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!

Google's Blogger To Delete All 'Adult' Blogs That Have Ads

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the internet-is-for-something dept.

Google 192

DougDot sends this excerpt from ZDNet: "In three days, Google's Blogger will begin to delete scores of blogs that have existed since 1999 on Monday under its vague new anti-sex-ad policy purge. On Wednesday night at around 7pm PST, all Blogger blogs marked as 'adult' were sent an email from Google's Blogger team. The email told users with 'adult' blogs that after Sunday, June 30, 2013, all adult blogs will be deleted if they are found to be 'displaying advertisements to adult websites' — while the current Content Policy does not define what constitutes 'adult' content. To say that Twitter ignited with outrage would be an understatement. Blogger users are panicked and mad as hell at Google."

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

anti-sex ad policy? (2)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#44135409)

How does google benefit by eliminating advertisement revenue? Where did this policy originate?

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (5, Insightful)

omglolbah (731566) | about a year ago | (#44135415)

They're not getting the revenue would be my guess...

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (5, Funny)

jandrese (485) | about a year ago | (#44135855)

So Google is basically saying: If you want to make money from the blog we are hosting for free, you have to cut us in on the revenue? I can see how this is a gross violation of people's civil liberties and why they are up in arms over it.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135925)

Civil liberty? Really?

Stupid business decision? Possibly (Short notice, un-clear motives, lots of pissed off people, etc). But... how is this stepping on any rights? Tons of other Blogs out there... lots of other options.

Reason for people to be pissed? Definitely... This is somehow a civil rights violation? You sir are a retard.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135997)

No you are!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire [wikipedia.org]

Dare I say it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136753)

Whooooooosh!

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (2, Insightful)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#44137029)

Of course it's a civil rights violation. It involves the internet and a bunch of fucking geeks. Now if Google said we were removing all ads that contained gun ads, that everyone would be like Hell Yeah Google, way to stick it to ignorant rednecks. I hate double standards. Do what you will, but don't step on things we like.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44137079)

One involves sex, one involves killing people. yeah, I can see how you would mix that up.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#44137001)

Well, if I understand correctly, Google is not asking for a cut of their revenue, they are just kicking off anyone who has a blog which has adult ads. Within their rights since they are a private company, but is still pretty chilling since it cuts a significant number of people out of a well known and shared space simply because somehow sex is involved with their topics. I know as a blog reader, I am not thrilled with the idea of Google playing morality police with deciding what I can read on their site.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136209)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I get out of it. The article was nearly incomprehensible, though, especially when it started rambling into irrelevancies about the number of Tumblr users.

If you want to make money, enter into a commercial relationship with a hosting service. Don't expect Google to host you for free so that you can make money off their servers and bandwidth. Being "sex-positive" isn't the same as being handing-profit-to-freeloaders-positive.

From the article:

The fact is, no one is making tons of money off porn ads or affiliate links. The porn ad business has dried up, and the well went dry for affiliate sales off ads years ago.

If that's "the fact," then why not just delete the ads and affiliate links? Why continue to host ads that aren't making any money? Do these people just enjoy ads? Do they enjoy the malware that gets installed through them and the scams that get pushed in them? This rings pretty hollow, like the sound of people who actually are making a buck or two off ads claiming that they're not and then invoking all sorts of "Google is 1950's Censorship" and "Google Hates (insert oppressed group)" because that tactic is known to misdirect anger pretty aptly in America.

In, I hope, B4 "Google is run by the NSA and therefore the first amendment applies."

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#44137035)

Sometimes even a small amount of money is considered worthwhile to people. Even if people are not getting rich, they were at least having some compensation.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44135949)

Google is consistent in enforcing 1950s-TVs-style anti-sex morality on the web. You seen this in all of their properties. I'm sure they know which side their bread is buttered, and they stand more to lose from people being offended and calling for bans in school filters, but it's still damned annoying.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44136047)

Normally, I'd agree with you, but in this case it doesn't appear that they're banning those sites from having ads, just restricting what kinds of ads they can have.

Unfortunately, the policy seems to be a bit vague, which makes it hard to know what types of sites they mean when they say adult sites. Presumably, you could have ads that Google has already screened without trouble, but using other ad networks or having your own banner ads would put you at risk for having your site deleted.

But, really Google needs to be a bit more open about what people can do to avoid having their site deleted, as it doesn't appear to bar people from having adult sites or advertising, just from advertising adult sites on those sites.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#44136301)

"consistent in enforcing 1950s-TVs-style anti-sex morality on the web". Really? I don't remember Wally, Eddie, Lumpie or the Beaver looking at any porn. Google makes it fairly easy to find from what I hear. I've found it just for not being careful in my search terms.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44136001)

They can still have advertisement, they just can't have ad links to adult sites.

I'm guessing that the goal of this is in part to clamp down on human trafficking, illegal porn sites and related crimes.

From what I can tell, the real problem here is that the policy is somewhat vague. A company selling sex toys would arguably be an adult site, but is probably not what Google is intending to bar from those ads. But, without a clearer policy it's hard to say for sure.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1, Troll)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#44136167)

I'm guessing that the goal of this is in part to clamp down on human trafficking, illegal porn sites and related crimes.

Yeah. That's it. I'm sure once the policy is implemented that all those things will be a thing of the past on the internet.

Just like how busting the guy at the local flea market that sells hemp-related products has eliminated weed sales everywhere, and indicting the guy that sells flame stickers for cars has stopped people from exceeding the speed limit across the nation.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44136419)

Sigh, because clearly unless you can stop all crime of a type everywhere, you shouldn't take any steps at all.

Also, WTF do flame stickers for cars have to do with speeding? And selling hemp related products is perfectly legal. I've even seen hemp products being sold by retailers.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136645)

Flame stickers have nothing directly to do with speeding. Just like an ad for an adult site has nothing directly to do with human trafficking. The difference is that one of those can be seen clearly, while the other is an emotional subject.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136805)

Sure there is, any time you're going to a strip club, buying pornography and such, there's the chance that you're paying for services of a slave. The better establishments will have better measures in place to prevent it, but there's ultimately no way of knowing for sure.

And the ads that Google is banning are ones that Google has no way of authenticating. A site can easily be using sex slaves in some far off land that doesn't have the same requirements that the law in the US requires.

Whereas there's precisely zero relationship between the flame stickers and speeding.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#44136555)

Again the idiot comment of, if this doesn't stop the bad thing immediately then why bother doing it at all. If everyone were like you we would still be banging rocks together.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (4, Interesting)

Dputiger (561114) | about a year ago | (#44136887)

Precisely. What's "adult?"

Is a site with sexual advice "adult?" What about explicit sexual advice? What about discussion of non-normative sexuality (LBGT, BDSM, etc)? Does adult mean "Pornographic?" It's a ridiculously overbroad policy that's been horribly communicated. No one is arguing that Google doesn't have the right to make changes to its own services, but what the hell does or doesn't constitute "adult?"

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (3, Insightful)

egamma (572162) | about a year ago | (#44136219)

How does google benefit by eliminating advertisement revenue? Where did this policy originate?

Possibly with advertisers who weren't aware that their ads might be shown next to pictures of goatse.

Re:anti-sex ad policy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136293)

Simple. Next week, google will it's entry to the last online market they have not covered so far. The online porn business.

talk with your wallet (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135421)

Well if they are upset they should just take there money and spend in else where..

Oh wait..

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135435)

the new rule is not that "vague" at all - adult blog with links to adult websites: it excludes blogs which have occasional "adult" content with ads, while clearly targeting blogs which are basically just advertising porn websites.

Re:who cares? (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44135615)

There are a lot of these, which we all like to not publicly admit we've all seen. They fill themselves up with robo-copied text and material from other parts of the web, stuff in links to "affiliate" websites, and generally take up space. They differ a little from outright spam blogs, since a little bit of what they have is what the user is looking for, some basic content or something, but it's mostly a cover to link to for-profit sites, and doesn't represent an actual blog as blogger is intended to host.

Google has a bit of a vested interest in having blogger be a platform with real people, as it increases the value of their ads. There will be sites of value lost in the cut, but I don't think there will be very many actual people who lose their blogs.

Re:who cares? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44135673)

with the tube sites out there today does this even matter?

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135805)

the new rule is not that "vague" at all

Define adult. Define occasional "adult". Any rule about adult content tends to be vague since that's the nature of the subject.

Re:who cares? (5, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#44136005)

the new rule is not that "vague" at all

Define adult. Define occasional "adult". Any rule about adult content tends to be vague since that's the nature of the subject.

I'd like to see the definition too... TFA says it's not defined: "while the current Content Policy does not define what constitutes "adult" content." Is Victoria's Secret an "adult" site because they sell lingerie and other merchandise that's oriented towards adults? How about a ship-in-a-bottle [handcrafte...lships.com] websites because that's an interest generally held by adults? How about Good Vibrations [goodvibes.com] because they sell sex toys and videos? How about a nudist oriented site because it shows people in the nude? How about a "Hot girls in bikinis!" site because it shows hot girls in bikinis? How about a school swim team site because it shows girls in bikinis?

I'd really like to see how Google draws the line between adult and non-adult.

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136271)

The summary is vague, but Google's policy is straight forward. Google isn't deleting blogs with adult ads, they are deleting adult blogs with ads. How do you know if a blog is "adult" or not? The blogger has the option of flagging the blog as "adult" or not, it's a checkbox. And entirely opt-in. So if the blogger makrs their blog as "adult" and it contains ads, then they may find their blog is deleted. However, if the blogger does not flag their own blog as "adult", then they are safe.

In addition, Google is e-mailing all adult web bloggers ahead of time so there won't be any surprises.

Re:who cares? (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#44136337)

If you can't tell the difference between "Hot girls in bikinis" and the local swim team, then you need to go back to the basics of literacy and start learning concepts like author's intent and such.

Re:who cares? (4, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about a year ago | (#44136517)

You're completely missing the point. It's not about whether or not you or I can tell the difference. It's whether or not Google can tell the difference using some arbitrary algorithm constrained by some arbitrary definition of "adult".

Here's another one. How many free-to-play MMO ads have you seen that do little more that draw the eye with hyper-sexualized fantasy women? The contents of the game are not adult in nature, but because the target demographic is teenage boys the advertisements certainly could be. How about the overtly sexual GoDaddy ads? Or the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? Sex sells, even when the product itself has nothing at all to do with sex.

So, is an "adult ad" and advertisement for adult content, or an advertisement that contains adult content in the ad?

Re:who cares? (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#44136607)

Well since the author of the policy is a corporation, and the policy is vague, I think the intent is for it to mean whatever they want it to mean at that time. So who knows, if it's an ad for the local swim team on a pedophile fantasy blog then they may consider it adult,

Re:who cares? (1)

psithurism (1642461) | about a year ago | (#44136845)

If you can't tell the difference between "Hot girls in bikinis" and the local swim team, then you need to go back to the basics of literacy and start learning concepts like author's intent and such.

I can tell the difference, because one has some ugly girls in it, but seriously, what about the user's intent? If the user can get the same desired effect from the photos on either website, what's the difference? As soon as we say "authors intent" then the 'hot girls in bikinis' guy can change his blog to "my ideal local swim team" with the same pictures.

I know that its easy to tell pornography when you see it, but when your blog is pornographic or acceptable based on what Google employee is vetting the blogs that day, I can understand some frustration.

Re:who cares? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44136401)

the new rule is not that "vague" at all

Define adult. Define occasional "adult". Any rule about adult content tends to be vague since that's the nature of the subject.

I'd like to see the definition too... TFA says it's not defined: "while the current Content Policy does not define what constitutes "adult" content." Is Victoria's Secret an "adult" site because they sell lingerie and other merchandise that's oriented towards adults? How about a ship-in-a-bottle [handcrafte...lships.com] websites because that's an interest generally held by adults? How about Good Vibrations [goodvibes.com] because they sell sex toys and videos? How about a nudist oriented site because it shows people in the nude? How about a "Hot girls in bikinis!" site because it shows hot girls in bikinis? How about a school swim team site because it shows girls in bikinis?

I'd really like to see how Google draws the line between adult and non-adult.

I've got money down on pro-Second Amendment blogs as a target centered in the Goog's crosshairs.

Re:who cares? (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#44136633)

I'd gladly take your money (since when were pro 2nd amendment sites considered adult sites).

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136529)

How Google (a private company) defines "adult" is irrelevant. Google's not under any contractual relationship with its users to provide them with free hosting and bandwidth so that the users can make money off ads whether adult or not. If Google's staff decide one day that pictures of men wearing fuzzy slippers constitute "Fuzzy Slipper Pr0n," and the next day that fuzzy slippers with pink floppy ears are acceptable, that's fine and dandy. Anyone making money off earless Fuzzy Slipper Pr0n ads can take their custom elsewhere and enter into another relationship, whether paid or free, with another hosting company. Google was never under an obligation to cater to them, nor were the Fuzzy Slipper Fetishists ever under any obligation not to take their content elsewhere. That's part of the nature of voluntary relationships, and that's a beautiful thing.

By analogy, think of sex. Two mutually-consenting adults (to keep this simple, we'll used cis-gendered heterosexuals in our example) can enter into a voluntary relationship wherein the woman provides "hosting facilities" for the man's "blog content," if you get my drift. At any point, the woman (host) can break off the relationship with the man (blogger) for any reason. If the man (blogger) starts whining on the internet that the woman (host) is a oppressing his civil liberties by not letting him continue "posting his content" all over her "servers," that just makes him a creepy asshole. The woman should always be free to go find more upscale gentlemen (or ladies) to keep her company. Marriage (a contractual obligation) might change the dynamics a bit, but our mutually-consenting adults in this example weren't married, so the man (blogger) has absofuckinglutely nothing to whine about unless he just wants to look like a pathetic creepster.

None of the sites you linked has a blog on Blogger/Google. They have commercial websites for which they pay money and by which they (hopefully for them) make money. They knew in advance that they shouldn't be running their businesses on Google's servers.

In short, the world (even the legal world) runs on Common Sense, not on hair-splitting definitions and casuistry. No one, even Google, cares how Google defines "Adult."

I'm glad that people are mad at google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135443)

I could care less about these blogs, but it's good that people are mad at google. They should be.

Re:I'm glad that people are mad at google. (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44136471)

It seems like these days, I find myself making a comment about every two weeks saying that people should not trust Google not to take away services that they depend on. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." This is actually getting rather tedious at this point, and yet people still get up in arms about something they should have expected. How many times does this have to happen before everyone recognizes Google for what it is—a search engine and advertising firm that uses the promise of free services as a means to get more eyes on their ads?

The bottom line is this: If you want to provide something to the public, you really only have two viable options—set up a server yourself or set up an account with a hosting provider and back it up regularly to your own machine so that if they decide they don't want you there, you can migrate rapidly and nearly transparently to a different hosting provider. The entire notion of relying on a free web service is a fundamentally flawed concept. You cannot truly trust anything that can be taken away on a whim. You get what you pay for, and you do not get what you do not pay for, at least in the long term.

If you do not own the software that is used to provide access to your data, you do not really own the data in any meaningful sense.

Shoot first and check later (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44135499)

Why not just switch them off? Why immediately delete? There is bound to be some mistaken identity.

I have spoof ads on my (non-adult) blog, for example.

Re:Shoot first and check later (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135587)

"Adult" blogs + sex ads = Deleted
"Adult" blogs - sex ads = OK
Non-"Adult" blog + sex ads = OK

Re:Shoot first and check later (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44135639)

In the google world, there is no delete. If you delete an email off of gmail, then remove it from your trash, it's just hidden, and the space is freed for your account. The email itself is dumped on some backup server, logs, somewhere, because google wants all information.

Re:Shoot first and check later (1)

TyFoN (12980) | about a year ago | (#44135665)

Care to show proof of this, or is it just a lot of hot air?
I couldn't find anything like that in my searching.

Re:Shoot first and check later (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44135693)

You know, you're right. Google apparently only maintains those backup archives for 60 days. That's not the same.

Correct fellow citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135933)

Notice from Google. Those trying to retrieve deleted emails after 60 please contact NSA. That is all.

Re: Shoot first and check later (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year ago | (#44136957)

s/google/NSA/

Scam (3, Funny)

Java Pimp (98454) | about a year ago | (#44135503)

Was there a link in the email that took them to a page to confirm their login information before Google deleted there accounts?

Re:Scam (2)

Java Pimp (98454) | about a year ago | (#44135525)

Damn. So close. Almost made it to the end without a typo!

Good on google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135511)

Don't care for their reasoning, but good on them

My preferred title for this article was (2)

DougDot (966387) | about a year ago | (#44135513)

was "Google Is Going Puritan On Us". But this one will do.

In Other News... (2)

DrGamez (1134281) | about a year ago | (#44135529)

I have completely forgotten about Blogger.

Re:In Other News... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44136453)

I have completely forgotten about Blogger.

Same here; in a world with uber-cheap hosting and $10/yr domain names, 'free blog' sites like that are about as hip as bell-bottoms and piano key ties.

Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not work (4, Insightful)

SuilAmhain (2819677) | about a year ago | (#44135555)

While I fully understand the anger and frustration of bloggers and users a like at this change in Terms and Conditions, I do not really have any sympathy either.

The bloggers in question were using a free platform to derive an income from arguably questionable sources. What do they believe their actual entitlement is here?

Anybody who gives control of their "business" to a third party is probably foolish.
Anybody who gives control of their "business" to a third party and has no claim of ownership to it is probably foolish.
Anybody who gives control of their "business" to a third party and has no claim of ownership to it and was not even paying the third party is probably foolish.

Do you see where I am coming from here...?

Re:Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not wo (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44135675)

The expense of setting up your own physical server, installing custom software, and maintaining it, would almost certainly exceed all ad revenue anyways. The very premise of these "businesses" was built on how cheap it was do dump "content" on a blog, against how much money you could earn from ads.

Re:Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135939)

Can you not see Google using it's dominance to force it's users to use it's ad service instead of letting them choose? It's not you can't host this it's you have to use our ads. It would be like if Microsoft published a required update terminating the your Windows license if LibreOffice or Eclipse was installed. Don't like it? Tough, you can buy Visual Studio and Office.

Fuck that, no matter the target.

Re: Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not w (1)

SuilAmhain (2819677) | about a year ago | (#44136269)

I get that, but how else do you expect an advertising company to act?

Re:Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not wo (1)

Holi (250190) | about a year ago | (#44136689)

Except you are not paying Google, they are offering you a free service as long as you follow their rules. You can always got to one of the other million or so blog sites.

Re:Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not wo (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44137073)

But Google's Blogger service isn't anything close to a monopoly.

Re:Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not wo (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#44136061)

What I will add is that Google has shown more than a common tendency to pull the rug from under users who depend on their services. Recall that they arbitrarily removed access to all services for those who violated the TOS for google+. I saw educational instrutitions develop entire curriculum based on google wave, which was unceremoniously pulled. Google Dcos was morphed to Google drive, and though it still exists there really has been little done to expand the features, even though google wants to rent the services to companies. In the end companies like Apple and MS has one advantage over google in the consumer and enterprise space. MS and Apple actually are accountable to end users, while Google is simple accountable to a rotating group of advertisers. The services, such as they are, exist so that I will allow google to keep cookies on my computer, so that advertisers can track me. If the services become less valuable, then the cookies do not get set, and they end up like 2o7.

Re: Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not w (2)

SuilAmhain (2819677) | about a year ago | (#44136339)

I do not want to sound like I agree with what is happening, but I don't see how anybody could trust for anything else to happen.

Google's core business is advertising through the 'best' data gathering and best data indexing. That's what they do. Everything else is tertiary and transitory.

Re:Case Study: Why the Cloud and Freeium do not wo (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44136359)

You're points are fine. But giving people 3 days notice? What if someone happened to be on vacation?

Yes it's free and you get what you pay for, but reputation is a fickle thing that can't be bought back no matter how much money Google spends...

Non-Google ads (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#44135559)

This is about Google eliminating non-Google adult ads on Blogger sites. A site has to have both adult content and adult ads to have a problem. Presumably the adult ads are not coming from Google.

Wordpress doesn't allow third-party advertising on their hosted blogs at all. Blogger probably does only for historical reasons. Google may be planning to transition all Blogger sites to Google ads only. Their pitch to new Blogger users suggests that new sites should only have Google ads.

If this bothers you, buy commercial hosting. It's really cheap to host a blog. Less than $10 per month.

Re:Non-Google ads (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about a year ago | (#44135833)

Ok, that makes sense, cause there's Fetlife (Imagefap with an event calendar),
Imagefap (Fetlife without a stupid event calendar), and sub-Reddits (I think that's the term) that fill the gap for people that want both porn and a friends list.

Re:Non-Google ads (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#44136109)

And if they're not careful they can wind up on the wrong side of an antitrust suit. Remember, that Google bought the number two ad network and at this point, there's relatively little competition between the ad networks because Google doesn't really need to compete. They've got so many eyeballs that there's little reason to go with the #2 network.

Re:Non-Google ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136331)

If this bothers you, buy commercial hosting. It's really cheap to host a blog. Less than $10 per month.

Somehow, this sounds strange to me. How is $10/month cheap, when a virtual server (2GB RAM, 50 GB storage, ...) is available for the same price? What do you get from a hosted blog that's worth $10? Usability?

Google abusing power as defacto gatekeeper (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#44135575)

IMO googles constant attempts to filter and block access to certain types of content via its portals is abusive. There is not a lot of competition in this field. Others exist, but Google is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla, compared everyone elses 20 lb lemurs. They become a defacto gatekeeper and while other routes may still exist, when google decides to not show something it effectively ceases to exist. This gives them a lot of power, leaves the wider internet using masses dependent on google's good intentions and desires as to what they will show. IMO google should adopt a totally neutral stance as that would be the most in line with the "do no evil" motto.

You get what you pay for (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135605)

You play on someone else's site, like Blogger, you are at their mercy. Even if they've been "nice" for years, that's never guaranteed to last.

If you want control of what you put on the net, buy a domain, and then either buy a hosting site or set up your own server. It may seem expensive, but it'll be yours.

Re:You get what you pay for (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135825)

No it won't. The company you're paying will still clam to be able to change your terms and conditions at will. You're completely at their mercy.

What do they have against Old people!!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135627)

I used to have an adult blog about elderly care - you know, old people don't like being called. It's "senior", "adult" or some other euphemism to help them not to feel that they aren't old. It' s good thing I don't have it now.

Then I once walked into an adult bookstore. I was exited! I wanted a book on Social Security, Long Term care insurance, retirement homes, and things like that. You know, adult topics.

What did I see!

Naked people having S-E-X! I asked the clerk, "Young man, were is the section on Social Security?"

And he took me over to this section where there were old people - 70+ years of age - having S-E-X! He mumbled something about Rule 34 or Section 34 or something....

I called my lawyer asking him if I were breaking the "34 law". He said, "Stop drinking!" and hung up on me!

But what does Google have against old people?! I'm gonna contact the AARP and organize a protest.

I'll get every adult and senior I know to protest Google about eliminating blogs about senior issues!

Related ? (5, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | about a year ago | (#44135715)

I have an old but popular personal website that's been running since 96 and using Google ads since the very beginning (2003? Can't remember). Two weeks ago I received a sternly written email that because there was ONE 'adult' picture on the entire site (700 pages), I had 3 days to remove it or adsense would stop. I thought it was some scam but it was the real deal. And yes, it was an artistic rendition of a breast as a mountain with minifig climbers on it. WTF, Google, you turning into baptist hypocrites or what ?!?

Re:Related ? (2)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year ago | (#44135819)

pics or it didnt happen

Re:Related ? (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44136385)

pics, but no ads apparently.

Re:Related ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135905)

Google seems to be really focused on specific kinds content these days, not on simply providing services to anyone who wants them. I find this rather worrisome. Google Glass has a no porn policy, this new limit to Blogger, the rather aggressively filtered safe search results (which for google.com can't be disabled anymore). Their attempts to control the content of the internet through restricting who can use their ads (which is not new at all), is clearly monopolistic abuse of power. Personally, I think they have taken this far enough that it might actually be illegal anti-trust territory.

Re:Related ? (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year ago | (#44135947)

it was an artistic rendition of a breast as a mountain with minifig climbers on it

Yes, yes, go on...

Google... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135735)

The new evil of the planet earth. Ten times more evil than M$ could ever be. Stop them before they screw us all over.

the real reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135789)

the gov't complained that its prism search results were polluted with irrelevant links to adult blogs covered with affiliate links to adult sites.

Google's Blogger To Delete All 'Adult' Blogs That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135795)

Google's Blogger To Delete All 'Adult' Blogs That Have Ads. Then Google's Blogger Will Surreptitiously Save All 'Deleted' 'Adult' Blogs In Google's Blogger's /home/sys/tmp/config/important_system_folder/stash Directory Even Though Google's Blogger Totally Assured Google's Blogger's Mom That All The Files Are Gone.

sage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135811)

Sex must be banned!
It is disgusting, violent, and unnecessary people does not deserve to breed!
And it is racist too: crowds out other races!

Come on people, let's wear a red belt around our waist, to proof our alliance in anti-sexuality!

Re:sage (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year ago | (#44136933)

Sex must be banned!

Sex is ok, but only with your single spouse for life, in the missionary position, with the lights off at night under the covers, without a condom.

Welcome to the Cloud (4, Insightful)

NReitzel (77941) | about a year ago | (#44135827)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends and Foes

Welcome to the Cloud. In Bad old Days, the phrase ran "All your Base are Belong to Us"

When you give up control of a media - be it television or radio or web sites or email - what you do with that media is by definition under someone else's control. If that someone else, Google or Microsoft or DPRK, object to the content for _whatever_ reason, you're kid of oout of luck. You can tweet or protest or moan about it, but the bottom line is this: That media is _theirs_ and not _yours_ and if you don't like what they do with their media, tough.

Richard Stallman has railed against "The Cloud" for years, and this is just but one of the reasons.

If you want an adult blog with adverts, buy a $500 computer and a $30 domain name and put up an adult blog. If it gets popular, buy more $500 computers. Or hire a place that rents raw compute resource, and put up _your_ web site.

I should point out that for years now, places like RackSpace have been claiming that the sites hosted there belong to their clients, not themselves. Their position is simple enough, and designed to prevent someone with deep pockets (RackSpace, for example) from being sued by some bluenose for hosting content that someone finds objectionable. Now, they can hardly do an about face and tell people hosting sites, "Oh No! We don't like -that- particular content."

A decade ago when it cost your firstborn to host a web site, using "The Cloud" made sense from a financial perspective. Now, for half a hundred dollars a month, and a sub-thousand investment in hardware, you can host your own web site, which will be picked up by search engines, and blog to your heart's content about whatever it might be you want to blog about.

I've looked at the Cloud from Both Sides Now... Screw it.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135995)

Where in the USA can you get a business class internet connection for 50 dollars a month? No standard connections allow servers.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136243)

I hate to say it but residential Comcast does allow you to run a webserver on a standard port (80/443) even though it is against their TOS to run servers. It is considerably more expensive than $50/month though. I imagine Google fiber is also an option where it is available.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136299)

No standard connections allow servers.

>implying you can't run a lightweight server (a blog, for instance) off of one anyway. Without anyone noticing or caring, that is.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44136433)

Where in the USA can you get a business class internet connection for 50 dollars a month? No standard connections allow servers.

I don't know about the USA, but here in rural Finland, I have 100/100Mbps fiber at home for about that price and run a web server. The service has no restrictions and no capacity limits. Last month, my webserver uploaded 348Gbyte, and this month will be about the same (343Gbyte so far). When I say there are no capacity limits, I mean it: our contract is silent on everything other than 100Mbit in each second; no ports are blocked or redirected by the ISP (however our firewall is configured to do a lot of blocking).

FWIW, there are no ads at all on our server. Its bandwidth is mostly used by people streaming or downloading videos of people dancing or riding horses.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (2)

Raenex (947668) | about a year ago | (#44136967)

Its bandwidth is mostly used by people streaming or downloading videos of people dancing or riding horses.

I didn't know horses could dance. No wonder you get so many downloads.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136275)

Now, for half a hundred dollars a month, and a sub-thousand investment in hardware

You're overpaying by an order of magnitude, bud.

Re:Welcome to the Cloud (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44136409)

uh, when did anyone have 'control' over television or radio? They're one way streams that you are entirely at the mercy of. Hell that's one of their 'features'.

Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44135839)

Now if only Google allowed hosting servers on your fancy Google Fiber connection you could host your sites from home.

Protip for hosting servers when not allowed to: Tor hidden services look the same as Tor client use from the ISP perspective. You can host them from behind NAT and firewalls.

good, its about time they did that (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#44135851)

there were several times i found what appeared to be a blog containing pics of ladies nudes and scantly clad posing to look at but not actual porn only to find it full of links to non-free porn from outside sources and some were downright malicious, yeah ill say google needs to clean that off of blogspot

Are my reading comprehension skills poor... (2)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#44135871)

or is everyone panicking a tad too much?

As far as I can read in the e-mail they send (pics all over the place), you will only have a problem if the ads are to adult websites/content, and not just "having ads".

Relevant Quote: After June 30th 2013, we will be enforcing this policy and will remove blogs which are adult in nature and are displaying advertisements to adult websites.

Of course, I'm aware of the issue of "what kind of ads am I supposed to display, then?". I have no solution for it.

Re:Are my reading comprehension skills poor... (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44136427)

and the 'in only 3 days' issue. There's absolutely no reason to force a very vague mandate on people with little to no notice.

Re:Are my reading comprehension skills poor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44137009)

or is everyone panicking a tad too much?

Welcome to the internet. There is absolutely, utterly, ultimately no possible amount of panic, outrage, or hatred that can ever be classified as "too much" here.

Opportunity knocks (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#44135927)

This is a chance for someone else to start a blogging platform for these sites to move to. Let's call it Flogger for the BDSM sites and Bangger for the heterosexual sites and so on.

Fucking British! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136103)

I bet they're mainly to blame with their crusade against web porn lately.

Just move on (1)

lcarnevale (1691570) | about a year ago | (#44136183)

Just do a backup of the blog and move to another service, Google isn't the only one free provider.

So long google, it was fun while it lasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136305)

Yet another service Google is pulling with little consideration of the users. This has become a very disturbing pattern. Google has a long history of killing products used by scores of people with little to no transitional support. Frankly, this is getting to the point where I'll be moving my domain elsewhere. I've been a google apps user for quite a while, but the competition is getting much more robust, while Google is getting less trustworthy and removing capabilities. It is becoming clear that Google is happy to put the user over a barrel if it means advertisers will pay more.

Google, what happened to you? What happened to "Do no evil?" The more you screw users in favor of the advertisers, the less people will use your products and services. Between the removal of iGoogle, lack of development of Google Voice (remember when it was Grand Central and ACTIVELY MAINTAINED BEFORE YOU BOUGHT IT AND DID NOTHING WITH IT?!), discontinuation of Reader, forced me into Google+ against my will, and now this? I mean seriously, the services I use keep getting closed down or stale, and you keep sharing my personal data. I am very near to my last straw. This is just another example of Google alienating its users. How many of these bloggers will quit Google after this? I know I would. Seriously Google, what will your advertisers pay once when your user base begins to shrink because users are tired of you monkeying with the services they've become dependent on? My guess is a fraction of what they pay today.

You get what you pay for. (0)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#44136395)

"...Blogger users are panicked and mad as hell at Google."

So, let me get this straight. Bloggers voluntarily choose to take the absolute cheapest path available online (i.e. free) to create a blog and post content online, and then have the unmitigated gall to get "mad as hell" when said free hosting provider decides to change the rules on the systems they control and pay for?

I have but one piece of advice for anyone bitching about any online free service. Get off your damn wallet if you want total control. It's that simple. Nothing in life is free.

COPPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44136863)

This is due to the new COPPA laws set for July 1, 2013 (stands for Children's Online Privacy & Protection Act)

I smell OPORTUNITY (0)

ChronoFish (948067) | about a year ago | (#44137023)

What a gift from Google.

Usually developers find themselves on the other side of this fence. Maybe back in 2003 you had your own Map Pinboard idea that you were trying to implement (I did), then suddenly Google Maps shows up in 2004 and within days (it seems) the entire Internet is set ablaze with Map Mashups.

That's the 200 Pound Google you don't want in your space. Because they have the resources, the smarts, marketing, and the followers to instantly drown out all other competitors in the area.

But when Google PULLS OUT this is a blessing. It's a void. And if you are a developer/small company, you need to jump on this QUICKLY.

1. There is a population of users clamoring for missing functionality
2. The big boys (Google) are leaving, not entering. the arena
3. Money can be made. Now go make it!

-CF

Re:I smell OPPORTUNITY (1)

ChronoFish (948067) | about a year ago | (#44137049)

stupid spell check was off....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?