Webwork - 3:32 pm on Jun 14, 2012 (gmt 0)
The mission is worthy. The early branding - "Ad Integrity" - is worthy.
The execution is the problem.
If self-policing is an inherently good idea, one that is practiced in the ordinary course of business, then why - after a decade - has it become a PR issue? If self-policing was routine and effective, in the ordinary course of business, then this wouldn't be "news".
Is this simply preemptive - "We don't need no stinkin' government regulation!" - action? Of course it is. "We don't need oversight because we're in charge here and everything is working just fine."
Wasn't Google already self-policing itself? Are conflicts of interest so easily resolved?
If so then why did Google just pay $500 million to the Department of Justice over drug ads? Just to avoid the inconveniece of what?
I favor self-regulation. Everyone has a duty to look out for themselves. Every business owner/operator SHOULD be looking out for the best interests of others.
I also favor checks and balances and failsafes and backup systems, because time and time again life teaches us that money/profits makes people do things or not do things . . for the sake of money and profit and business survival . . that are often at odds with other interests. It's just true.
It's always a matter of balance, striking a proper balance.