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.
Basically, a ad had a trademark on it, and the trademark owner asked for the ad to be removed? Not really big news...
It'll be news if they submitted an ad WITHOUT infringing on a trademark, and that was rejected.
This was on Fark the other day, and between the usual conservative and liberal bashing and flaming, it became quite obvious that this was a non-story:
An organization saw their trademark being used without their permission in an advertisement, and asked that it be taken down.
If this was Microsoft running an ad that said "Ubuntu Linux promotes terrorism," and Ubuntu asked Google to remove it, would you get all angry about how evil Ubuntu and Google are?
From the article: "Google routinely permits the unauthorized use of company names such as Exxon, Wal-Mart, Cargill and Microsoft in advocacy ads. An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks Keep Blackwater in Iraq? and links to an article titled Bastards at Blackwater Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?"
Does this mean the only reason we see "Wal-mart sucks" ads are because none of those companies PR/legal departments have asked Google to stop using their trademarks?
Oh yes, and the current system of extraordinary rendition appeared under Clinton. And don't forget that pesky DMCA.
It's not that I like the GOP either - I just think the donkeys, elephants and Googles of this world are all in it for three things: the money, the power, and the women.
No matter what the causes of the ban are , it's frightening what the power of an (almost) full monopoly on internet seaching services can do. Google is today the number one searching enginw on the internet. It's SO used that "to google" has replaced the verb "to search"... so if Google bans something or have favoritisms for something, this, no matter waht, will have SERIOUS implications for the involved parts. Funny how the powers than be concentrate on the infamious "MS monopoly (whatever that is) and close their eyes on the more serious Google issue.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
If that was true, it might be worth noting. But it's not:
http://investor.google.com/board.html
Both Gore and Schmidt are on Apple's board of directors however: http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html
Just because you're accusing the search tool of partisan hackery doesn't mean it should stop you before making your own partisan hacked up assaults. Not to mention that Al Gore isn't even involved in this case.
So the Times accidentally undercharged them, then gets to call up several weeks later and demand the rest of the money? MoveOn.org should have done what I do in cases like this: Send them a bill for additional handling and paperwork for the sum that they're requesting.
Since when do you get to charge someone one amount, deliver the product, and AFTER the fact say, "By the way, we messed up, and you owe us twice as much?" Is this just a case of liberals not being able to stand their ground again? What the hell is wrong with these people that they can't just say that the transaction has taken place, and there's no remedy? I mean, I understand the NY Times going after the money to protect their journalistic credibility, but MoveOn should've thumbed their nose at them, based solely upon the fact that that's not how business works.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
So much for free speech from the left wing. The fault here really isn't Google, although they could arguably using a weak legal argument to be sympathetic to a particular group, it's MoveOn, whose basically taken a page from the book of scientology to try and avoid criticism of itself. What a bunch of thugs!
This is my sig.
It's a judgment call since Google can do whatever the hell it wants, but there was no trademark violation.
Showing the actions of Moveon in order to criticize them is fair use. There is no question that this ad was not illegal.
Google is liberal. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's obvious. They filter information in a biased way, too. If you look at the fringe sites they allow onto google news, its matches their political views. No right wing nuts, plenty of left wing nuts.
Again, I don't have a problem with google choosing to be biased, but they do.
And maybe they give all trademark complaints instant credit, but I seriously doubt it. This was an invalid complaint and there was no legal reason to pull the ad.
so I cannot be critical of any corporation or organization? If I don't like the methods of the RIAA, advertising companies can refuse me service? It is certainly within their legal right, because they are private organizations. But is it ethical to refuse customers who wish to push a political message, especially to counter one that already is freely using the advertising service?
Making ads with other people's trademarks should be protected, like if I'm some crappy beige box PC maker I can't really use trademarks for Windows or Intel freely. And if the owners of those trademarks complain the advertiser should take down those ads, to maintain the quality of the advertising.
Google really has only two possible scenarios I see. They are either politically motivated (the company + employees constitutes the largest Democratic campaign contributer in the district for the past few years). Or they are inflexible to the point of being blindly stupid.
Take your pick google, evil or stupid.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So by simply discussing this article we are in violation of the MOVEON.ORG trademark.
Why has this not been removed?
Moveon.org can dish it out but they sure cant take it.
He's not on the BoD, but he IS a "Senior Advisor" to Google's management team.
This is a troubling policy. Frequently trademarked expressions are the only short common way to reference a particular organization. If that organization can block the use of that trademark in advertisements it can control a great deal of what is said about it. Sure individual blogs can do what they want as long as it is legal but even with the internet if you want your message to reach the people who aren't already believers you need a way to reach out to large numbers that don't regularly visit any site who will express your view for free and that means advertising.
One is tempted to blame google in this situation but I'm not really sure what else they could do. When they have sold keywords that were close to a trademark even when the ad itself contained no trademark they came in for a lot of criticism and even lawsuits. Moreover, I would guess (but can't be sure) that they would be at risk of being sued for trademark infringement if they allowed ads to keep running that were engaging in genuinely misleading usage.
Now you might think that google should just let ads like this one run but not ads that use the trademark for competitive advantage. However, not only would this be difficult and expensive it seems likely that google would be forced to rule on tough close choices not to mention keeping having experts in trademark law from all the countries the ad is going to run in examine the use. It would probably be better at this point for them to make an exception for political speech but this still doesn't solve all the difficulties. A much better solution would be to seek an international treaty on trademarks that lets intermediate companies like google step out of the way and requires any legal action to be brought directly against the advertiser.
It isn't like google is never biased. Their policy (or at least their TOS last time I looked) on what custom buttons for their toolbar they will put into their gallery is pretty bad. It lets you post search buttons for sites that advocate gun control but not for sites that advocate gun possession (presumably like the NRA). Still if they are telling the truth here I don't know if this is really one.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
They probably implemented the policy to stop people from running blatant smear campaigns via AdWords. This problem is perhaps more threatening via AdWords simply because it is automated and potentially anonymous. If it got out of hand, it could lose Google a lot of money as well as the interest of advertisers. Remember, ads were the big pot o' gold that dried up completely during the burst, and now that you can make money in internet advertising again, they are probably looking at every way that could self-destruct.
OK - I deal with Google ads (and MSN, etc) for a living. The fact is - Google has very strict policies - but not every account manager at Google is equal (what... you think these ads aren't manually managed?). Some are very paranoid, and will shut down anything with a single complaint, others will spend more time and look into it, and a few won't act until they have gotten multiple complaints or even threatened with lawsuits. Also, the size of the account plays into how lenient they are as well. If you are bidding on a million keywords they'll tend to let things slide, as opposed to someone who bids on 10 or 20.
So... it's not a conspiracy and it's not a corporate ethics thing, it's just that some people are better at their jobs than others.
http://www.coderoshi.com/
(Trademark, not copyright.)
Yeah, whoops. Odd, I thought that's what I wrote but I guess I didn't.
If you think this is the only example of Google's antipathy towards "Red State America", you haven't been paying attention....
I think Google perceives that it can afford to pull these sorts of stunts, or e.g. never making a special page for Memorial or Veterans Day, without significant cost.
A) They can. That's my entire point. Boycotts based on "Culture War" BS never make hardly any sort of impact if a company refuses to flinch in the first month or two.
B) They've never made a page for Arbor Day. Does that mean that they hate trees? They've never celebrated Labor Day, either. Does that mean that they hate workers rights? Are you going to read something into the fact that they haven't celebrated President's Day or Columbus Day? Plus, frankly, they'd be more likely to touch off a political firestorm by action than by inaction.
The real problem here is that partisans of all stripes is that they have a grudge against the world. Petty crap like the lack of celebration for two war memorial holidays are seen as validation of paranoid beliefs that the world is filled with large institutions that are out to make your life suck for their own selfish reasons.
Liberal partisans worry about elites trying to destroy the American way of life for their own conscienceless benefit. Conservative partisans worry about the same exact thing for different definitions of destroying the American way of life. In the end, it all comes down to pervasive confirmation bias and an ill temper with the world.
Why should Google pay any attention to people who find offense at everything around them in society and who don't have the attention span nor the willpower to boycott doing business with them -- especially when their complaints are nothing but making a mountain out of a molehill? Sane conservatives will realize that this is a huge to-do about nothing, and the fringe ax-grinders are too small to really care about.
In the time it would take for a court case by MoveOn over trademark infringement to fight its way through courts, this whole mess will be forgotten by all but the most ardent, paranoid grudge-carriers. Even if that weren't true, no company is going to deliberately break the law and expose themselves to liability just to keep a few political loudmouths happy unless said company is run by political loudmouths of the same stripe.
Google only did what's logical, and political partisans have way too puffed up of an opinion of their own importance.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Google?
or
Goo-betray us?
Except in this case the ad was using the trademark MoveOn.org for the purpose of selling the oposition. It would be legitimate if it was a blog entry talking about the issue. But in this case, the trademark was being misappropriated to directly link to an opposition campaign page.
The whole power of the ad was derived from the the trademarke MoveOn.org, if you read it with a generic liberal replaced, it just doesn't have the same impact. And that is why ultimately it was a legitimate request.
The group itself has a name which is likely in violation of trademark protections. As much as I would love for somebody to put MoveOn.org in their place, this was a legitimate move on the part of Google to try and protect a trademark.
Collins is a Republican Senator from Maine, and faces a hard choice in her 2008 reelection bid.
Maine is a fairly moderate state, and Collins is in a position very similar to Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. That is, in order to appeal to the voters of Maine she has to take reasonably moderate positions. However, in order to maintain her status as a card carrying Republican, she has to appeal to the kooks.
Chafee in trying to appeal to the moderates of Rhode Island, made the kooks in the Republican party angry. So they launched a primary challenger against him in the name of Stephen Laffey. This primary challenger weakened Chafee's position, because it pointed out to independents in the state just how kooky the Republicans have become. So despite years of services, a solid reputation, he lost pretty handidly.
Collins doesn't want the same thing ot happen to her. So to fend off a primary challenge, she's trying to establish her credentials with the kooks. Picking something innocuous that nobody really knows or cares about, she's decided to attack moveon.org. Had she instead decided to champion their latest nutty cause of attacking 12 year olds for speaking in favor of SCHIP, that might have gotten her some negative press back home with regular people and that's not good. So by attacking something the kooks hate, that normal people don't really care about, she's in safe territory.
Just getting the ad out on google.com wouldn't have been enough, because nobody would have paid much attention to it. So it was necessary to place the ad in such a way as to cause it to be rejected. But not too whacko, using bad language would have drawn attention to regular people. So they lucked out on this trademark infringement thing.
Because if there is nothing the kooks love more(left, right, it doesn't matter), it is feeling like they are victims of a giant conspiracy to get them. Plus, it is easier to get the press to pick up on your ad being rejected then it is that it is running and nobody is looking at it.
This news article was intended for right-wing kooks to read, so they'd see Susan Collins as one of their own.
Therefore, Google's policy is When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, we only investigate the use of the trademark in ad text. If the advertiser is using the trademark in ad text, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademark and prevent them from using it in ad text in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.
Their position is the only one that will increase shareholder value.
You can't take the sky from me...
I know this is slightly OT, but I'd like to see some sort of reasoned debate over it here...
What exactly was so offensive about MoveOn.org's ad campaign in the first place?
Petraeus has handled the Iraq war poorly, and in several cases lied outright to the American people. MoveOn.org called him out on it. Isn't that how democratic politics and free speech are supposed to work?
It's no secret that many Americans feel that the government misled the general public in order to bolster support for their war, and the ad was a simple reflection of this reality. It wasn't even a baseless personal attack -- they provide quotations, and even cite their sources.
Perhaps the most troubling part of the whole saga is that the house passed a resolution condemning the advert 341-79, and the senate 71-29 (With all 49 republicans, and 22 democrats voting in favor). The president even got in on the action.
This Time editorial seems to have the best summation of the whole situation.
Is this all the legislative branch is good for these days? Sternly wagging their fingers at political action groups, and listening to baseball testimony?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
And - yes I did take a look at their site and it was not really having any substance at all. So what is all the fuzz about? Even the anti-moveon must be a real bunch of losers just considering the ad... Viagra ads are much more fun.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
A trademark does not give you ownership of a word or phrase. Trademark protection is limited to the use of the trademark in commerce, to identify a product. MoveOn.org and Google should be ashamed of themselves for abusing the legal system to squelch free speech. MoveOn.org must be taking legal pointers from the scumbags at the so-called Church of Scientology.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
from the article:
An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks "Keep Blackwater in Iraq?" and links to an article titled "Bastards at Blackwater -- Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?"
Google is being hypocritical.