Anti-vax and Adsense

[csdude55]

My sites include message boards, and I've always allowed a relatively free exchange of opinions. I've always felt that preventing people from talking about something they truly believe is a mistake; instead, I let them express their opinions, and then let others reply to change their mind.

A common topic of discussion in the last year has been about COVID, of course, and some people regularly post anti-vax fake news. Including at least one doctor and several nurses :-O

I have never intervened because:

1. Ain't nobody got time for that; and

2. Other users quickly reply and debunk the fake news, so I don't have to.

Now that Google has banned anti-vax videos from YouTube, though, I'm concerned that this policy is going to trickle down to Adsense.

I'm already suffering from trying to accommodate Google's (arbitrary) sensitivities. My demographic are rural people where hunting is a common pastime, but people can't talk about it on my site. They can't even talk about selling toy guns at Christmas! Perfectly legal and common, but Google doesn't like it. I've had to remove ads from about 1/3 of my pageviews based on things that Google doesn't like.

And now I'm VERY concerned that I'm going to lose yet more money over this new policy. If I have to remove Adsense from threads containing "covid", "pfizer", "moderna", "vaccine", "vax", "ivermectin", "hydroxychloroquine", etc, then that's going to be more than half of my pageviews!

No question, I guess, I'm really just venting and expressing a concern. Adsense is controlling more and more of what I can do with my website, but there doesn't appear to be a viable financial alternative.

[freitasm]

I'm already suffering from trying to accommodate Google's (arbitrary) sensitivities.

I am not suffering but seriously... I had to remove Adsense code from pages where people talking about home renovation and heating options discuss a product whose name (in Australia and New Zealand) is a word that in America is seen as a racist term against immigrants. A perfectly legal term, used in government papers, a product recommended by government agencies when it comes to indoor heating, a product sold in hardware stores under this name (in both Australia and New Zealand) but good old Google doesn't understand regional differences.

[robzilla]

based on things that Google doesn't like

Based on things that advertisers don't like.

As long as you're not actively promoting misinformation (which is essentially what the YouTube platform is doing), and discussions are mostly civil, I wouldn't worry about it. Every message board in the world probably has covid-related threads. Of course, there may very well be a large number of advertisers that use things like "hydroxychloroquine" and "vax" as negative keywords, because they don't want to be associated with any of that.

[csdude55]

IMHO, Adsense should treat all of their "violations" the same that they treat other "Sensitive categories"; give publishers the option to turn them on and off, and give advertisers the option to not run on sites with specific content. If advertisers already have the option to use negative keywords like that, then why does Google feel the need to enforce their beliefs separately?

Still using "hunting" as an example, if the advertisers can use negative keywords to not show up on pages about guns, then why do I not have the ability to show ads from advertisers that don't care? I daresay that a VERY low number of advertisers would care if they were given the option.

It's incredible to me that I get a warning because of a classified ad for a thin shirt that's on a female mannequin, and right beside of it is an Adsense banner with a practically naked Russian escort.

I was once given a warning because someone posted a link to a page with a meme of a cartoon drawing of the top of a man's butt with a drawn tattoo. That same page had an Adsense ad on it! So somehow that page was fine, but me linking to it was not.

As long as you're not actively promoting misinformation (which is essentially what the YouTube platform is doing), and discussions are mostly civil, I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not, but there are definitely users that are! I have my fair share of ivermectin users, "the vaccine will kill you", and people that decry the "99% survival" myth. And honestly, those people are rarely able to keep their conversation civil.

God help me if Adsense starts enforcing civility! LOL

[robzilla]

I daresay that a VERY low number of advertisers would care if they were given the option.

Maybe, but it's the big spenders that care enough about protecting their brand to not want to be associated with hot topics like guns, #*$!, drugs, etc.

Admittedly, that also applies to Google. They don't want their brand to be connected to these topics either, e.g. to be seen as funding the gun industry.

Anyway, YouTube's policy change is a very different thing. The content was promoted by their own algorithm and actively harmful, there's intense international pressure, etc.

[csdude55]

I guess that I'm just expressing a pre-emptive concern. Since Adsense already restricts me from showing their ads on anything related to topics like hunting, or on pages with images that could even remotely be considered sexual (like a mannequin in a thin shirt), I don't think it's far in the future for them to add this restriction to their rules.

I recognize that there's no real alternative (I've tried dozens over the years and ended up with a fraction of the income), so the internet really belongs to Google now. And there's not a darn thing that lil ol' me can do about it.

e.g. to be seen as funding the gun industry.

Isn't it ironic that they don't want to be seen as funding the gun industry, but have no problem promoting the Russian escort industry? LOL

[tangor]

It comes down to a choice of "speech" versus "livelihood". If you choose the latter you become a de facto speech gatekeeper. Only you can decide of you want to go that route.

[koan]

The way I see it nowadays, if a topic is not appropriate discussion in work place environment, with all the very strict HR rules, then it's probably not appropriate for Adsense advertising. We may disagree, but Google's the boss if we want to work in that office. I've had some sites get kicked to the curb with Google Search and Adsense once the pandemic started and as depressing as it is, it's their business and I have to move on.

[engine]

I've usually found that ensuring disclaimers and valid, authoritative sources being displayed helps educate and provide a balance.
However, we all have to abide by Google's rules, whatever the topic.

[csdude55]

They're putting me in a bad position.

Right now Google represents about 90% of my income, even if it has dropped by 75% over the last few years (with the same amount of traffic, which is a whole 'nother story). But if they force me to start restricting free speech, which was my sites' whole purpose for existing (and main reason my users come), then they're going to put me out of business anyway. With arbitrary restrictions, what do I have to offer that they can't get more easily on social media?

I'm losing sleep at night worrying about this. If they do make such a move then I'll have to take Adsense off of my sites entirely, and at that point it becomes a hobby and I'm no longer able to pay the mortgage...

I do NOT like having all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak.

[NickMNS]

But if they force me to start restricting free speech, which was my sites' whole purpose for existing (and main reason my users come), then they're going to put me out of business anyway. With arbitrary restrictions, what do I have to offer that they can't get more easily on social media?

Two points in regards to this, I'll start with the first as leads to solution with regards to the second. And this first point is framed a little harshly but bear with it:

1- Catering to an audience that engages in perpetuating falsehoods, fake news, and potentially hateful or violent content, is not likely a sustainable business plan. Without limits in place this will degrade quickly. I think that Google et al. see this coming and are trying to some extent get ahead of it. As you see from Facebook their line seems to be drawn and little wider than Google and that isn't working out for them. So not imposing limits (or imposing lax limits) may work for now but I doubt that it is a sustainable strategy. Except for the case where Google is being too restrictive, like your hunting example, in such a case there is almost certainly an opportunity.

2- If a "topic" like hunting is sustainable, then there likely exists an advertiser on the other side of Google that can't get their ads seen. This presents an opportunity, where returns should be significantly higher than what Adsense pays. Think, direct sales and/or affiliate ads (not for everything just for these specific topics) If you know the topic of the page, you can show non-adsense contextual ads for those topics. If you can't find any suitable advertisers for a given topic then that is likely a good hint that the topic isn't sustainable, either ban-it or simply don't show ads on those pages. When there are no ads try to promote other content with ads.

[martinibuster]

Create a forum category for talking about topics that advertisers don't want their ads seen on then wall it off from Google and AdSense. When someone posts about it on the outside move it to the walled off category.

The walking dead can talk about their anti-vax views and it'll be hidden from Google. Win-win-win.

[tangor]

@cssdude55 ... whatever changes you make be prepared to alienate some of your users. Can't be helped. Good luck!

[csdude55]

Catering to an audience that engages in perpetuating falsehoods, fake news, and potentially hateful or violent content, is not likely a sustainable business plan. Without limits in place this will degrade quickly. I think that Google et al. see this coming and are trying to some extent get ahead of it.

Tomato, tomato (haha)...

See, I'm not "catering" to such an audience, so to speak; my demographic is localized, and I just happen to be in a politically extreme area.

What I realized long ago (and what I don't think that Google and Facebook realize) is that people believe what they believe, whether you let them talk about it or not. It's only with open and honest discussion that we can hope to change their minds. Which is why I believe it's better to let them say what they want, and let the other users reply and show them how they are wrong.

Of course, Facebook doesn't really care one way or the other, their ultimate goal is to monetize fake information like that (as per the 60 Minutes interview). But that's a whole other topic completely.

My point here, though, is that whether I'm right or wrong should be irrelevant. IMO, Google's job is to connect publishers with advertisers, not to dictate what can or cannot be published.

My sites are 20 years old now, and before Adsense I would make money on local business sponsorships at $1500 /each. The problem came along when a user said something the advertiser didn't like, and they would try to force me to moderate to their tastes. Example, the local Chick-fil-A decided that they didn't like someone selling vintage Playboys in my classifieds, so not only did they threaten to take off their ad if I allowed it, but they also threatened to lead a boycott by multiple businesses.

(Pure hypocrisy that they advertised in the local newspaper alongside ads for strip clubs, and used billboard companies that carried ads for strip clubs, but I digress)

I don't deal well with bullying, so I chose to lose them as an advertiser.

Adsense originally solved that problem for me; I was connected to a seeming infinite number of advertisers, and if one didn't like the content then they could move right along and make room for the next one that did like it!

In the last few years, though, being forced to remove ads from topics like hunting or dating makes me feel like I'm heading back to the same problem I used to have. I'm not being asked to kowtow to any individual advertisers, but now to the overseer of all of them.

Create a forum category for talking about topics that advertisers don't want their ads seen on then wall it off from Google and AdSense. When someone posts about it on the outside move it to the walled off category.

I've done that with other topics, but it worked out verrrry poorly! I have a main forum that gets the most attention, so when people are forced to post certain topics in forums with less attention they feel targeted. And to a large degree it's true! They can make a post in the appropriate forum and have no replies, then post the same thing in the main forum and get 20 replies in 15 minutes.

So it ends up being more work for me, less money for my efforts, and like tangor said: they still feel alienated.

Here's the messed up thing. With the whole anti-vax topic, they honestly believe that they're right and that they're saving lives! So by alienating them, in their minds, I'm the bad guy.

And we all know that small businesses are held to impossibly high standards. I'll lose even more traffic no matter what I do, and they'll move on over to Facebook; no matter that Facebook does the same thing, they're a big business so it's OK :-/

Gah, even I can't tell if I'm venting or whining... I have to stop posting these things at 1am, no wonder I can't sleep! LOL

[engine]

I think i'd make it more of a business decision, rather than anything else.


The worst case for you, from what you've described, is losing your AdSense account, and your thoughts should be aligned to that.
Consider...
If I do nothing how will it impact my AdSense earnings?
What options are open to me?
What happens if I take one or more of those options?
Draw up a plan and take that action.

[engine]

Added, don't over-think it.

[martinibuster]

What options are open to me?

That is precisely the logic behind my suggestion to create a walled off forum category. Looking at the options to help save your AdSense account.

It's odd that there's no response to posts in the blocked off forum. Is there no "Recent Posts" function or is it hidden? Maybe if it's there but not used much?

If that's the case that the "recent posts" function is underutilized then making it more prominent will help users identify more topics to talk about than whatever is trending in the "main" forum and contribute to more discussion-discovery.

Walling off that kind of discussion can help the community at large because anti-vax misinformation is hugely offensive to normal science-believing people. So you could be alienating many more people than pleasing the few.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Fall back to common sense good business practices and you'll be fine.

The one which typically serves webmasters best is to keep services seperate. Example: If you need search traffic, email service and ad revenue choose to focus on Google for search traffic(it sends most), another company for email service and a 3rd company for ad revenue. Doing this minimizes the effect changes with any one company can have on your business.

Keeping different relationships seperate is a simple business best-practice approach. Being penalized sucks but seeing traffic cut AND being financially penalized is worse. Martinibuster's advice above is solid and an extension of keeping things seperated to minimize potential fallout.

[csdude55]

It's odd that there's no response to posts in the blocked off forum. Is there no "Recent Posts" function or is it hidden? Maybe if it's there but not used much?

Just to be clear, I haven't blocked off the COVID / vaccine discussions (yet), I was referring to a history of moving topics away from the main forum.

The logic of the time was that certain topics (for example, "Sports") were becoming popular and dominating the main forum, much to the chagrin of those users that didn't care about sports. So I moved it to its own forum so that sports people could talk, non-sports people could talk, and everyone would be happy. Both the sports section and main forum have equal and prominent placement in the main navigation.

But the sports people didn't LIKE being segregated, they wanted to continue posting in the main forum. I would kindly move their threads and send them a message letting them know what had happened, but would occasionally receive a message back (often very nasty) that they wanted it in the main forum for what they perceived as "more attention".

Looking at the sports section now, I see a thread with no replies on April 19, the next thread had 5 replies with the last one on May 20, the next one had no replies on May 25, one with 3 replies on June 13, then 8 threads with no replies with the most recent posted on Sept 25. So 16 posts in 6 months, and most with no replies... essentially, dead. And most of the people that used to post haven't logged in recently, either; obviously, they just moved on to somewhere else.

Obviously, segregating COVID / vaccine discussions would be a LOT more controversial than moving chats on who is the best baseball coach! LOL I'm afraid that doing anything like that would ostracize more than half of my users, and like the sports people they would just move on to somewhere else.

You know the phrase, "a permanent solution to a temporary problem"?

[robzilla]

Google and YouTube will cut off ad money for climate change deniers [theverge.com]

Updating our ads and monetization policies on climate change - October 7, 2021 [support.google.com]

When evaluating content against this new policy, we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim.

So as long as your users step in to give counterweight to false claims, I think you should be fine hosting those discussions. You don't want it to become an echo chamber, that could push you over the edge.

Covid-19 is here to stay, of course, but unlike climate change it's not likely to remain such a hot topic. But generally speaking, the above should apply to almost all divisive topics.

[tangor]

But generally speaking, the above should apply to almost all divisive topics.

Until it doesn't.

Back to pick and choose ... (real life in action)