Comments on: Google censors political-donation transparency ads

Should members of the public be able to pay for Web advertisements detailing which companies have donated to politicians? Google says no.

[ddesy]

While Google is indeed within its rights, they should realize that what they are doing can be deemed offensive to many people.

Most likely they are falling into the game of trying to keep advertisers that pay the most money by allowing the big companies to dictate how things are handled.

[Penguinisto]

Actually, I'm glad Google does that. It prevents people (for any purpose) from circumventing the damned thing just to blare out their politics in an ad.

Legalities aside? I'm sorry if you can't spam "activism" - if you want to get your word out, build a page and make it popular and relevant, so that it shows up high in the search results. Otherwise, such tactics cheapen the whole ad thing, which makes adverts irrelevant and useless (and this is coming from a guy who barely tolerates the things).

[Vegaman_Dan]

I'm not sure how Google would be treated any different from newspaper or other media outlet. If you can take out ads there, then you should be able to buy ad space from Google as well for the same purpose.

While I hate the type of ads they are blocking, and I'm glad to not see them, I don't think they really should be deciding what you do and do not see. That sort of censorship isn't helping their image at all.

Now we have to add censorship to the list of 'features' that Google has for their customers. Not exactly a good thing to have there regardless of intent.

[Penguinisto]

Actually, newspapers routinely refuse adverts for various reasons. So do television stations.

[LuvThatCO2]

I dont like google, and was prepared to not agree with them when I saw the article head line. But after reading, I have to agree with them, those ads shouldnt be shown. They're essentially political spam, not CPC (cost per click) ads. Google's ad model relies mostly on CPC ads. Showing ads like the above, which are meant to transfer info to the reader without clicking through the ad hurts googles revenue, and the revenue of sites using adsense. Also, I agree, the trademark issue is also a problem. Its not google's responsibility to fight the advertisers trademark battles.

[superblue32]

Personally I don't want my surfing, or more importantly my children's surfing, polluted with political broadcasting.

This is not a freedom of speech issue, its about using appropriate media channels. A google search is not the appropriate place for a debate on abortion or politics as there is no cinema style certification in place, and therefore everything should meet the 'U' criteria.

If you have a political point to make, advertise your website, but not the content.

[Pete Bardo]

Well, you couldn't use AT&T, so why not just use AT+T. That's not trademarked and I'm use people will get the point. Walmart (Wal-Mart) are trademarked, by Wally Mart isn't. I've even tried to use generic terms that happen to be trademarks as well. Google isn't legally required to accept every ad. But there are creative ways to get around those policies--and that's not illegal either.

Chris, looks you're complaining mostly about your ads having been cancelled. That's your right to do so, but it doesn't make it right. Calling for new laws to make it legal doesn't make it right either. The last thing we need is more government intervention in any aspect of our lives.

[pmocek]

I'm surprised by commenters' stance that political ads are offensive, dangerous for children, and worthy of prohibition, but that commercial ads are not.

It is inaccurate to classify these ads as "political spam" as LuvThatCO2 did; they are paid advertisements, *and* they can be avoided by using a browser plug-in like Adblock Plus. I can't avoid receiving spam, but I only see ads if I want to see them (I don't).

Penguinisto wrote, "if you want to get your word out, build a page and make it popular and relevant, so that it shows up high in the search results. Otherwise, such tactics cheapen the whole ad thing". Wow. First, you could give the same advice to anyone purchasing an advertisement on a search engine site. Second, I hardly think that publication of paid political messages degrades ("cheapens") the advertising business.

[Penguinisto]

You are correct to a point, but that point stops when it comes to activism. Fact is, there's a difference between pushing products (which can be easily chalked up to a website making a buck) and political adverts (which can be construed saying that the website endorses said viewpoints, which puts the other page content under an unearned and undeserved bias).

[idfubar]

Perhaps this should have been presented as two separate articles/postings; most comments appear to be focusing on the "religious ads" issue and not thinking about the real (i.e. trademark) problem.

I imagine that there would be public uproar if copyright holders of famous (but common) songs started showing up at weddings and other "public performances" and started suing hosts for singing songs at their parties - why does the censoring of the trademark not prompt a similar uproar? Perhaps Cnet's reading public is indifferent to (or unaware of) the problem...

[austrotrabant_1]

Hi Chris,

From what I can see, all of the stuff happened before Google's TM-policy change for the US which was supposed to take place on the 15th of June.

Taking a look at the last paragraph of Google's statement (https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=145626) I wonder if things might have changed for your case as Google now allows:

Informational sites: The primary purpose of the advertiser?s site must be to provide non-competitive and informative details about the goods or services corresponding to the trademark term. Additionally, the advertiser may not sell or facilitate the sale of the goods or services of a competitor of the trademark owner.

The question is if ... the information you want to communicate can be seen as "informative details about the goods or services corresponding to the trademark term". Still, one might give it a try, right?

Summing up a sentence from the German Supreme Court, "something that can't be found on the internet with the help of search engines, actually does not exist". So, in case the media doesn't want to report about the issue and you don't have the capacities to create a website whose Page-Rank is as good as AT&Ts, what other options, beside booking the term as a keyword are left?

Kind regards,

www.austrotrabant.at