but Google is just trying to stay clean. <shrug>
Because it’s not fair to you if you’re singled out for punishment while others are left to continue doing it.
Cop see three Jay walkers. Gives one a ticket and ignores the other two. Dick move or not dick move?
If they want to stay clean why don’t they:
“it’s not fair!” is the other thing my kids try (often immediately after “everyone else is doing it!” Neither works.
Not saying that this situation is exactly analogous, but the best you can hope for by pointing out that others are getting away with it, is for those others to also be punished, gaining you nothing.
You never get leniency that way.
Ah, so no one should ever fight back or even complain of injustice and unfairness. Right?
Wrong, or rather: thanks for trying to put the wrong words in my mouth.
One should never sign a contract one does not intend to honour.
This isn’t injustice - it isn’t even censorship - it’s Google applying their rules, within their scheme, membership of which is optional, terms agreed by both parties fully in advance.
I’m not unsympathetic to their plight - I could have profited myself on my own website, were it not for the adsense policies I have chosen to agree to. It sucks, and yes, it looks as though it’s not uniformly applied, but there it is.
Wrong. It IS censorship. And it is unjust due to not being uniformly applied. And Google’s demands are totally unreasonable.
Why is Google bothered about whether their ads are next to something obscene? Is the money of porn fans worth less?
I don’t think Google’s demands are particularly unreasonable. It’s just “don’t use our program on pages that have adult or naughty stuff”. And I think it is uniformly applied, which is to say that every time Google finds out about it, they complain. They just don’t have the time to check every site that uses Google adsense, so unless they find out otherwise, they trust their affiliates to police themselves.
This isn’t so much the policeman finding three jaywalkers and only ticketing one. It’s the policeman only noticing the one jaywalker in the first place because somebody told him, “Hey, see, that guy’s jaywalking.”
It strikes me that the near ubiquity of adsense makes Google kind of a de facto censor of the internet. Without adsense, you can’t pay your server bills. With it, you have to bend to their will.
Think about it. You can run afoul of their rules simply by allowing the public to openly post. If Google were to decide to really put some resources into cracking down, most open forums won’t be viable.
What’s needed are a number of strong competitors to adsense, but who can go up against G[del]od[/del]oogle?
WTF? 
What on earth does Steve Jobs have to do with anything?
I’m sure it takes about 3 seconds for a company to complain to Google about their product being associated with porn/obscenity if their ad appears on a page with adult content. Google’s clients are the advertisers, not the site owners, and I’m sure they don’t want to deal with the fallout from an angry advertiser who says he had no idea his ad was going to end up on an adult site.
Not that that makes this any less of a dick move, because it’s hard to imagine anyone being offended by TVTropes.
I’ve experimented with using adwords to advertise websites so I have some familiarity with this. Advertisers have a number of choices. You can advertise purely by context (key words), you can explicitly indicate which sites - even which specific pages - you want to advertise on, or you can mix the two.
What’s very relevant to this discussion is that you can also specify which sites you do NOT want to advertise on, and you can specify exclusion key words - words or phrases that should NOT appear on any page your ads appear on.
Also, as an advertiser, you have access to reports showing which sites and pages your ads are shown on. If you see something you don’t like, you can exclude that page or site.
So advertisers already have control over this. If they don’t take advantage of that control that should be on them. Websites shouldn’t be penalized because advertisers don’t use the tools available to them.
Yes, and if productivity goes up, employers will be even more reluctant to hire new employees and the recession will get worse, or last longer! :eek:
It’s not illegal to have a monopoly. It’s illegal to use anticompetitive practices to create or sustain a monopoly or to use monopoly power in an anticompetitive way.
And the point is moot anyway, Google doesn’t have a monopoly. They’re just the biggest.
It’s not censorship if you can just choose not to have it apply to your website - which you can, simply by not signing up to the scheme.
What would be unreasonable, would be entering into an agreement, then expecting to change the terms afterwards
If Google is applying the terms unevenly, that’s bad. I think it’s a bit overdramatic to call it injustice - I expect the disctionaries will come out next.