Slashdot Mirror
Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View
Ellie K writes As of 23 March 2015, Google will remove blogs on its Blogger platform that don't conform to its new anti-adult policies. This is an abrupt reversal of policy. Until today, Google allowed "images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity," and stated that "Censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression." The linked article quotes the message which has been sent to Blogger users thus: (...) In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or presented where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will go into effect on the 23rd of March 2015. After this policy goes into effect, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content we've made private.
NOW where am I going to go for my sexual content?
it may be their servers, but it's still censorship.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.
Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Uh, owning the platform does not mean that censoring something on it is not censorship.
People keep using that word but do not really seem to know what it means.
If I own a store I can decided what is for sale in that store.
If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If I own newspaper I can decide what kind of ads are put in the paper.
Ebay does not allow the sale of guns or live animals is that evil?
Craigslist does not allow "adult services" adds anymore.
That is all called editorial control.
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
Google is not preventing them from publishing anything. They are just enforcing their guidelines for their free service. If you do not like it find an hosting service, download a free blogging platform like wordpress and you are good to go.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"The full quote is Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.""
To quote Google. "But I do not have to pay for you to say it."
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?
You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
You must be working from a different dictionary than me. Censorship is when something is deleted or hidden from view. There is no requirement on who is the one doing it.
If I decide not to say "fuck" in this post and replace it with "fudge", that's self censoring.
If a newspaper removes the word "fuck" from a letter to the editor, the newspaper is censoring.
If Google hides all adult content from view, Google is censoring.
If the Government tells a newspaper they can't run an article critical of it, the Government is censoring.
Only one of these things is illegal.
Just because Google is censoring adult themed websites doesn't make it wrong or illegal. You can't decide that a word means less than it does just because you don't like the connotations.
However, in the cases of the stores selling stuff, or newspapers publishing stuff, every item is chosen for and cleared by the entity selling/publishing them. That's different from a service that solicits self-publication by the masses.
The key difference is that newspapers, stores, etc. start with nothing and choose what to add. This type of censorship starts with everything and chooses what to exclude.
The eBay/Craigslist examples are the companies not wanting to enable illegal activity (many of the ads/sales would fall into illegal activity depending on where/how the transactions occurred - this is them not wanting to be an accessory to illegal activity).
Google is not preventing them from publishing anything. They are just enforcing their guidelines for their free service.
However, that is censorship. Practically the dictionary definition of it, even: A censor is "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds" or "any person who supervises the manners or morality of others." Censorship is the act of acting as a censor. This situation is absolutely Google suppressing blogs on a "morality" basis.