Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Sex Party May Sue Google Over Ad Refusal

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the when-real-names-attack dept.

Australia 183

New submitter niftydude writes "Australian newspaper The Age is carrying the story: The Australian Sex Party has threatened Google with legal action after the search engine refused to run its ads on the eve of tomorrow's Melbourne by-election. It comes after Sex Party ads were blocked by Google at the last federal election because the company — which is typically opposed to censorship — perceived the text as too racy (the ads were reinstated by Google the day before the election). Sex Party candidate Fiona Patten said this time the search giant said it would not approve her ads 'because we have a donate button on our page and we're not a charity.' Don't all political parties allow donations? Is google imposing its own sense of morality onto Australian politics?"

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Do evil (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721445)

Do evil.

Apropos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721491)

Well, fuck that!

Disappointed in Sydney (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721501)

I was about to get all huffy about being disappointed here in Sydney.
And then it occured to me this isnt the kind of sex party I was thinking of.
Guess its back to redtube on a lazy Saturday afternoon :)

There is no problem (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721507)

Google is a company, not a government entity. They can refuse to do business with anyone they want. Nobody has any kind of right to use their services.

Re:There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721523)

Unless they're regulated, of course. Not saying they should be, but it is perfectly possibly to force a company to do something.

Re:There is no problem (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721603)

That's not necessarily the case. In some jurisdictions, it is required to give equal access to all political parties. If you will run ads for one candidate in a race, you must give make ad space available to all the other candidates in the race in similarly prominent positions for the same cost.

dom

Re:There is no problem (3, Informative)

evanism (600676) | about 2 years ago | (#40721813)

As it is here. Refusal to run one parties ads on non equal terms leads to a bollocking. Fairfax, NEWS et al get around it in the form of editorial support/panning but the ads must be the same.

Re:There is no problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721883)

Google is a company, not a government entity. They can refuse to do business with anyone they want. Nobody has any kind of right to use their services.

Are you implying that any non-government entity can refuse to do business with nigger, jews and homosexual if they choose to? Think about what you said, idiot.

Re:There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721899)

Yes, they can refuse to do business with any specific person/entity based on uniformly applied policies, what they can not do is refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc.

Re:There is no problem (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40721949)

Yes, they can refuse to do business with any specific person/entity based on uniformly applied policies, what they can not do is refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc.

I suppose the Australian Sex Party could make a case that they're being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. They also have a policy [wikipedia.org] that religion should be kept out of politics, which might preclude discrimination against them on religious grounds.

Re:There is no problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721981)

And Google can make a case that they rejected them based on their standard policies.

They can either remove the 'Donate" button and reapply (and if Google finds another reason to refuse that will be hella suspicious), or they can find another party with "Donate" button AND Google ads (and if Google doesn't remove it promptly that will be hella suspicious)

Right now I doubt they can win with this in any court, maybe except for court of public opinion.

Re:There is no problem (4, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40722051)

Care to point to the Google policy which you claim is being breached by The Sex Party [sexparty.org.au] ? Some [alp.org.au] other [liberal.org.au] parties [nationals.org.au] in Australia also have donate buttons on their websites, and there is no sign of Google refusing their election ads.

Re:There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722099)

Err, what? I claimed no such thing, and I'm no spokesperson for Google.

In fact, after finally reading TFA, there's already a) mentions of other parties with donate buttons, and b) a claim that the policy applies only to non tax-exempt organizations and they are tax exempt. If they sue, they'll probably win.

Re:There is no problem (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#40722355)

Here in Oz equal access to political advertising services, means equal access. If google allows a donate button for one candidate then they must by law allow it for all candidates. I work with a guy who knows Fiona personally, I'd like to see a couple of reps from one issue (socially liberal) parties such as this get a seat in parliment. The problem they have is that nationally there is some support for them but politics is local and you need enough voters in one spot to get past the post (or some strange preference deals and a lot of luck).

Re:There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722083)

Only in third world countries like the USA, without any regulations.

Re:There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722205)

Who said any of that? Not only are you making foolish assumptions but the fact that you are unable to make a distinction between business practices and racial discrimination disqualifies you from this discussion.

Have you ever been to a jacket and tie restaurant? Refuse the dress code and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Re:There is no problem (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722247)

Have you ever been to a jacket and tie restaurant? Refuse the dress code and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Have you ever been to a men clubs? Not having a penis and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Have you ever been to a country club? Not being white and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Jacket and tie restaurant? That is just discrimination against poor peoples. Open your eyes, idiot. And INB4 'if they can afford a tie they can't afford to eat there' because the same could be said about poor nigger, poor spic, etc.

Re:There is no problem (1)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#40721947)

Google is a company, not a government entity. They can refuse to do business with anyone they want. Nobody has any kind of right to use their services.

No blacks no Irish no Gays

Re:There is no problem (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722145)

No shoes, no shirt...

Re:There is no problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722195)

The very concept of a "company" is completely dependent on the legal framework created by a given government. They don't even have a right to exist, let alone refuse services, without the consent of whatever government rules an area where they seek to do business.

Re:There is no problem (3)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#40722239)

That is complete nonsense. It is illegal for a company to refuse business for all but a few very good reasons, due to decades of civil rights legislation to stop discriminatory business practice. And more specifically, it is illegal for a broadcaster to refuse a political advertisement.

Re:There is no problem (4, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40722253)

In some countries they believe in fair elections and if you're going to give fair and equal time to all of them. I know the US is used to elections being something rich people buy but that's not free countries work.

Re:There is no problem (3, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#40722297)

They can refuse to do business with anyone they want.

That's not how it works here, there are rules about equal access to media services for political candidates in an attempt to ensure that one rich party cannot hog all the eyeballs, besides the paid for adverts from registered political parties always come with an "authorised by", so you know who to blame should you be offended.

Re:There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722337)

Fucking Randroids, thinking only the government could do anything wrong.

Re:There is no problem (5, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 2 years ago | (#40722351)

You are approaching it from a legal standpoint.

But sometimes things that are legal can still be problematic. This here is part of such a problem.

With the big U.S. internet companies providing world wide services, they tend to impose american moral standards on everyone of their customers.
Companies like Facebook have rules concerning profanity and 'adult' content, that abide american standards, Google filters what an American would consider morally wrong and so on. Even in countries that don't care much, when someone shows a boob on TV, these same rules are applied.

Why is this a problem?
Because it is shaping public opinion. A former more liberal community will get used to these puritanian concepts when exposed to them all the time and it will change that community.

If you have a hard time understanding this problem, because you are from the U.S. yourself, imagine if all the big internet companies were from Iran instead. Imagine how that would start shaping your daily life, if you had to abide to Iranian moral standards when doing pretty much anything online.

porn party? (0, Flamebait)

rainmouse (1784278) | about 2 years ago | (#40721511)

And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.

Re:porn party? (4, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | about 2 years ago | (#40721527)

A hypothetical child porn party would probably not be permitted to register and for election in Australia. Google could just refuse to run political ads from anyone other than a registered political party. But no, they pick and choose which parties they will or won't run ads for.

Re:porn party? (0)

pellik (193063) | about 2 years ago | (#40721671)

Vote Google King of Australia!

Re:porn party? (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40722263)

So long as the CP party doesn't use anything illegal why should they not be ableadvertise or run? If people don't want a party that legalises CP then it will never pose a threat.

Re:porn party? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40721529)

Would it still be censorship to ban their adds?

The content in question doesn't matter. That has no effect on whether or not it's censorship. But I can't see how child porn is in any way related.

Re:porn party? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721535)

How about what's legal and what's not? Most places criminalize child porn, not so much sex.

Re:porn party? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721537)

Ok, assuming the report is correct: why are they saying it's because of the donate button if it's actually because they think something (Sex or maybe parties) is immoral?

Re:porn party? (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#40722233)

Considering there are ads on Google for pornographic websites, I find it very hard to believe that they refused it out of their own moral sense.

Re:porn party? (1)

morcego (260031) | about 2 years ago | (#40721573)

And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.

Banning adds for something that is illegal is not exactly censorship.

Re:porn party? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721601)

It's "addds". Why do you people keep leaving off a D?

Re:porn party? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40721649)

If it's censorship to ban the ads in the first place, then the content, whether illegal or not, does not matter. You might agree with the censorship, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.

Re:porn party? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721677)

The issue here is whether or not Google should be going beyond what the law requires. Law typically requires child porn to be banned and for court orders to be upheld when issued and such, but beyond that it's up to Google to decide what to accept and what not to accept.

However, because Google has a dominant market position in advertising space if they make too much use of discretion, especially if it appears political, they could find themselves broken up.

Re:porn party? (4, Insightful)

morcego (260031) | about 2 years ago | (#40721743)

The issue here is whether or not Google should be going beyond what the law requires. Law typically requires child porn to be banned and for court orders to be upheld when issued and such, but beyond that it's up to Google to decide what to accept and what not to accept.

However, because Google has a dominant market position in advertising space if they make too much use of discretion, especially if it appears political, they could find themselves broken up.

Thank you, you make a very good point. If the law requires Google to ban it, then Google is not censoring it. Someone could make a case the government is censoring, but that is besides the point here.

However, in this particular case, there was no lawful requirement stopping those adds. It was Google's own decision. Then, we have a problem, and a big one at that.

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722155)

Right, it's going to need to be clarified by Google if they made a mistake in authorizing the other sites' ads or if they made a mistake with this one. But, either way they're going to have to come to a consistent stance or probably lose the lawsuit.

It's an important distinction to make between Google censoring and a government censoring as in the case of the latter Google can only pull out of the country or follow the law.

Re:porn party? (5, Funny)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | about 2 years ago | (#40721597)

you should rename yourself 'inappropriate analogy guy'

Re:porn party? (3, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#40721617)

It is censorship to ban adverts which don't breach the advertising legislations of the country in which they are being shown regardless of your moral standing.

Worse still I'm not sure on Australian law but some countries have specific rules about elections. Decisions like this may remove Google from the right to advertise for any political party during elections.

Also have you actually had a look at their policies? [sexparty.org.au] Despite what they call themselves this party stands for all the things a typical slashdot user holds dear including:
- Drug reform
- Anti-censorship
- Net Neutrality
- Anti government snooping
- Internet education
- Equal rights laws including same sex marriage
- Separation of religion from government

They are like the Pirate Party except they've been around longer.

Re:porn party? (2)

gorgonymus gorgward (1936324) | about 2 years ago | (#40721793)

I think Google is being overzealous-by-default.

Consider that the default filters ban anything related with sex to show on advertisements delivered to the mass, and consider that it takes much more time to deal with the bureaucracy at Google (all the different levels of message forwarding to the higher authority etc) than it takes time for a script to ban 'X' ad that has 'Y' keywords in it.

Most people, most of the time, don't want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves. I remember in the days of old when I was searching for WhateverWarez and I got constantly diverted by LaraCroftBoobs ads. No unlimited bandwidths back then, and no DSL, so the phone line was constantly in use.

But I digress. Google needs to refine its blocking filters to include more exceptions and/or at least inform their costumers about the filters in lieu and make it CLEARLY visible what route to take to be considered an exception.

Re:porn party? (2)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#40721971)

Most people, most of the time, don't want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves.

Nicely put. Certainly those who, most of the time, _do_ want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves, don't need google to remind them.

Re:porn party? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722527)

How does this differ from anything else? Most of the time I DON'T want to be forced to think about cleaning products or shopping for a new car or whatever either.

So basically (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 2 years ago | (#40722001)

Pirates are in it for the sex?

Re:So basically (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#40722249)

Pirates are in it for the sex?

Yarrrrrrrrrr !

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722081)

- Drug reform

It's reform, but just decriminalization. The optimal solution for me would be 100% legalization.

Re:porn party? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#40722261)

Sure, but decriminalization has plenty of advantages and it's an easier policy to "sell".

Re:porn party? (4, Insightful)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 2 years ago | (#40721639)

And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.

You must be from the USA. You rationalize something related to sex by throwing in an extreme, illegal practice. No doubts left.

Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about. It may come as a shock but both you and I are most likely products of normal sexual behavior.

I'll recap:

  • Plain sex isn't something that should raise the geek's brows.
  • Child porn is both illegal and highly despicable. It's a very abject thing because it violates children's development on many levels.
  • Mixing the two in order to promote a puritan point of view is tasteless.

Re:porn party? (2, Funny)

gorgonymus gorgward (1936324) | about 2 years ago | (#40721707)

But.. But... Won't you think of the childrennn???

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722069)

One taboo at a time.

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721725)

Get off it. They wouldn't call themselves "the Sex Party" out of a healthy & mature appreciation of reproduction, it's a shocking/joke name for a political party that splintered from a porn industry lobbyist group.

Re:porn party? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722003)

And?? So now the porn industry is also synonymous with child porn? The party was launched to counter the ridiculous christian groups trying to impose their Puritanical and most unwelcome ways on Australians. While the name is a bit silly it is meant that way as a direct attack on the morons that would like to have you think and do exactly as they tell you to.

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722071)

So what, pray, should they have called themselves? Copulation/Coitus/Fornication/Fucking Party? Face it, sex is the most straightforward word and shortest word you can use, and they used it.

Re:porn party? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721751)

It's a very abject thing because it violates children's development on many levels.

That would be the rape. We do indeed need to stop the rapists.

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721781)

Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about.

Your doing it wrong.

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722335)

Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about. It may come as a shock but both you and I are most likely products of normal sexual behavior.

The Australian Sex Party is by and for the sex industry (it's an industry lobby). You're also welcome to smoke, gamble, drink alcohol, eat fast food, and all sorts of things - but a political party run by any of a tobacco company, the poker machine industry, the vodka distilleries, or McDonalds would probably attract equal concern and disdain.

Re:porn party? (1)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | about 2 years ago | (#40721657)

what the hell; are you really seeking to equate the Australian Sex Party with a hypothetical 'Child Porn Party'?
Are you saying those who oppose this think no line should be drawn anywhere?
Get a grip dude.

Re:porn party? (1, Insightful)

evanism (600676) | about 2 years ago | (#40721833)

I don't doubt the OP's dude only ever gets gripped. By himself. Hence the hysterical nonsense response.

Time to get out of his mums cellar.

Re:porn party? (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#40721965)

Yes, it would still be censorship. Just because it is something you do not like and agree with banning does not not make it censorship.From wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Childporn is (rightfully so) illegal, because of the law. The law is made by politicians. Those belong to parties. If they want to change the law, that is the way to do it.

Banning them is the worst kind of censorship. It would shut down the possibility to change the law. The same law that allowed children to get into forced marriage. The same one that allowed slavery. Indeed Google has to draw the line somewhere. It has to be drawn at freedom of speech or no freedom of speech. They have drawn their line at no freedom of speech.

Some thoughts:
âoeI disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.â â Evelyn Beatrice Hall

âoeBecause if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.â â Neil Gaiman

âoeThis is slavery, not to speak one's thought.â â Euripides

Re:porn party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722109)

yes, retard. learn the meaning of words.

shot down Google! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721559)

Google has now interfered in the elections of a sovereign nation. Google must be destroyed.

Re:shot down Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722073)

LOL, except this time it would be the US blocking the UN resolution on sanctions.

Rather appropriate that it should be the Sex Party as I'm already of the opinion that Google can go fuck themselves.

Grammar Standards Imposition (0, Flamebait)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#40721587)

Sex Party Candidate: "Is google imposing it's own sense of morality onto Australian politics?"

No, but if you keep confusing "it's" with "its" you may find people imposing common standards of grammar on you. That can't be good for your credibility. As if being a self-proclaimed mouthpiece for a sex party wasn't bad enough.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (2)

outsider007 (115534) | about 2 years ago | (#40721613)

Maybe Australia needs a pedantic grammar douche party.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721661)

Maybe Australia needs a pedantic grammar douche party.

Just remember, the people who are doing better than you in this world are
people who do care about details like grammar.

That's right, motherfucker. We drive nicer cars, we bang hotter chicks,
we drink better beer, and we live in better houses. And your pathetic
little semi-literate life sucks compared to ours.

So you just keep on thinking grammar is not important, like the idiot you are.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721799)

Not true. I know I drive a nicer car than you, my girlfriend is way hotter than anyone you have ever had a conversation with, and my house could swallow yours and not notice.

Why? Because I am more than literate and it paid off. And if you are still obsessing with beer and "banging" women, you clearly are not there yet and may never be. Hopefully, though, at some point you will stop measuring up your dick and just be be happy, because someone else's will always be bigger.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (1)

evanism (600676) | about 2 years ago | (#40721861)

You are also about 1000 times angrier than everyone else. Chill a bit, it isn't Blow an Aneurism Week.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721625)

As if being a self-proclaimed mouthpiece for a sex party wasn't bad enough.

Every sex party needs mouthpieces, babe.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (5, Informative)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 2 years ago | (#40721841)

It's not "a sex party", it's "The Sex Party"...that is, it's a political party with policies centred on sexual and gender issues [sexparty.org.au] , and has nothing to do with putting your car keys in a bowl.

I should explain that Australian political parties usually have deceptive names. For example, the Liberal Party are the conservatives, the Labor Party usually puts everyone out of work, One Nation divided the country before forking itself, and the National Party doesn't field candidates in most electorates. The Greens are pretty much what you'd expect, though until recently their leader was a chap by the name of Brown, so while technically they tried to fit in it was a predictably feeble effort. On the New South Wales state level we also have the Christian Democrats, whose values are hardly those of Christ and is run by a religious oligarch, and the Shooters and Fishers Party, which is a reasonably accurate description but they put the "jerk" into "knee-jerk".

And if you exercise your comprehension skills you'd find the grammatical mistake was on the part of the submitter, not the candidate.

Australian Sex Party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721595)

Yeah, baby, yeah! That's my bag, baby!

Not surprising (2)

Smidgin (912451) | about 2 years ago | (#40721607)

I believe a relevant policy page is here [google.com] , basically unless you're a charity you can't use the donate button or they can freeze your account. The buy now button is available for others but is only supposed to be used for physical goods apparently, not sure whether intangibles like subscriptions or software qualify. I know some places just use the buy now button and sell crummy little tokens or somesuch and people basically make donations that way. Still, political parties should definitely be eligible for the donate button and it seems like an oversight on google's part that they're not.

In any case google's policies with their ad services are pretty dreadful. I know several (by which I mean at least 2 I can recall) sites/people that had their accounts/funds frozen after their site was linked by a big site (slashdot, reddit, digg, etc) or made the news. The sudden big spike in traffic was deemed suspicious since such a spike in traffic clearly could only be the result of trying to defraud google. Both cases the people just ditched google for ads because they couldn't get their accounts unfrozen (or at least not easily enough that they gave up first), got a different ad provider and considered the money that was in the account a loss.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721693)

Sex is a 'physical good' right? So they just need to sell prostitution and they're good to go :)

Cute... captcha was 'pansies'.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40721745)

The sudden big spike in traffic was deemed suspicious since such a spike in traffic clearly could only be the result of trying to defraud google. Both cases the people just ditched google for ads because they couldn't get their accounts unfrozen (or at least not easily enough that they gave up first), got a different ad provider and considered the money that was in the account a loss.

This would likely have occured with any ad provider you care to mention under such circumstances including the one(s) they moved their business to. I'm sure I could find anecdotal evidence of traffic going in the other direction.

The rest of what you write I agree with and yes I am aware the term 'anecdotal evidence' is an oxymoron.

Re:Not surprising (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#40722151)

> unless you're a charity you can't use the donate button

According to TFA, they're tax exempt, just like the other political parties who are using a donate button.

Is this incompetence on google's part, or is it malice? Google are notoriously incompetent, I have proof of this as another one of their head-hunters approached me the other day, apparently unaware of the fact that I repeatedly say that they both are evil and suck. They'd better hope they're incompetent, as if it's malice I reckon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y) that it will reach court otherwise. (But they have the bigger lawyers, so can probably buy a victory.)

My own band can't advertise on Google (4, Insightful)

geekd (14774) | about 2 years ago | (#40721635)

I can't advertise my own band on Google. They refuse my ads again and again. Free music. It's MY music. My band wrote and recorded it. They will not let me advertise it as free.

The ads take days to get denied. Then I change it and it's days again to get denied. Eventually I just gave up.

On the other hand, the ads for free web games I make get approved in hours.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (-1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 years ago | (#40721667)

Google is a private company, not public infrastructure. They have every right to decide if they want to accept your ad or not.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (1, Interesting)

geekd (14774) | about 2 years ago | (#40721675)

I totally agree. But it is frustrating. They don't give any reason, just a "denied"

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (3, Interesting)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40721701)

Well, they have pretty close to a monopoly on web advertising. If this continues, I hope the govt breaks down Google or pushes for regulations that govern web advertising.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40722473)

Redundant? Seriously? Looks like someone did not like my comment

i disagree (-1, Redundant)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#40721795)

they are a virtual monopoly. therefore their policies and procedures must pass public muster. you can't just go down the street to some other google with most of the marketshare for search online

the private company not subject to public rules idea only makes sense in a marketplace of roughly equivalent and multiple competitors. otherwise, they are basically serving a public function and should be subject to public rules. if the public doesn't have a choice, the private company better defend their decision, and the public will decide if it is acceptable or not, and accept their decision, or, if not, force the private company to reverse their decision

this concept of course only works in a country beholden to actual public interests, rather than large powerful private entities

either way, you yourself should really be on the side of the public here. unless your slashdot account is an example of this mythical corporate personhood i keep hearing about

They have every right (3, Insightful)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#40721821)

They have every right to ...

Have you ever stopped to consider what that means, and how ridiculous it is if taken literally.

It implies that google has no legal obligations to government, shareholders, or customers. Its not true.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (2)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 2 years ago | (#40721993)

sure, they have the right to suck, however it doesn't mean they don't suck.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#40721857)

On the other hand, the ads for free web games I make get approved in hours.

Put your music in your web games. Problem solved.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (0)

geekd (14774) | about 2 years ago | (#40721897)

Already on it. :) My web games are in HTML5, and it sucks how bad the audio in HTML sucks. Actually, it sucks how bad HTML5 sucks. My next game will be in flash. I know how much of a dead end flash is, but that says something about how much HTML5 sucks, doesn't it?

Could I write "sucks" a few more times? What does that even mean?

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#40722273)

Could I write "sucks" a few more times? What does that even mean?

My question exactly. What exactly sucks about HTML5? You message would be a lot stronger with specifics than just repeating "sucks" 1000 times.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (0)

geekd (14774) | about 2 years ago | (#40722371)

I thought was clear. Massive frame rate inconsistency. I can't even benchmark my code, because one play I'll get 40, then I shift-reload and get 60. No rhyme or reason.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (0)

geekd (14774) | about 2 years ago | (#40722377)

Sorry, just re-read my post and realized I was mis-remembering. I had also posted to facebook on a similar subject. Anyway, massive frame rate inconsistency, along with shitty audio support.

I go to bed now.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#40722433)

Your code should be ready for different client configurations anyways, so there is no way you'll get consistent framerate anyways. What OS and what browser were giving you this behavior?

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722407)

Eh, Flash still has a good while on it yet. It won't be completely gone for at least a decade, games-wise.
Will likely last longer though.

Plus, the good part for you is you can make branded versions for other websites after you have completed the game and get a nice bit of money for it.
Slap that bad boy on Flash Game Licence and watch the money come in for a pretty well done game going by your current games, solidly done.
Flash ain't all that harder to use either. Easier in some respects, much easier to make portable files for.
While you can make HTML5 portable, it is a right bitch to do so.
I wrote a simple preloader about a month back just to prove it could be done. The only problem is it has "load-points" throughout the document, looks nasty.
And as far as I know, I cannot directly embed binary content in to the document yet. Those blobs aren't going to be too useful without this. Why would people still want to base64 the content in?? Mind you, the only problems I seem to have is with the NULs. Maybe my editor (Notepad++) is terrible and refuses to save them for some reason. Must test hex editor.
But yeah, it is entirely possible to just pop all content in to a single compact file for distribution, so that is nice to know now.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (1)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | about 2 years ago | (#40722105)

See, because you didn't plug your band (and I can't find any reference to it on your linked website) now I'm genuinely curious. I'm all for free music, and despite the occasional itunes purchase the vast majority of my (admittedly small) library is free.

Drop us a link, would you please?

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (3, Interesting)

geekd (14774) | about 2 years ago | (#40722159)

http://theexperiments.com/ [theexperiments.com] rock / punk it's al CC licensed, free downloads. Thanks for your interest.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722305)

I think the solution here is simple.
You have the means to make a game based on your band. Good luck.

If they refuse this, then they have an agenda against you or something.

Disappointed - absolutely nothing racy about ads (0)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 years ago | (#40721647)

They were (gasp) text ads - nothing lurid, no links to pictures of hot heavy action.

Perhaps they didn't live up to the moderators' standards of a nice good racy ad?

Shame on Google IF... (2)

NeveRBorN (86123) | about 2 years ago | (#40721697)

They are running ads for other parties who are soliciting donations from their site. I haven't seen ads either way, nor did the linked article directly state that they were hosting ads for other parties that were soliciting ads. If this is in fact the case, I'd be truly disappointed. Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd like to see the ads that are being posted for the other parties rather than jump to a conclusion based on a potentially biased source.

After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.

Re:Shame on Google IF... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#40721831)

After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.

This is Slashdot - there's a policy against direct links to informative material. If you must provide a link, it has to be either to a previous Slashdot story or else to an advertisement-heavy set of 10-15 linked pages, each of which contains at most two sentences of information.

Sex Party (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#40721979)

Google is just giving the masses what they want. When someone googles for sex party, they want to see a party with a whole load of sex going on, not a political advert.

Shame I am 4km out of Melbourne (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#40721985)

On the basis of this advertisment I would have given them my second preference at least.

Colorado Movie Theater Massacre (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722025)

Colorado Movie Theater Massacre
July 20th, 2012

http://cryptogon.com/?p=30455 [cryptogon.com]

Where Did Robert Holmes, Father of James Holmes, Work Before 2000?

I would be interested in knowing where Robert Milton Holmes, the father of James Holmes, worked before 2000. If anyone has this information, please send it to me.

On his Linkedin profile Robert Holmes lists a University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. in Statistics from 1981. He currently works for FICO, but also lists working for HNC Software from 2000 to 2002. (HNC Software was acquired by FICO.)

We have a DARPA link in HNC Software.

This is from a 1999 company profile for HNC Software:

        HNC Software Inc. is San Diegoâ(TM)s largest software company and develops predictive software solutions for business-to-consumer service companies. These solutions allow companies to make more intelligent and profitable decisions and are marketed to industries- including financial, insurance, retail, telecommunications and the Internet.

        Like many San Diego-based software companies, HNC Software Inc. traces its origins to the defense industry. When the company was launched in 1986, it focused on defense-related research and development. But over the years as defense budgets shrank not only in San Diego, but nationwide, HNC quickly realized that in order to succeed and grow, other commercial applications had to be found for its products.

        â¦

        But perhaps the most exciting frontier awaiting exploration and commercial development by HNC is in an area that scientists still know very little about: the human brain. HNC is working on a long-term research project launched in 1998 that is jointly funded by HNC and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), part of the U.S. Defense Department, to investigate âcortronic neural networks,â(TM) a concept originally proposed by Robert Hecht-Nielsen, HNCâ(TM)s co-founder and chief scientist.

        HNC hopes to develop new capabilities in the areas of textual, aural and visual representation, and to actually build three new predictive, neural-net based systems: one that reads, interprets and searches text more effectively; a second recognizing speech and other sounds, enabling users to perform audio searches; and a third that can scan for and interpret images. The ultimate goal is to integrate all three systems. The net result â" machines that someday might be able to reason like humans.

        âoeThis is the most important scientific challenge of our time, and finding the answer will be the adventure of the millennium,â says Hecht-Nielsen.

â"

James Holmes: Accused Colorado Shooter Is Grandson of Decorated Veteran, Has Mamily Roots in Monterey County

Via: Contra Costa Times:

James Holmes, the man believed responsible for killing 12 people Friday during one of the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the grandson of a decorated military veteran who was a respected educator at prestigious York School in Monterey.

Lt. Col. Robert M. Holmes, who served in the Okinawa campaign during World War II, retired in 1963 as the last commander of the Nike missile group in San Francisco Bay. He was one of the first Turkish language students at the Army Language School, now the Defense Language Institute, graduating in 1948, a school spokesman confirmed Friday.

After his military retirement, Holmes taught math and science at York School for 17 years. He died in 1990. His wife, Mary Jane Crawford Holmes, attended Stanford University and worked at the Monterey City Library, Fort Ord Library and Pacific Grove High School before finishing her career as librarian and college counselor at York School. She died in 2010.

A 1945 graduate of Pacific Grove High School, she was also a member of numerous historical societies, including the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne, Descendants of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston and the Monterey Bay Colony of Mayflower Descendants, of which she served as governor.

Their personal histories, taken from their obituaries in The Monterey County Herald, are difficult to reconcile with the most indelible image of their 24-year-old grandson.

Research Credit: TR

â"

Colorado Batman Shooting Shows Obvious Signs of Being Staged

Research Credit: TR

â"

Flashback 2005: CIA Plans to Shift Work to Denver

Via: Washington Post:

The CIA has plans to relocate the headquarters of its domestic division, which is responsible for operations and recruitment in the United States, from the CIAâ(TM)s Langley headquarters to Denver, a move designed to promote innovation, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.

About $20 million has been tentatively budgeted to relocate employees of the CIAâ(TM)s National Resources Division, officials said. A U.S. intelligence official said the planned move, confirmed by three other government officials, was being undertaken âoefor operational reasons.â

A CIA spokesman declined to comment. Other current and former intelligence officials said the Denver relocation reflects the desire of CIA Director Porter J. Goss to develop new ways to operate under cover, including setting up more front corporations and working closer with established international firms.

â"

Update: âoeI am The Jokerâ

Via: AP:

Holmes was studying neuroscience in a Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado-Denver, university spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery said. Holmes enrolled a year ago and was in the process of withdrawing at the time of the shootings, Montgomery said.

ABC News reported that Holmes told police âoeI am the Joker,â according to NYPD police commissioner Ray Kelly. The report also says Holmes had died his hair like The Joker.

â"End Updateâ"

Via: CNN:

The man suspected of shooting up an Aurora, Colorado movie theater screening the new Batman film early Friday, killing 12 and wounding 59, also left his apartment rigged with traps, police said.

âoeItâ(TM)s booby trapped with various incindiery and chemical devices and trip wires,â Aurora police chief Dan Oates said, adding that it could take days to work through the apartment safely.

Five buildings around suspect James E. Holmesâ(TM) Aurora apartment were evacuated, Oates said.

Police say Holmes, 24, dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.

Oates said investigators are confident that Holmes acted alone.

The shooting unfolded inside a darkened theater packed with Batman fans, some in costume for the premiere of the movie âoeThe Dark Knight Rises.â Screaming, panicked moviegoers scrambled to escape from the black-clad gunman, who wore a gas mask and randomly shot as he walked up the theaterâ(TM)s steps, witnesses said.

It was a scene âoestraight out of a horror film,â said Chris Ramos, who was inside the theater.

âoeHe was just literally shooting everyone, like hunting season,â Ramos said.

Holmes surrendered without resistance within minutes of the first calls from panicked moviegoers reporting a shooting inside the Century 16 theater, Oates said. He is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, court officials said.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-holmes/4/47b/24a [linkedin.com]
http://www.leavcom.com/hm_hnc.htm [leavcom.com]
http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_21124710?source=rss [contracostatimes.com]
http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html [naturalnews.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501860.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-suspected-aurora-colorado-dark-knight-rises-shooter-i-am-the-joker [abcactionnews.com]
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 [cnn.com]
http://theintelhub.com/2012/07/15/preparing-for-civil-war-chart-shows-dhs-has-bought-hundreds-of-millions-of-rounds-of-ammo-since-2009/ [theintelhub.com]

âoeThere is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience researchâ

Just vote Greens (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40722499)

The sex party is boring, another minor party like the pro pot party. the Greens already have the sex party policies on drugs/government bedroom intrusions/sex workers rights anyway, and they're actually successful at the Ballot Box.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?