It is far from clear that Google exercises editorial discrimination when interpreting its AdWords policies and
accepting or rejecting ads. Any individual claim of politically motivated censorship is unlikely. However
certain reports of the current Clinton book
controversy (Google denied ads for an anti-Clinton book) are definitely biased, slamming Google with unsubstantiated
facts. I could not bring up any of the anti-Bush ads supposedly accepted and now running on Google, try as I might with
every keyword combination I could think of. WebProNews is running a
Google-friendly
interpretation of the mess.
On the other hand, the ads reportedly rejected by
Google do not seem to attack an individual—the reason supplied by Google for their discontinuation. They are ads for a
book, not against an individual, and they don't seem particularly inciting. However, it's always Google's call, and
history shows Google working both sides of the fence with what must be described as objectivity. Most likely, the worst
crime Google is guilty of is bad judgment.
Google and the Clintons
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. This gave me a good laugh the first time I tried it. Type "miserable failure" (no quotes) into google and click "I'm Feeling Lucky". Note that nowhere on the page do the words 'miserable' or 'failure' occur
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by W Zach Jordan
3. Click link on my name for my comments on this story.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Harold Davis
4. Click link on my name for my comments on this story.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Harold Davis
6. I should provide an excerpt from that article:
-----------------------------------------------
A Google 'AdWords Team' e-mail explained that they rejected the book promotion because of "unacceptable content," citing a policy that "does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'language that advocates against an individual, group, or organization.'"
...
Our marketing staff initially attributed this to a common squeamishness among sales people to political controversy -- it doesn't increase sales and provokes complaints. Fair enough -- there would be no 'anti-anybody' merchandise ads. Given previous success promoting G. W. Bush-oriented items, AIM decided to try a new campaign marketing our Ronald Reagan books and memorabilia.
Imagine our surprise when Google suspended this campaign as well. The Ronald Reagan merchandise did not offend, however. After rehashing their policy proscribing 'advocacy against' anyone, Google informed us that they had browsed other items offered for sale in AIM's website -- but NOT promoted on Google. Google wrote that such items as the "'Bill Lied,' 'Impeach Hillary' and 'Forget Buddy, Neuter Clinton ' bumper Stickers as well as other shirts, buttons and books on your site are not acceptable."
-----------------------------------------------
In other words, the conservative group had all their ads disqualified because some of the unadvertised items in their store did not meet Google's advertising criteria.
Heh.
1. it's only a little google-friendly... more like anti-jackson's claim. :)
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by chris