Slashdot Mirror
Google's Ban of an Anti-MoveOn.org Ad
Whip-hero writes in with an Examiner.com story about Google's rejection of an ad critical of MoveOn.org. The story rehashes the controversy over MoveOn.org's ad that ran in the NYTimes on the first day of testimony of Gen. Petraeus's Senate testimony. The rejected ad was submitted on behalf of Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins — its text is reproduced in the article. The implication, which has been picked up by many blogs on the other side of the spectrum from MoveOn.org, is that Google acted out of political favoritism. Not so, says Google's policy counsel: Google's trademark policy allows any trademark holder to request that its marks not be used in ads; and MoveOn.org had made such a request.
Oh, this is just a case of Google doing what it damn well pleases. They're showing their true colors and bias.
The other side of the spectrum from MoveOn are fascists. They are a bunch of right wing nutjobs who hate MLK, science, free software and Google. Their hypocrisy is matched only by their ignorance. The sins that Google has committed are all done much larger by the companies they are made familiar with and are told to like by mainstream news. The only thing that's consistent in their arguments is that anything is justified if it's done by a big company to make a buck.
Freedom is a good principle to advocate. Opposing trade with Communists is fine, but ire should also be aimed at M$, Cisco, Yahoo and others who co-operate as much or more than Google. All should be forbidden from trade with China by law and advocates of freedom should also be angry at WalMart for pushing for "normalized" trade. The nut jobs are not. Opposing political censorship is good, but the nut jobs defend big ISPs who have filtered email for political reasons. The "neoconservatives" are not conservative, they are fascists and they believe in greed not freedom.
The dumbest of them will put the interests of government and industry above themselves, their family and friends. They advocate government control when it helps make someone rich. It's sad to talk to them.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Of course they are, but they should admit it if they do.
It's because of their Do No Evil policy. Right wing nutjobs are evil. Left Wing nutjobs aren't. Quick example: rejecting health care for poor children. That's pretty evil.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Ok, you're clearly being nutty, so I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but google news's bias is extremely well documented and obvious. Just because you found one site that you believe is right wing fringe (it isn't, but oh well) doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of bias. Of course, bias is in the eye of the beholder (some people will think the Washington Post is rabidly conservative and some rapidly liberal), but your one example is particularly pathetic. The fact is, there are many major conservative news aggregates that are excluded from Google News, but many liberal aggregates that are very extreme remain. I think that's totally fine. Google can do whatever it likes.
I don't know what you mean about "Capitalizing on a trademark for campaign publicity" making something a violation. Do you dispute that the politician was criticizing Move-On's ad? No. Was the trademarked ad clearly being criticized? Yes. No one is confusing the politician for move-on. Trademarks are not intellectual property, they exist so that the public is not confused. No one was confused, because this was a criticism of Move-On. This is clearly not a trademark violation. What is your legal basis for insisting that the likelihood of publicity that a critique provides has something to do with the complain being a trademark violation?
Regardless, Ron Paul is a lefty (just look at his spending record). And I don't care that much. What point were you trying to make, anyway? Is every site that Ron Paul links appear at totally unbiased? You will find plenty of stuff about George Bush, even though he is extremely conservative, on any liberal news site.
The site that broke the Dan Rather forgery scandal is not a legitimate news source on google, even though it must have hundreds of thousands of views. It's very conservative, but not really even fringe. This same source has also proven that Reuters doctored some photos from Lebanon. It's a worthy and relatively major news source, but not for google news. This is one example of many conservative sites Google doesn't want on its news page. And that leads to weird headline such as "Gonzales confirmed: war criminal to head US Justice Department". That was an actual Google News headline.
Google's bias is well documented. I think it's a great part of American society to be biased and successful, so I like this, but still, the reasons for the ad ban are probably political.
Google allows all sorts of ridiculousness in. The site above had to post several times before google would remove new-nazi news. Liberal fringe folks have little trouble either. Antiwar.com is obviously antisemetic, but it's a google-news source. Michelle Malkin, a crazy ass conservative, doesn't get on google news, though her offensiveness is probably a but less than the anti-bush neonazis that google was ok with.
I'm not saying Google shouldn't be liberal, I'm saying that Google has a right to bias that they seem to exercise.
If you don't realize that, you aren't paying attention. Everything about Google speaks to multiculturalism and minimizes its American identity. You will see special google logos for Sputnik but not Memorial Day. Google is like Apple, a great company that wants to promote a certain way of thinking.
I'm not trying to troll here. Google's got a point of view. Why deny it? Politicians have to engage in these types of ideological arguments. They have to show the ads they are disputing. It's called discourse. Google has no obligation to show any ad they don't like, but this was a legal ad. You don't see move-on actually suing anybody, do you? Move-on has spent millions of dollars to fight this specific congresswoman. If she broke the law, they'd sue her into oblivion.
It appears they are screaming censorship in this case.
How is moveon underhanded? Are they accusing General Patreaus of shooting himself?
*Talking* in a theater is not allowed as well, and it has nothing to do with free speech. The "fire" paradigm is retarded.
Slander and libel laws do infringe on free speech though
\u262D = \u5350
But why the right-wing attacks? They're used to attacking service members, even decorated ones, officers, generals.
That's why Bush is polling at around 28%, right? Because of leftwing criticism of a brilliant war leader?
Right
The most humorous thing has been the complete lack of an electable Dem candidate...and it's happening again! Hillary Clinton?!? Bwahahaha!
That is the Dem idea of 'change'. Bush, Clinton, Bush...Clinton. Terrific.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The ad backfired only because of the pussy republicans who are so very terrified of terrorists. Real Americans aren't afraid of terrorists, but are done being represented as if we are. We're done with the lies, we're done with the deceit, and we're done with the bloodshed. Unfortunately, republicans, who hate America worse than the other terrorists, want to quash any dissent the mark of a true freedom-hater. Instead of listening to the 30 million Americans represented by MoveOn, the pussies in Congress instead decided to waste valuable time voting a resolution decrying the voice of real Americans. If Google's missions statement is to do no evil, then not allowing tax-and-spend, cowardly, America-hating republicans the ability to attack the views of the citizens sounds like a good start to me. If the 'pubs don't like it, too bad. They can get the fuck out of my country, then. They obviously hate everything that made America great anyway, we don't need their kind 'round here.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com