Forum Moderators: martinibuster
http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5105044.html
I seem to have lost nearly all pharmacy Adsense ads from my sites...
Hopefully some kind of Governmental agency to provide additional legal insulation.
This seems like the time for a Ministry of Approved Content - cheers to comrade loanuniverse!
This seems like the time for a Ministry of Approved Content - cheers to comrade loanuniverse!
I am more of a libertarian that you might believe. However, I approach this situation trying to be reasonable and frankly from the point of view of an adsense publisher. While I very much doubt that I would ever see a drug ad in my site, I would like Google to be able to keep that revenue stream, which should be one of the largest.
The way I see it:
1 Wether you agree or not, the US Gov. has decided to control the types of drugs that are readily available to the public without the direct involvement of a healthcare professional.
2 Most people seem to be happy to let the Gov. control their access to this medicine.
3 The US is a litigious society and having a third party involved in the aforementioned "golden seal of approval" situation would help Google in the liability area.
Frankly, I would like people to be able to buy a lot more than they are able to without a prescription. However, I also value the work that agencies like the FDA do in our behalf. Ultimately, it is not a matter of what I want, is a matter of what is achievable.
It is in effect, censorship. Any censorship is contrary of what the Internet is about.
Take this as an example. Go to AOL and do a search on Viagra...
You'll find that there are no longer any sponsored listings from online drugstores for Viagra, but it doesn't matter at all because if you look at the normal search results that replace the sponsored listings (also supplied by Google) you'll find even more questionable online drugstores!
Now, to make it really work, Google would have to stop showing any results for anyone searching for Viagra etc and any one of the millions of searches on all sorts of things that might be considered illegal. This is where it gets ridiculous...
Wanna stop people searching for anything that somebody thinks might be illegal? Hey, let's ban searches on "beef" because we are not legally allowed to import beef into the US without a permit and perhaps some of the results might be websites for exporters?
I for one do not want anyone to censor any part of the net! As soon as they start, the net will become a waste of time.
Protecting the public health isn't "censorship," it's one of the things that government is supposed to do.
Who's to say all of those selling drugs online are acting illegally?
The beef example still stands - so we ban all beef advertising online (and offline) because there "might" be someone operating illegally?
If that applied, then there would be NO advertising (which might not be such a bad thing...), but there would also be no free speech.
Different types of speeches, different types of protection. Your argument is comparing apples to oranges. Besides the thread is going completely off-topic.
Here's an idea which would allow Google to stop censoring legitimate advertisers and get back the revenue for AdSense publishers(which is what this thread is all about).
The government keeps a register of websites that have been prosecuted for illegal activities (in any category) and makes the search engines refuse to index or allow advertising from any website in the register.
Problem solved. Google is no longer censoring across the board, all legit advertisers can continue as usual (until proven guilty of illegal activities), and the baddies are gone!
You see, I didn't disagree with your moral argument, I just disagreed with the methodology.
The government keeps a register of websites that have been prosecuted for illegal activities (in any category) and makes the search engines refuse to index or allow advertising from any website in the register.
Then the domain is abandoned and bought by an unsuspecting person/group. At which time the Gov is still saying they are 'criminals'....and now we've got some liability issues.
Nice mess.
The ones who WILL be affected will be the sites that were designed by publishers specifically to show high priced prescription drug keywords. The other group that will be affected are the sites that were formerly affiliate prescription sites and are now using AdSense to replace or supplement commission revenue.
But as an overall percentage of publishers who don't fall into the above two, I can't see the percentage being very high at all, especially when you consider the vast variety of sites running AdSense. And there are still plenty of health related adwords out there for health related sites who may have been showing some prescription drug ads, so there is not a real danger of AdSense not having any ads to show. But they might not have the same high EPC.
But for the average publisher who does not have any prescription drug AdSense ads appearing, they will not notice a difference at all. And the percentage of those who do notice a difference will be the minority of publishers.
That's as easy to police... just keep them out of the domain space - ie: the registrars use the name register. Unless you have a better/simpler idea.
Re: Jenstar
Interesting comments, but I think we have to look past it being applied only to drug keywords.
All that pharmaceutical ad money flowing into some offshore search engine can turn them into a global advertising powerhouse overnight.
Now, one thing that DOES bother me, is that Google and all other CPC providers removed those ads NOT to comply with law, but as the easy way out to avoid possible litigation. Meaning, they did it out of fear, not to comply with laws. To comply with the law they should remove ONLY ads for those sites that do not require a written prescription done in person by a physicion, which we should remember is the root of the whole industry.
So I believe it is censorship for the mere reason that it's done for the wrong reasons, fear instead of law.
I also beleive this will be a fundamental problem. Not one of a CPC issue related ot prescription durgs, but a lot of other things. Just wait till other government agencies catch on to this and start using this on their own turf. Everythign that can be done in a legal part and in an illegal one will get a similar treatment. You will get the divide of US law affectign th entire World simply because a big company providing infrastructure services (and Google is such, I think) has a legal base in the US.
Suddenly the entire world will suffer from US litigiousness and censorship.
No matter what problems may be solved by this (and the only one I can see so far is that it makes the jobs of hte enforcers easier), It can't be worth THAT price. I don't think the US or anybody else bargained for that sort of "freedom".
Might be an extreme view, but I like to exagerate to illustrate a point, so please view in that light.
SN
So I believe it is censorship for the mere reason that it's done for the wrong reasons, fear instead of law.
It's important to distinguish between government censorship and private censorship. Private media companies, including search engines like Google, are entitled to reject advertising (or editorial content, for that matter) that doesn't meet their standards.
For example, THE NEW YORKER might reject ads for condoms or feminine-hygiene products because it doesn't think they fit the magazine's tone, or a right-wing magazine like THE NATIONAL REVIEW might decide to reject ads for French wines because it's mad at the French government. And a lot of media companies, from TV networks to newspaper chains to magazine empires, might reject mail-order ads for pharmaceuticals out of legal concerns (such as fear of lawsuits) or because they don't feel qualified to distinguish between pharmacies that follow accepted, legal practices and vendors that use medical shortcuts or are unlicensed drug dealers.
For that matter, Google would also have the right to block search listings for mail-order drug vendors if it wanted to do so. Some people might even argue that it should block such listings for legal or ethical reasons. Online drug vendors (including the legimitate ones) might be upset by such a decision, but they'd be wrong if they tried to equate Google's actions with government censorship.
Now, one thing that DOES bother me, is that Google and all other CPC providers removed those ads NOT to comply with law, but as the easy way out to avoid possible litigation.
I would add that businesses {not even Google} are not in the business of being activists. Even if they decided to be, there are much better fights to fight than this one.
The worst thing that could happen would be for some young girl to get a hold of some bad prescription drugs without a prescription through a Google ad, and end up being a vegetable. You will be surprised how her image would play in one of those national tv news magazines.
This is not a black and white issue. It is too grey and can get too messy to not thread carefully. I am sure eventually it will get resolved and some of the ads might return, but it might be a while.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all the opponents to these ads are doing it for the sake of goodness. I am sure that most have a vested interest in the current distribution pipeline.
[webmasterworld.com...]
Now, if only the e-mail spammers would stop flooding my inbox with ads for Vicodin, Viagra, and other drugs I've never even heard of!
