PDA

View Full Version : Google policy


Skipper
04-08-2009, 8:50 AM
Due to their stated policy:

As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites with content related to weapons or weapon accessories, including firearms, fighting knives, or stun guns. This includes sites that sell or drive traffic to sites which sell this type of material.

I suggest that we all stop using Google; stop responding to AdSense advertising, and tell each and everyone of them exactly why.

kdm
04-08-2009, 9:09 AM
That's good...I don't wanna be interrrupted by annoying advertisements when I'm looking at gun porn. :43:

mister dize
04-08-2009, 10:00 AM
Use AdBlock plus (http://adblockplus.org/en/)!

It filters out all ads, not just Google ads. That way, you can keep searching but Google doesn't see any money from you.

BTW I used to work at Google. There was once a big debate on an internal e-mail list as to whether or not they should allow police officers to carry their weapons on the Google campus. The company has a "no weapons" policy on their property, which I can completely respect because they own the land and can do with it what they please, but talking about disarming cops? Let's just be reasonable here.

berg
04-08-2009, 10:28 AM
I was making $100 a month on google ads on my firearms-related site. Then they pulled the ads suddenly stating the above mentioned restrictions. I surfed over to some other gun-related site and saw they have google ads still. Somehow I got unlucky.

This was a few years ago. They are big enough to not worry about a few hundred gun sites no using their service, or any other boycott for that matter.

nick
04-08-2009, 10:33 AM
I greatly dislike Google as it is, and this is nothing new to add to it. They have this holier than thou attitude, with their "do no evil" motto, while at the same time it's one of the most damaging to privacy companies out there.

They set the trend among big companies when they openly stated that they'd be parsing Gmail users' personal email for marketing clues; that they save user searches on Google in order to parse them for marketing clues, as well (and to match those searches to the user). They set the trend with Google Desktop Search where it would conveniently search both the Web and the files on your computer, and then store the search results on the Google servers (including the results from your computer), per Google, for 60 days (given their track record, it could be any time frame). Yes, if you keep some sensitive information in a file, a credit card info, perhaps, or your account and password info (like too many people do) and searched for it with this convenient little utility called Google Desktop Search, Google has it now. Don't forget that the search results include not just the search query itself, but also the text around it.

Google bots (the software that indexes the pages on the Internet, that's how search engines collect the information about sites that they provide for you in a search) are some of the most intrusive out there, and there were several scandals involving them indexing pages which were set with the 'do not index' metatags, which other search engines' bots left alone.

With all that, Google is quite notorious in the information security community with their lax security practices, so that information they collect is quite likely (and does) end up in the wrong hands other than theirs.

Since Google gets away with it (just like with guns, there's outrage in the IT community whenever yet another such gift from Google comes to light, but most Google users are either blissfully unaware of it, or ignore the issue as something too boring to distract themselves from the boob tube), and their competitors have to compete with them, those competitors adjust their policies accordingly, so soon thereafter everyone does the same thing.

Google's answer to all that is brilliant. It generally goes along these lines - "Since we have this "do no evil" motto, what do you have to worry about? We're comitted to not harming you, so what's the problem with us doing all this. After all, per our motto, we do no evil, so you've nothing to worry about". Does that remind you of anything?

By the way, it looks like they're dropping that motto, they're searching for a new one now. Nothing malicious there, they're just adjusting their brand policies.

So no-gun policy fits pretty well with the rest of the hypocrisy Google exudes.

Asphodel
04-08-2009, 11:11 AM
Hmmmm.......just for curiosity.....

Reading the comment about the Google corp. internal debate regarding 'no weapons on campus' as it might be applied to police, a question emerges.

As we know, or think we 'know', ( I could be mistaken, but bear with me for now) a regular on-duty armed police officer may enter a property without consent of the owner or tenant if he/she has a properly executed warrant to search the property.

What would the practical effect be, should some large-scale property owner or tenant post a property as

'No weapons, concealed or otherwise, are permitted to be present on this campus' 'This includes ccw permit holders and police personnel, except as may be empowered by a properly executed search warrant, in the service of such warrant'?

Presumably, alleged 'hot pursuit' of an 'alleged felon' would be an enforceable exception? Would alleged 'hot pursuit' of a 'traffic infraction' be equivalent?

Could a police agency decline to respond to a '911' call at that location, as an officer safety issue, until a warrant could be obtained? Presumably, a '911' call would be considered adequate 'probable cause' for the issuance of a warrant?

cheers

Carla

nick
04-08-2009, 11:29 AM
Could a police agency decline to respond to a '911' call at that location, as an officer safety issue, until a warrant could be obtained?

cheers

Carla

I'd prefer that part :D

sugi942
04-08-2009, 11:29 AM
What are you guys using as Google replacements?

nick
04-08-2009, 12:07 PM
I mostly use Yahoo, and occasionally Google, when Yahoo doesn't produce the results I need. Google is very good at what it does, the main problem is the baggage it comes with.

jmlivingston
04-08-2009, 12:28 PM
What are you guys using as Google replacements?

What do you mean, Google's "replacement"? I was using Excite and Yahoo back when they were the leaders of internet searching, and never moved away from Yahoo!.

In fact, for a while Yahoo! had adopted Google's software as their primary search and indexing system, though they later dumped it when Google started directly competing with them.

John

rynando
04-08-2009, 12:38 PM
http://www.live.com/

R

tpuig
04-08-2009, 1:38 PM
http://www.scroogle.org/

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

Arkalius
04-08-2009, 1:50 PM
I'm not too worried about what google does with the information it gets from me... Internet advertising makes the internet work, which is why I am against the idea of ad blocking programs. The better the ad companies get at targetting ads, the less annoying they'll be.

Google is already willing to give up the ad revenue from ads placed on weapon-related sites, so I doubt they care if a small portion of offended gun owners stop using their services. If you feel you need to do it for the principle of it, then go right ahead. I wouldn't have any illusions that they will actually care though...

rabagley
04-08-2009, 2:04 PM
I work at Google. I suspect I'm not the only calguns member who does. But I may be the only one willing to discuss it in this thread :)

I greatly dislike Google as it is, and this is nothing new to add to it. They have this holier than thou attitude, with their "do no evil" motto, while at the same time it's one of the most damaging to privacy companies out there.

Google has enough information stored to make it a big risk for loss of privacy, true. Based on what I see, however, I object to the statement that it is currently damaging to privacy. As for "don't be evil", most of the people who work here only do so because of that motto.

If Google management drops that motto or stops making internal decisions guided by it, they'll lose a lot of people really fast.

They set the trend among big companies when they openly stated that they'd be parsing Gmail users' personal email for marketing clues; that they save user searches on Google in order to parse them for marketing clues, as well (and to match those searches to the user). They set the trend with Google Desktop Search where it would conveniently search both the Web and the files on your computer, and then store the search results on the Google servers (including the results from your computer), per Google, for 60 days (given their track record, it could be any time frame). Yes, if you keep some sensitive information in a file, a credit card info, perhaps, or your account and password info (like too many people do) and searched for it with this convenient little utility called Google Desktop Search, Google has it now. Don't forget that the search results include not just the search query itself, but also the text around it.

There are risks to having passwords and credit card information on a computer with Google Desktop Search. The same risks as using Windows Desktop Search, incidentally. I don't use Google Desktop Search or any other desktop search for exactly this reason.

The way in which any search results are stored and accessed makes it very difficult for anyone who isn't you to access your data. Not that it's impossible, just really hard. Google doesn't share that content with anyone outside the company who doesn't have a warrant, not even the advertisers whose ads are being served up. Even Google employees who might need access to user data have to jump through a lot of hoops and oversight before they're allowed to access actual user data.

I work on the systems that store photos and online docs, and I've never seen a user's content. It happens so rarely that anyone needs to look at a user's content that it's very notable.

Google bots (the software that indexes the pages on the Internet, that's how search engines collect the information about sites that they provide for you in a search) are some of the most intrusive out there, and there were several scandals involving them indexing pages which were set with the 'do not index' metatags, which other search engines' bots left alone.

There are issues where the Google spider doesn't refresh it's read of the robots.txt file as quickly as a site owner hopes and performance issues temporarily continue. The Google spider also does evaluate rules in a different order from some earlier bots (Google evaluates all ALLOW rules before any DENY rules) which has caused frustration and confusion. There have also been multiple cases of malicious bots spoofing as the Google spider and behaving badly, but if the website owner checks the IP address as a part of his bot-specific rules, he won't be fooled.

As for being more or less intrusive, you can set the revisit policy in the robots.txt so that you'll get more or fewer. As far as I can tell from the inside, Google tries very hard to correctly follow the instructions in robots.txt files, so that it is playing nice with the websites being indexed.

Google's spider follows any rules that can be expressed in robots.txt. Cases where it hasn't followed the rules are bugs that are fixed as fast as humanly possible.

With all that, Google is quite notorious in the information security community with their lax security practices, so that information they collect is quite likely (and does) end up in the wrong hands other than theirs.

I just did some searching, couldn't find anything on this with two minutes of either Google or Yahoo (just in case Google's search results are self-serving). If Google is "quite notorious" about something, I would have expected it to be easier to find.

Linky?

Since Google gets away with it (just like with guns, there's outrage in the IT community whenever yet another such gift from Google comes to light, but most Google users are either blissfully unaware of it, or ignore the issue as something too boring to distract themselves from the boob tube), and their competitors have to compete with them, those competitors adjust their policies accordingly, so soon thereafter everyone does the same thing.

Google's answer to all that is brilliant. It generally goes along these lines - "Since we have this "do no evil" motto, what do you have to worry about? We're comitted to not harming you, so what's the problem with us doing all this. After all, per our motto, we do no evil, so you've nothing to worry about". Does that remind you of anything?

That's disingenuous at best and fabrication at worst. I've never seen a response like that, and I've been reading plenty about the privacy discussions within and around Google. Google will argue why they think a practice is beneficial to users, not just protest that Google has a shiny motto. Now, there are several situations where the beneficial argument carries less credibility (Google China, for instance), but "we're not evil!" is never the argument.

By the way, it looks like they're dropping that motto, they're searching for a new one now. Nothing malicious there, they're just adjusting their brand policies.

Um, you made that up, dude. Google's not dropping the motto.

That motto is a central part of the company's identity (via how the employees see themselves and their employer). It's not going anywhere. You want to watch Larry or Sergey put on the spot about something? Stand up on a Friday afternoon, point to a policy you don't like, and say "is this evil?" When there are actual issues with a policy, they've demonstrated a willingness to change.

So no-gun policy fits pretty well with the rest of the hypocrisy Google exudes.

The no-gun policy does frustrate and annoy. The privacy issues worry, but from my seat, Google is headed in the right direction on that. There have been a few internal discussion threads on guns, but not much activity recently. There is the distinct impression that not enough people want any change in the gun policy, which is probably correct.

DDT
04-08-2009, 2:52 PM
You want to watch Larry or Sergey put on the spot about something? Stand up on a Friday afternoon, point to a policy you don't like, and say "is this evil?" When there are actual issues with a policy, they've demonstrated a willingness to change.


Does this policy infringe on legal trade in the US?

Does this policy make it more difficult for people to protect themselves by limiting the visibility and revenue opportunities for products they would use to protect themselves?

Is this policy counter to the US Constitution?

Is this policy counter to beliefs of a large majority of the US population?

Does that sound "evil" to you?

Would they do the same thing to gay websites if they were homophobic instead of hoplophobic?

What about conservative websites? If they gave money to candidate X would they refuse to serve ads for websites that opposed him/her?

Is it there stated goal to financially injure those with whom they disagree politically?

I am not saying they shouldn't have the ability to do so as a non-governmental company but "don't be evil" really doesn't fit.

I know that the "don't be evil" motto comes, in part, from being socially conscientious but it was largely inspired by Microsoft. Microsoft (the evil empire) gained this reputation by its practices of unfairly locking competitors out of markets, contractually, by co-opting markets, by acquisition of other players, and by software/OS integration. This policy is so very close to the same thing in the case of Google and the way they are treating a large percentage of the US population. THIS IS EVIL.

ilbob
04-08-2009, 2:54 PM
Use AdBlock plus (http://adblockplus.org/en/)!
BTW I used to work at Google. There was once a big debate on an internal e-mail list as to whether or not they should allow police officers to carry their weapons on the Google campus. The company has a "no weapons" policy on their property, which I can completely respect because they own the land and can do with it what they please, but talking about disarming cops? Let's just be reasonable here.

I don't have a problem with such a policy, especially if it includes everyone.

sugi942
04-08-2009, 2:56 PM
Obviously you prefer Yahoo to Google. :-) Personally, I'd rather not use Google and I really don't like them now. I remember using Alta-vista. That was eons ago. I tried Dogpile, but I never warmed up to it.

pnkssbtz
04-08-2009, 3:14 PM
Does this policy infringe on legal trade in the US?

Does this policy make it more difficult for people to protect themselves by limiting the visibility and revenue opportunities for products they would use to protect themselves?

Is this policy counter to the US Constitution?

Is this policy counter to beliefs of a large majority of the US population?

Does that sound "evil" to you?

Would they do the same thing to gay websites if they were homophobic instead of hoplophobic?

What about conservative websites? If they gave money to candidate X would they refuse to serve ads for websites that opposed him/her?

Is it there stated goal to financially injure those with whom they disagree politically?

I am not saying they shouldn't have the ability to do so as a non-governmental company but "don't be evil" really doesn't fit.

I know that the "don't be evil" motto comes, in part, from being socially conscientious but it was largely inspired by Microsoft. Microsoft (the evil empire) gained this reputation by its practices of unfairly locking competitors out of markets, contractually, by co-opting markets, by acquisition of other players, and by software/OS integration. This policy is so very close to the same thing in the case of Google and the way they are treating a large percentage of the US population. THIS IS EVIL.
I consider those who perpetuate hypocrisy as being evil. Albeit a lesser evil, but evil nonetheless.

Google, with their policy, is thus evil by their own actions.

Turbinator
04-08-2009, 3:25 PM
Reading the comment about the Google corp. internal debate regarding 'no weapons on campus' as it might be applied to police, a question emerges.

Hmm.. I'll admit to having had weapons and firearms on the Google campus! Without permission!

Of course, the campus wasn't Google's at the time... :D

Turby

rabagley
04-08-2009, 3:26 PM
Does this policy infringe on legal trade in the US?

Does this policy make it more difficult for people to protect themselves by limiting the visibility and revenue opportunities for products they would use to protect themselves?

Is this policy counter to the US Constitution?

Is this policy counter to beliefs of a large majority of the US population?

Does that sound "evil" to you?

Would they do the same thing to gay websites if they were homophobic instead of hoplophobic?

What about conservative websites? If they gave money to candidate X would they refuse to serve ads for websites that opposed him/her?

Is it there stated goal to financially injure those with whom they disagree politically?

I am not saying they shouldn't have the ability to do so as a non-governmental company but "don't be evil" really doesn't fit.

I have a hard time saying that a company not wanting to be involved with gun transactions and not wanting to provide revenue to gun-related content is evil or is even irresponsible. It's just a decision to forgo revenue based on a social argument.

Google doesn't refuse to index pages with gun content or serve results from those pages. Gun-related content isn't a part of the "safe search" subsystem that manages content for specific topic areas like porn. Google is my favorite way of searching calguns and arfcom and it does a great job, despite the fact that it's all gun-related content.

Google management has simply chosen to not make money from guns and passes along that decision to those who want to split revenue with Google. At some level, they're simply trying to stay far away from making money that comes from human misery (international arms dealers) and the decision to not make money from guns at all is the simplest way to do that.

To be honest, the policy that bans guns from any Google office, even for those legally licensed to carry, bothers me a lot more.

CA_Libertarian
04-08-2009, 6:12 PM
They are big enough to not worry about a few hundred gun sites no using their service, or any other boycott for that matter.

Well, I don't mind being one less drop in their bucket. Anybody know if Yahoo.com has a similar policy?

nick
04-09-2009, 1:00 AM
I work at Google. I suspect I'm not the only calguns member who does. But I may be the only one willing to discuss it in this thread :)

Originally Posted by nick
I greatly dislike Google as it is, and this is nothing new to add to it. They have this holier than thou attitude, with their "do no evil" motto, while at the same time it's one of the most damaging to privacy companies out there.
Google has enough information stored to make it a big risk for loss of privacy, true. Based on what I see, however, I object to the statement that it is currently damaging to privacy. As for "don't be evil", most of the people who work here only do so because of that motto.

If Google management drops that motto or stops making internal decisions guided by it, they'll lose a lot of people really fast.

The reason I said that Google is damaging to privacy isnít so much the amount of data it accumulated, but the trends it creates, as I described in the rest of my post. Letís even assume that their intentions are pure and go beyond simply making money (Iím not prepared to argue either of these points since I donít know any of Googleís founders or its CEO), the trends they set based on the purest of intentions (assuming thatís the case) result in those trends becoming acceptable and others following those trends with less than pure intentions, and abusing that acceptance. Thereís a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and when it comes to privacy they seem to be walking it. Assuming their intentions are pure, of course.
As for the motto, I read about it a few days ago in one of the IT magazines I subscribe to, but a quick search online found a few similar speculations based on the Googleís spokesperson saying it.


Originally Posted by nick
They set the trend among big companies when they openly stated that they'd be parsing Gmail users' personal email for marketing clues; that they save user searches on Google in order to parse them for marketing clues, as well (and to match those searches to the user). They set the trend with Google Desktop Search where it would conveniently search both the Web and the files on your computer, and then store the search results on the Google servers (including the results from your computer), per Google, for 60 days (given their track record, it could be any time frame). Yes, if you keep some sensitive information in a file, a credit card info, perhaps, or your account and password info (like too many people do) and searched for it with this convenient little utility called Google Desktop Search, Google has it now. Don't forget that the search results include not just the search query itself, but also the text around it.

There are risks to having passwords and credit card information on a computer with Google Desktop Search. The same risks as using Windows Desktop Search, incidentally. I don't use Google Desktop Search or any other desktop search for exactly this reason.

The way in which any search results are stored and accessed makes it very difficult for anyone who isn't you to access your data. Not that it's impossible, just really hard. Google doesn't share that content with anyone outside the company who doesn't have a warrant, not even the advertisers whose ads are being served up. Even Google employees who might need access to user data have to jump through a lot of hoops and oversight before they're allowed to access actual user data.

I work on the systems that store photos and online docs, and I've never seen a user's content. It happens so rarely that anyone needs to look at a user's content that it's very notable.

Yep, thereíre risks, and those risks exist with any other such desktop search software. Most of which copied Googleís. Many have been developing it before Google, but either didnít develop it beyond proof of concept, thinking that the users will never go with something this dangerous, or released it and found out that their target groups indeed wouldnít go with something this dangerous. Google managed to make it accepted.
Accessing it without a warrant, well, just like others Google does share it with governments like that of China (and you know what itís used for there). Is it evil? :p Seriously now, the warrants arenít that hard to obtain even in the US these days. And here we come to the issue of how secure this storage is, and thatís a whole other story. It might not be that easy for the Google employees following the proper process to access it, but itís not impossible for others who donít follow the Google process to access, hence this data ends up on the Internet every now and then (and thatís when someone accessing it is being stupid or does it not for money, but for fame). Yes, it happened to others who followed the Google model, Microsoft and AOL, to name a couple. However, once again, Google is the company that made this practice accepted, while others were afraid to. As youíve probably noticed, I have great respect for Googleís business and PR acumen, I just lament what it accomplishes.


Originally Posted by nick
Google bots (the software that indexes the pages on the Internet, that's how search engines collect the information about sites that they provide for you in a search) are some of the most intrusive out there, and there were several scandals involving them indexing pages which were set with the 'do not index' metatags, which other search engines' bots left alone.There are issues where the Google spider doesn't refresh it's read of the robots.txt file as quickly as a site owner hopes and performance issues temporarily continue. The Google spider also does evaluate rules in a different order from some earlier bots (Google evaluates all ALLOW rules before any DENY rules) which has caused frustration and confusion. There have also been multiple cases of malicious bots spoofing as the Google spider and behaving badly, but if the website owner checks the IP address as a part of his bot-specific rules, he won't be fooled.

As for being more or less intrusive, you can set the revisit policy in the robots.txt so that you'll get more or fewer. As far as I can tell from the inside, Google tries very hard to correctly follow the instructions in robots.txt files, so that it is playing nice with the websites being indexed.

Google's spider follows any rules that can be expressed in robots.txt. Cases where it hasn't followed the rules are bugs that are fixed as fast as humanly possible.

Yet somehow itís usually Google that gets tagged doing so. I prefer to judge the actions, not intentions, and if they donít seem to correspond, I call hypocrisy.


Originally Posted by nick
With all that, Google is quite notorious in the information security community with their lax security practices, so that information they collect is quite likely (and does) end up in the wrong hands other than theirs.

I just did some searching, couldn't find anything on this with two minutes of either Google or Yahoo (just in case Google's search results are self-serving). If Google is "quite notorious" about something, I would have expected it to be easier to find.

Linky?

Linky wonít cut it, thereís a whole subsection of information security studies dealing with Google hacking, which involves both hacking Google for data and using Google for hacking, thanks to those bugs fixed as fast and humanly possible you refer to and others. Look it up if youíre interested. If youíre ever in L.A., Iíd be happy to provide a couple of books on the subject (yes, thereíre actually published books on the subjects), and other materials. As youíve probably figured out, I work in information security. And the eact quote was "notorious in the information security community".

As for the self-serving part, I doubt thatís the case, but I wouldnít be surprised. There was a scandal not too long ago (a couple of years back, I think), where it was pointed out how easy it was to use Google to collect information on someone even from (supposedly) closed sources (due to the incompetence of the operators of those sources and the ďbugsĒ in Googleís data collection methods we discussed above). When Googleís CEO denied that being the case, someone used Google to collect information on him as a proof-of-concept. The information on Eric Schmidt was promptly pulled from Google. Google is still used on others, of course.




There you go:)

nick
04-09-2009, 1:01 AM
And continued...



Originally Posted by nick
Since Google gets away with it (just like with guns, there's outrage in the IT community whenever yet another such gift from Google comes to light, but most Google users are either blissfully unaware of it, or ignore the issue as something too boring to distract themselves from the boob tube), and their competitors have to compete with them, those competitors adjust their policies accordingly, so soon thereafter everyone does the same thing.

Google's answer to all that is brilliant. It generally goes along these lines - "Since we have this "do no evil" motto, what do you have to worry about? We're comitted to not harming you, so what's the problem with us doing all this. After all, per our motto, we do no evil, so you've nothing to worry about". Does that remind you of anything?

That's disingenuous at best and fabrication at worst. I've never seen a response like that, and I've been reading plenty about the privacy discussions within and around Google. Google will argue why they think a practice is beneficial to users, not just protest that Google has a shiny motto. Now, there are several situations where the beneficial argument carries less credibility (Google China, for instance), but "we're not evil!" is never the argument.

Iíll see if I can find that interview with Sergey Brin I got this from, and I dn't beleive this was the first time I heard that argument from someone from Google. Canít guarantee Iíll be able to find it, so feel free to call me a disingenuous fabricator if I donít. Once again, read this interview in one of the IT magazines I subscribe to, and Iíll only make a reasonable effort to find it (I have a lot of those magazines in the restroom. You know, the place many people catch up on their reading at. So itís a serious task to find anything there :)).

Originally Posted by nick
By the way, it looks like they're dropping that motto, they're searching for a new one now. Nothing malicious there, they're just adjusting their brand policies.
Um, you made that up, dude. Google's not dropping the motto.

That motto is a central part of the company's identity (via how the employees see themselves and their employer). It's not going anywhere. You want to watch Larry or Sergey put on the spot about something? Stand up on a Friday afternoon, point to a policy you don't like, and say "is this evil?" When there are actual issues with a policy, they've demonstrated a willingness to change.

I read this, I believe, in InformationWeek a few days ago. A quick search found these:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Foremski/?p=435
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php
Could be an April 1st joke, but that InformationWeek issue wasnít from April 1st.


Originally Posted by nick
So no-gun policy fits pretty well with the rest of the hypocrisy Google exudes.
The no-gun policy does frustrate and annoy. The privacy issues worry, but from my seat, Google is headed in the right direction on that. There have been a few internal discussion threads on guns, but not much activity recently. There is the distinct impression that not enough people want any change in the gun policy, which is probably correct.

Indeed, this is from your seat. From what I heard, Google is one of the best companies to work for, and I believe it. However, from my perspective, based on what I wrote about them here, and quite a few other things, I think that, like with any company, their main objective is to make money, which doesnít bother me. What does bother me is that holier than thou attitude they surround themselves with (while their actions speak for much simpler motives, such as simply making money), on which I call hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy isnít uncommon, of course. What bothers me even more is the impact they have on our society, especially on the state of privacy in it, and I think I gave enough examples as to why it may be a concern.

DDT
04-09-2009, 8:29 AM
I have a hard time saying that a company not wanting to be involved with gun transactions and not wanting to provide revenue to gun-related content is evil or is even irresponsible. It's just a decision to forgo revenue based on a social argument.


wow. So if they refused to get involved with sites that have pictures or children or women without a face covering you'd be ok with that too? After all that's how human trafficking gets started.

Google management has simply chosen to not make money from guns and passes along that decision to those who want to split revenue with Google. At some level, they're simply trying to stay far away from making money that comes from human misery (international arms dealers) and the decision to not make money from guns at all is the simplest way to do that.

This is the most amazing thing I've seen by someone who supposedly supports the second amendment. You are really saying that all gun sites are the equivalent of "international arms dealers." That truly boggles the mind. Talk about painting with a slightly too large brush.

Do you seriously think those arming the evil doers in the Sudan have google ad supported websites? I really want an answer, how can you link google-served ads to genocide or other "human misery?"