Slashdot Mirror
Google Stops Ads For "Cougar" Sites
teh31337one writes "Google is refusing to advertise CougarLife, a dating site for mature women looking for younger men. However, they continue to accept sites for mature men seeking young women. According to the New York Times, CougarLife.com had been paying Google $100,000 a month since October. The Mountain View company has now cancelled the contract, saying that the dating site is 'nonfamily safe.'"
Please drill down into TFA and tell me if this is a slashvertisment for CougarLife, an unrelated violation of googles TOS, or really google being evil so I can be outraged accordingly.
If the site still exists, and am looking for an older woman to have some fun at night, I'm sure that Googling "Cougar dating" should give me satisfaction, instead of having an ad displayed from time to time making me think that I like to be a toy boy...
I've seen a lot of spam for these kinds of site, so there may be a valid reason for closely examining them, but if this is an editorial decision, it's repulsive.
Well, cougar do pose a greater risk to family safety than most daddies.
Once again, another story that has NO impact on the readers of /. Neither "hot older women" nor "cute young men" can be found here. Thanks for reminding us you jerk!
If would be a different story however, if google had banned a site for women seeking basement dwelling fat people.
For their new Cougar Life, the first cereal to stay completely dry in milk.
why do we always need to self-censor? Who said the web needs to be "family safe"? Why are companies voluntarily following 1950's morality codes that the FCC imposes on broadcasters?
and what's offensive about women looking for some love'n?
It seems like in this country love is the biggest taboo of all
The problem is that the two are not often compatible. The site for older men trolling for younger women likely intentionally does some obfuscation to hide what they are after. The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name. In the same light we seldom see political advertising that pushes facts, most political ads (the ones on slashdot being excellent examples) instead push rumors, half-truths, and outright lies.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
because of the pervasive censorship, and announces a strong anti-censorship stance, even in engaging in a hopeful (although a little hamstrung) effort to show themselves as friends of transparency:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/20/google-google-street-view
but on the other hand it engages in a strange, fossil pre-'The Graduate' sort of hysterical moral panic that doesn't even exist (as a compelling widely believed opinion) in western countries anymore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate
even if you are so cynical as to say google has no real allegiance to transparency and truly fights censorship, that it's just a pr campaign, the contrast here is so galling as to nullify even the pr campaign on a surface level
therefore, this has to be a case of google losing some coherence in internal corporate guidelines. there's going to be some meetings, some people are going to get a stern email, and this decision will be reversed by higher ups
as to say this decision is hypocritical of google is putting it mildly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Considering I had never heard of them before, I'd say that by cancelling the contract Google has done the service the biggest favor yet! I imagine most people out there hadn't heard of it, either.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Except on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, Sundays, after 4pm, if it makes us lots of money or if we just cant be bothered with our fake holier than thou image
Wow, you didn't even bother to the summary or even the headline before you gratuitously bashed Google. This is about turning down ad revenue because of some holier than thou impulse, not making more money no matter what.
Google has simply labelled "cougar" to be an adult term, and adult ads are not allowed on its network. Yet other ads with the same or even stronger adult theme are allowed. The same company has a site for older men seeking younger women, and that one is allowed.
So it seems Google is being very sexist about it. Probably not a high level decision, just someone who let his/her own personal views put a word on the banned word list. I don't think Google really wants to ban all the adult themed ads, it is a lot of money they would be throwing away. 100k in advertising for one site only. Even Google is going to feel it if its puritans stance is now going to force it to block all the sites aimed at men as well.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You do realize you just volunteered yourself to take one for the team if a cougar ever approaches a group of your friends, right?
This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
A coupling of an older man with a younger woman has a greater chance of bearing children than that of an older woman and a younger man.
It seems to me that the Cougar scenario contains more safety from creating a Family than the other
This is just a tactical move in Google's spat with Apple. They're banning the term "Cougar" before Apple can use it as the name of its next OS X release.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I prefer bears you insensitive bastard!
Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars. He may not admit it, but he's there.
So if I start a non-profit caring for big cats (there really is one near me) I can't advertise for donations on Google? What is the Microsoft ad contract like?
Think Deeply.
This is called a bracketing paradox, and it's commonplace in natural languages. The classic textbook example is nuclear physicist, which doesn't mean "a physicist who's nuclear," but rather "an expert on nuclear physics."
Are you adequate?
Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars. He may not admit it, but he's there.
And why not? Of that group of friends, the one that 'takes' the cougar is definitely going to get lucky. The others get the thrill of the hunt, sure, but only maybe half of them will successfully hook up.
Bird in the hand, and all that.
As much as guys complain about the drama, they really should look at Cougars. Sure, they have drama, but orders of magnitude less than the young models. They're single, have their own life, and don't need you mucking it up; do your thing and then she doesn't care until next week.
I'll betcha most Slashdotters would be into anything female. Maybe /. should pick up where where Google left off. Guaranteed revenue stream.
Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars.
Yes, but he's the one in his late 60s, which rather defeats the object.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
means it's safe for the non-family. Discrimination is bad; murdering English is evil.
Hand in the bush, and all that.
There, fixed for ya.
No, it's not about the effects. Terms that imply bias are about intentions. There's a huge difference between giving a cookie to every male, vs. flipping a coin and giving a cookie every time it comes up heads, even if by random chance it happens that I end up giving each male (and no females) a cookie.
Drumming up emotions by using terms that imply deliberate bias to situations where there is none is a disservice to everyone involved, most of all those who advocate against true bias.
In contrast, an older man dating a younger woman is much more likely to end up in a relationship or marriage, and while an older man actively looking for a younger woman is clearly looking to hook up as well, he is also much more likely to be looking for something more substantial, which means he's in a position to do so - meaning, not married and not in a situation where the outcome of the services provided by [his dating site of choice] will be a threat to his family.
I have several friends who are what is euphemistically known as escorts, and who have worked with dating sites of the Sugar Daddy sort. They have met many men who are very willing to engage in the transactions such sites facilitate, and they have all been married. According to one friend, who has made a tidy high-five-figure income doing this for several years as she works her way through college, at least 80% of the men on sugardaddy sites are married and looking for multiple somethings on the side, preferably multiple somethings at the same time.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
What the hell is so evil about money being involved? Aside from an outdated puritanical moral code, sex is (illogically) about the only thing that's legal to give away but not to sell. If you're going to argue about the merits of monogamy and how prostitution can spread STD's then I can assure you - a casual "hookup" site is on just as shakey of ground there compared to outright prostitution. Afterall - it's not the money that causes STD's - it's sex with casual or unfamiliar partners.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I've seen this again and again. Too many young women are just bad at life. They might be attractive, fit, and successful at their jobs, but outside of that there is isolation and void and fear. And much like their cars and their computers, they want to dump their unhappiness on Mr. Man for him to fix it. I don't mind reinstalling Windows every now and then, but I am not a spiritual healer and if my loving doesn't take away the pain, I don't know what will.
of course they weren't called cougar. They where called horny 30 years old women.
That particular group is still called that. Cougar (to me, and to most of the people I know) is more on the order of 40 to 50. Sometimes even higher. Jane Seymour is 59 now and I still would like to get acquainted with her.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
also... they say thank you and make breakfast for you in the morning. Been there, done that.
I highly recommend it ;)
The irony of your sig and the GP is almost enough to create a singularity.
I guess it depends on your definition of "evil". From the point of view of some people, what courgarlife.com advertises is evil, therefore not advertising it is not doing evil. According to others censorship is evil, so by censoring the ads, they ARE doing evil. This is the problem with basing your business model around a nebulous concept like "evil"
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Cougar Life has run adverts on the radio here in Chicago.
Their tag line is "Wouldn't you like to **** a cougar too?"
As such, it's pretty obvious that they're not going to pass the "No Adult Content" caveat in place with Google.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This conversation has gotten too intelligent, compassionate, mature, and reasonable for Slashdot. This is your final warning! ~
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
It's evil to use your advertising clout to promote a version of 'family friendliness' which is couched in outmoded and sexist ideas about age differences in relationships.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!