The search engine's policy of not taking ads that slam a thi

[janeth]

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...1592_tc047.htm

The search engine's policy of not taking ads that slam a third party could end up hurting its reputation, not to mention muffling free speech

[Emancipator]

The question becomes of how much free speech plays into media. Take time magazine, and Fox. They both love to go at each other and would never run an add that shows dissent towards them.

[janeth]

"Google can make choices about what people see and what they don't see, and how it's ordered," says John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. "As more and more people use Google to access the Internet, that definitely raises some important policy questions."

There also trying to make it sound like Google plays a bigger role then they do. As Yahoo and MSN come to play if Google did not show what was going on I'm sure Yahoo would.

So really the people do have a choice and I would not run ads that would hurt my biggest money maker either.

[Emancipator]

It all comes down to who is in who's pocket. Just like politics. one big game of hand shakes and back patting.

[janeth]

There really going after Google here


FANNING THE FLAMES. Aside from its position as one of cyberspace's most powerful portals, Google's reach extends far beyond its own site. The search company also controls AdWords, one of the largest networks that distributes keyword ads to third-party Web sites. And Google has also been selling contextual advertising that associates specific ads with content, regardless of whether a keyword has been purchased. For example, in Google's AdSense program, an article about the Copacabana nightclub might draw ads from Brazilian resorts -- even if none of them had purchased the keyword Copacabana. This means that Google could be exercising editorial policy on third-party sites that are unaware Google is making these choices for them.

How might this be important in cyberspace? One of Google's top AdWords clients happens to be The New York Times. Advertisements like the ones Oceana posted on Google would likely be accepted without hesitation for the Times' print edition. In fact, such ads sometimes occupy prominent positions around the Gray Lady's opinion pages, and they often offer interesting and useful advocacy positions. So, Google's editorial policies have the potential to alter the nature of a publication such as The New York Times in a subtle but important manner online.

Or how about this situation: With spending on political advertising looking to set a record this election year, Google's editorial policy will have a big effect on what information voters do and don't receive via Web advertising. According to McCaffrey, Google's policy allows side-by-side policy comparison, but it bans attack ads -- something major TV networks and large newspapers have been unwilling to do. That laissez faire attitude toward the political free-for-all may or may not be correct, but I find it a little disturbing that Google can be the arbiter over a key information source for voters.

[Emancipator]

interesting read. I never thought of it from "political ads" point of view. I was more thinking products/services. When you add sites of a political nature to the fray it does bring in some interesting factors.

Great post.

[al2six]

Originally Posted by janeth

not to mention muffling free speech

Freedom of speech? what are you talking about? Last time I checked Google.com wasn't public... it was owned by Google. They don't have to give you your freedom of speech on their site if they don't want to.

[compar]

I've read that argument before. In fact I've used it myself upon occasion. But it does strike me that when you are as large and pervasive a part of the culture and economy as Google is that you do accrue some moral or ethical responsibilities????

It would seem to me that Google should at least be held to the same standard as other sellers of advertising. Google is large enough that they could conceivable influence the outcome of a major national event. They need to be very careful to be as neutral as possible. And it is good thing that people are at least watching and commenting.

[al2six]

google has every right to not publish ads that may attack its clients. every other form of media company already has policies like this. for example...

I'm from detroit. A while back, there was a major ad campaign linking driving SUVs to terrorism. (suvs consum lots of oil which comes from countries like iraq, etc) These ads were run nationally... except for in detroit. no tv station would allow those ads to be shown because the auto companies are huge advertisers here.

[janeth]

Hi al2six,

I did not write that

janeth wrote:
not to mention muffling free speech
Freedom of speech?

I agree with you on this. I think it is Google's business and they should be able to use whatever ads they chhose to use.[/quote]

[I, Brian]

Agreed here - Google a billion dollar commercial entity. No one should pretend to have any form of control other it.

And Free Speech is a perculiarly American issue - it's not a right in the UK.