lappert2001 - 3:14 pm on Feb 14, 2012 (gmt 0)
Glad to hear other opinions on this, but I was hoping for something more explicit from Google. Slashus, I don't think I'm being paranoid. We're not talking about a conspiracy. It's a business policy, and it's a business decision for me to protect my revenue. But I agree that the sentence in question might have differing interpretations like the one you suggest.
Yohaas, if there's an inappropriate Adsense ad, I can (and have) block it using the Adsense controls. No need to go to Google or to the advertiser.
The statement on third-party ads is a different situation. I have several sections for Google ads, and separate sections for non-Google ads. The question is if one of the Google advertisers wants to bypass Google and make a direct deal with the site operators, thereby cutting Google out of the revenue stream.
It's a perfectly legitimate policy, but I also agree it needs to be said better, and there needs to be a limit of time.