homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.61.85
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google in the Midst of a Lawsuit
Groupd accuses google of supporting Child Porn
Brett_Tabke

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:12 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

[earthtimes.org...]
[news.com.com...]
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."


 

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:21 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Honestly, it must be a quality control glitch in AdWords which might have happened few times.

[edited by: reseller at 8:23 pm (utc) on May 5, 2006]

Phillipx

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:21 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good, kinda goes along with their hippocritical approach. I personally think its about time someone decided to take on Google and hold them accountable for what they put on their websites, after all, they hold the publishers accountable for things that they don't have any control over.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:33 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Campaigning against pornography is good politics. Campaigning against child pornography is even better politics (whether or not there's any merit in the charges).

StupidScript

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:41 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Must be an election year ...

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?

What #*$!.

bakedjake

WebmasterWorld Administrator bakedjake us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:42 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Isn't this one of those issues where if you choose to filter some advertising (tobacco and firearms), and you're not getting the illegal stuff (child porn), you can be held legally accountable?

Key_Master

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:45 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Phillip makes a good point.

I always wondered why Google would prohibit ads from gambling sites and sites that sell gun parts and accessories but condone pornography ads.

cbartow

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:51 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Can you buy ads for [child porn]? What if you are an anti-child porn group trying to stop it?

Looks like the Super Adventure Club is going to have a tough year.

jtara

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jtara us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 8:59 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Can you buy ads for [child porn]?

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.

So, to answer your question - an anti-child-porn group should be able to take out ads on keyword "child porn" and say something like "stamp out child porn" in their ad.

walkman



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 9:01 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

what a freaking loser this guy is...anything to get his name out. No wonder people love politicians.
Hey politician, how do you know Google has child porn in their results? Research?

StupidScript

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 9:08 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

an anti-child-porn group should be able to take out ads on keyword "child porn" and say something like "stamp out child porn" in their ad.

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 ...

Makes me wonder how many ads the legislator's research team clicked on (fraudulently) before they finally discovered some actual cp on one of the sites, and not from a link on one of the sites ...

RockyMtnRR

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 10:01 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Here's a little tidbit that goes for the double-dip political agenda:

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

Um... yeah are you stamping out child porn or protecting kids from pornography. They aren't mutually exclusive but I would have to guess that the main kiddie porn consumers are not, in fact, kiddies.

stef25

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 10:05 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

why would such a company decide to commit corporate suicide by knowingly "making money off child porn". sounds like another "will somebody please think about the children!" thing

absurd!

mack

WebmasterWorld Administrator mack us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 10:48 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

it's broad matching gone bad.

Mack.

tntpower

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 10:59 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google shall be responsible for this, at least partly.

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.

Here in this case, Google is the mall, isn't it?

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 11:16 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

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.

Here in this case, Google is the mall, isn't it?

Google isn't a mall.

kaled

WebmasterWorld Senior Member kaled us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 11:57 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

A blatant misuse of the courts for self-publicity. Hopefully, it will just get buried and forgotten - throwing it out would generate more arguments and appeals and therefore publicity for J Toback.

Kaled.

walkman



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 1:22 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> 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.

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.

Second, Google in this case is the store (if that idiot is suing regarding ads on Adsense) but even then, Google might be responsible only if they manually approved them.

old_expat

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 3:09 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Google might be responsible only if they manually approved them."

So if I set up a random code to email and hire hitmen, I can't be held responsible for the crimes?:)

walkman



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 3:58 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> So if I set up a random code to email and hire hitmen, I can't be held responsible for the crimes?

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.

This is if Google is being sued because someone advertised child porn on adsense of course.

chief72

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 6:07 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Regardless of the motives behind this lawsuit, and we're all assuming (perhaps incorrectly)that they are cynical, Google should be accountable for the content they choose to display on their paid search network.

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.

Perhaps certain keywords should automatically trigger manual review. Maybe some of the people who are currently employed to constantly tweak the quality score algo could be given the task of compiling this sensitive keyword list. We could kill two birds with one stone.

glengara

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 9:15 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

SEW had a thread on this back in March, you'll find it in the AW forum....

TypicalSurfer

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 1:23 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

No excuse for google. 4-5 thousands Phds, algos that can spot hidden text, all manner of spam etc. and they can't stop child porn ads at the gate?

swirl

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 2:21 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm reminded of the words of Jamie Zawinski (of Netscape fame), who as part of his AOL/NSCP resignation blog entry a number of years back said the following:

"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.

To vast numbers of people, Google will equal child pornography profiteering.

TypicalSurfer

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 2:41 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

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.

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

If all the webmasters at WebmasterWorld blindly defend google and THEIR child porn problem, you may have a point. ;)

activeco

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 4:01 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hey politician, how do you know Google has child porn in their results? Research?

Indeed! What was he looking for?
Maybe his PC should be examined first.

phantombookman

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 4:22 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hey politician, how do you know Google has child porn in their results? Research?

Indeed! What was he looking for?
Maybe his PC should be examined first.

He probably got handed the info, it's been about for a while. Very recently raised by Dave Naylor on Strikepoint in fact as something that needed urgent attention.
It is a broadmatching problem

TypicalSurfer

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 4:24 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Blame the guy who found it.

How ingenuis!

Sounds like a recipe from the viral lab at the plex.

Essex_boy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member essex_boy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 5:08 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hog wash!

Theres no way G would do this knowingly, the guys after brownie points for some warped reason

digitalghost

WebmasterWorld Senior Member digitalghost us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 34186 posted 5:11 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>Theres no way G would do this knowingly

Plausible denial.;) Doesn't matter if they do it knowingly or not. Some lawyer or other will get around to mentioning ignorance of the law is no exuse for breaking the law...

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved