Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

I wonder if the monetary damages being requested will go into some child porn assistance fund or into the legislator's campaign fund? Where else would it go?

You can't use explicit language in ads. I had to change some wording in some book ads because of words used in the book titles.

But "child porn" isn't explicit language, so I don't see any reason why it would not be allowed.

As far as I know, there's no banned list of keywords, though.

Actually, the odd part is that you can BID on the term, but you can't use it in your ad copy because it might offend some users. Strange, but true ...

"Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children"

Correct me if I make mistakes, but if a merchant in a local shopping mall sells pirate products, the merchant and the mall will be fined.

I doubt if it's that simple. The prosecuter or plaintiff would have to show that the mall's management knew about and permitted the illegal activity.

bad, bad, bad analogy. First, there is no damage done to him, and this is not even a serious case. I hope the judge fines this ---- and makes him pay Google's legal bills.

I wrote a longer answer but changed my mind, last minut. Read your answer again, and focus on the, "If I set up" part; you will see the difference.

I run some adwords campaigns that link to adult related content & am increasingly finding that these are being manually reviewed. Whilst this is inconvenient & slow, I do accept the imposition if it endeavours to protect browsers from viewing inappropriate content.

"To a huge number of people out in the real world, the Internet is a disgusting wasteland, full of rude, cruel, nasty people, child pornographers, and photos of people having sex with dogs."

The aforementioned perception, in my opinion, is stronger than ever. In fact, you can likely add to that quote "child rapists lurking in every chat room and social networking website" -- or wording to that effect.

I'm entirely self-employed via the work I do on the web, as many of the others here at Webmaster World are.

Lots of people likely find it "mysterious" that there are individuals and companies that make money on the Internet -- when to them the "dot-com bust" (and rapid depletion of their stock market portfolio) somehow proved that money could not be made online.

So what might these people assume we actually do online?

Just think... if Google, ostensibly one of the most well known brands on the Internet with a stock market capitalization in the tens of billions of dollars, owes its success (as alleged by this lawsuit) in part to the profits generated from child pornography, how the heck must the rest of us be making money online?

I have no doubt there are those who likely harbor the opinion that ALL of us here at Webmaster World are a bunch of child pornographers.

We'll see where this lawsuit goes... but remember, the news headlines are roaring with allegations that Google is making a fortune off child pornography. That's what people are reading and absorbing as "fact."

Nine months from now, or whenever the lawsuit is dismissed (assuming it's dismissed), there will be hardly a footnote exonerating Google of the scandalous charges being made against it. Nobody will notice.

I have no doubt you are wrong. You are insinuating that as google goes, so do webmasters of every persuasion. NOT quite.

How ingenuis!