| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1  ) || |
|Google in the Midst of a Lawsuit|
Groupd accuses google of supporting Child Porn
|Jeffrey Toback, a politician from Nassau has accused Google of profiting from child pornography by making it an integral part of its business. Mr Toback, who is a member of the Nassau County Legislature, alleges that Google displays paid links to Web sites, which have porn involving minors. |
"This case is about a multi-billion dollar company that promotes and profits from child pornography," the complaint states. The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court in Mineola says that the search behemoth has made child porn a feature on its sites. However Google has denied these claims. Company Steve Langdon said in an e-mail statement to The Associated Press that Google does not condone child porn.
"When we find or are made aware of any child pornography, we remove it from our products, including our search engine," Langdon said. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography." He added Google had a SafeSearch feature on its search engine "that works to filter out adult content." Langdon also pointed out that the Google's AdWords sponsored links service strictly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material."
|Campaigning against pornography is good politics. Campaigning against child pornography is even better politics (whether or not there's any merit in the charges). |
The local media and politicians use 'child porn' and ID theft as ways for ratings and for promoting their selves while making webmasters and sites like Google and Myspace look bad. You see the news talking about Myspace every single day on local news talking about how child molesters are all over Myspace LOL. I mean come on... myspace is like the safest site out there. Local news just wants to be dramatic or shock you with something child porn related..sex related everyday. Why not go out and find some real news like how to bring our troops home or spotlighting companies that are coming up with alternative fuels.
Politicians need to go out and find some real issues to talk about but there is a reason they do not. Politicians avoid the big issues by talking about something sexually related to throw us in another direction. As for child porn in Google- There is no way Google would allow such a thing and any politician who thinks they would is just as dumb as the people voting for him.
although we would hope google is held accountable, because they've been hypocritical by banning sites which carry this same content dynamically, I hope google wins. what would happen to webmasters with dynamic content like forums etc., where policing every single message or photo would cost millions and still have some illegal content? this would merely pave the way to attack hundreds of other sites with dynamic content. and these sites would probably have nowhere near as great a legal team to handle this.
Adwords is very sloppy when it comes to porn, it is not an anamoly that child porn shows up.
Do a search for the little animal that builds dams and you'll see clearly the two-faced nature of google. Its very creepy when you think about all the "policing" done by the organic search crew. Do as I say, not as i do.
But since when does G$ play by anyones rules but their own?
Straight out of the Eliot Spitzer playbook...
I thought that everyone was responsible for the content allowed on their sites. If not the site's owner, then who? We cannot hold Google above the law just because they have the most widely used engine. They are the ones who allowed whomever placed the ads inclusion into adsense. It is Google's technology that controls the displaying of the ads on millions of websites.
In addition, if they can and do keep tobacco and casinos off, then this politician may have a legitimate case. You would think they'd do the child porn removals first (unless they had a reason not to).
Should Google be able to claim that it's so far out of their control that they can no longer effectively monitor what does and does not appear in the ads.
When you think about that, it is really impossible for any search engine (PPC or not) to enforce ethics/law policies in full.
Anyone could bid on any keyword, being clean in the beginning and then, after acceptance, utilize cloaking and/or redirections to present whatever they want on their landing pages.
Are the pages landed on in question, or the actual ads?
The force of the law should obviously fall upon those who purchase the ads and run the web-pages, not upon Google. That being said, Google is certainly facilitating the spread or sale of child porn, whether deliberately or not - and it may well be appropriate to impose financial penalties at least equal to the estimated income from child porn related adverts.
|...the estimated income from child porn related adverts. |
They clearly don't allow such and other questionable adverts:
"Sexual Content (Adult):
Advertising is not permitted for the promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material."
I agree with activeco, G clearly don't allow such and other questionable adverts:
But I think there must be some tweaking in the keywords. atleast there is no rule regarding Keywords.Adwords can be sloppy when it comes to porn due to the keywords
|Do a search for the little animal that builds dams and you'll see clearly the two-faced nature of google |
Two faced? Looks like equal treatment to me.
Why, you can buy the busy little creature on eBay - along with every other object ever named by man...
Seems Google shovels out the same cr*p, regardless of what you are searching for.
Google is not responsible if a website has imagery of underage models. How are they supposed to know if someone was 17 yrs 11 mo when the photo was taken. Of course there is obvious situations where all the images are of 12 year olds, but I don't think that is the case here.
The lawsuit, doesn't say that they searched for "child porn", only that ads returned when searching for porn-related material, returned websites which ALSO contained questionable aged models (At least thats what I'm reading). So if the site has 1,000 models, and 1 is found to be underage - does this mean Google should be held responsible? I don't think so...
Now if people are running ads like "CHILD PORN - Get your underage child porn here!" That would be totally irresponsible on G's part, but again, I don't think that is the case.
Interesting, in the 2nd link listed to this story it states:
Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good-faith measures to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
If there are no "child porn" terms being advertised, then I think Google has done its part.
Interesting the politician is trying to "to block child pornography from reaching CHILDREN."?
I remember reading a story on prominent professional black atheletes... And what did they sponsored section have ads for? You guessed it - All the Black Atheletes I could buy at Ebay and Amazon - What the #*$!
Google will win this case.
(1) Google cannot be held accountable for the content of other web publishers. Imagine a website xyz.com being hacked into and the prankster has posted some nude photos of underage models on the welcoming page. Can Google be held accountable? If Google can be held accountable for "directing or making available channels" to this website, then by the same argument, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, you name it, can also be held accountable for providing infrastructure and facilities to email users to "spread" viruses that damageds the economies of millions of dollars.
(2) The politician will have to prove that the model shown is actually underage. Hence will need to find and locate the model. This perhaps could be an obstacle. It'll be like finding a needle in a haystack. Usually these models are not underage. It's just a gimmick by web publishers to pull visitors to their site by saying "Underage school girls, Barely legal...etc.) Maybe there's 1 in 1,000 who's underage. So, it's a challenge to locate the correct model.
In the adult film industry, the producers are required to maintain documentation proving that the models they use are of-age. Why can't the same be applied to any adult-oriented site, and if the site management does not have such documentation, they can be taken down and prosecuted?
Sounds good in a controlled situation ... but what about websites outside the scope of regional law? Are we going to become China-like in our use of nationwide filters that restrict access to internationally-hosted sites that might contain objectionable/illegal material? And who decides what that means?
|In the adult film industry, the producers are required to maintain documentation proving that the models they use are of-age. Why can't the same be applied to any adult-oriented site, and if the site management does not have such documentation, they can be taken down and prosecuted? |
That is, in fact, the case. This law is not limited to the adult film industry.
There is a bit of a loophole right now, and there's been some controversy about efforts to plug it. The law only requires that the PRODUCERS of adult material maintain this information. Websites that don't produce their own material aren't subject to this. Not sure just what responsibility they have to name the producer, etc.
This hasn't been a problem in the past with adult films, etc. being sold in retail stores, or even over the Internet, as it's easy to determine the producer of a film - look at the box and/or the credits.
In any case, producers of adult material have to maintain records for all models used, and maintain such records available for random inspection during business hours at a stated physical address. No records - or unable to inspect - and that's an automatic violation. It's a federal law, so not subject to differences in different U.S. localities.
It's time for google to stop making software that nobody needs such as google talk and start doing quality control / monitoring PPC advertised material. There are no excuses, very few minutes of human review per ppc account should eliminate such problems. Don't have enough people to do that, hire them, charge advertisers a $20 activation fee and have someone look at and validate the site that is being marketed.
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1  ) |