| 1:57 pm on May 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
so much for the freedom of speech :/
| 2:06 pm on May 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|They seem to think it was due to Scientology ads on the site. |
And yet another conspiracy theory is born.
That said, the line in the policies that reads "Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization" would seem to prohibit every blog that says, "Don't vote for John Doe"
| 2:21 pm on May 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|...so much for the freedom of speech |
I didn't look to see where the site is based, but if it's the U.S., this is not a freedom of speech issue. This was an act taken by a private company, AdSense, not an act of the U.S. Congress.
| 11:07 pm on May 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What does freedom of speech has to do with Google's policies for adsense publishers? They have a right to associate with who they wish. I didn't know there was a inalienable right to have an adsense account.
| 11:21 pm on May 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|What does freedom of speech has to do with Google's policies for adsense publishers? |
Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean Google has to associate with you on the subject. If you start a KKK site, Google isn't going to want their ads on your site. I side with Google on this one.
| 12:08 am on May 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"advocacy against any individual, group, or organization"
I think the TOS is as clear as a cloudless day. People can put up any kind of site they want but to EXPECT advertisers to want to be associated with such a site is insane.
| 12:12 am on May 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|What does freedom of speech has to do with Google's policies for adsense publishers? They have a right to associate with who they wish. I didn't know there was a inalienable right to have an adsense account. |
Well, there is a difference between already having an account - in which case google must have reviewed the site and accepted it. And applying for an account, in which case if it were reviewed, it would have been declined, yes ?
yes, start ....... see above.
| 1:38 am on May 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"Youtube apparently killed an anti scientology account as well."
Many times... and pro scientology sites too. They will kill any account if you ask them to enough times in the proper way. I doubt it has anything to do with religious preferences.
| 4:10 am on May 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
It's smart for Google to stay out of controversial subjects. As many pointed out already, it's against the terms you agree to every so often.
| 5:35 pm on May 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Scientology is infamously and ruthlessly antagonistic and litigious with people who express freedom of speech criticising them.
Scientology Complaint to Google (#3) -- Chilling Effects
(Church of Scientology) tells Google to yank a Norwegian personal page.
Google Yanks Anti-Church Site
Google used to include sites critical of the Church of Scientology. Now it doesn't, because Scientology is claiming copyright violations under the Digital ...
It's ridiculous and pathetic for Google to cave over patent copyright fair use law which is perfectly clear about criticism.
Google should have never let them get an ad account in the first place. They've wasted Google's time and money responding to freedom of speech crap in the past.
Now Google and the "Church" of scientology and Tom Cruise are in bed together.
Notice the ban letter from Google is posted online and shows Google Adsense uses its "risk" boiler plate ban notice disingenously:
"While going through our records recently, we found that your AdSense account has posed a significant risk to our AdWords advertisers. Since keeping your account in our publisher network may financially damage our advertisers in the future, we’ve decided to disable your account."
It's got nothing to do with risk to advertisers. It's got everything to do with risk to scientology and Google losing its huge AdWords account with scientology if it lets critics make money through its ads.
| 10:26 pm on May 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
let's call this done, getting too political