Google goes on the anti knife warpath again.

K

Knife Outlet

Joined
Jan 4, 1999
Messages
3,000
Google, the world's most popular search engine, is on the anti knife warpath again. A couple of years ago, they refused to take our "Ad Words" advertising because we sold butterfly knives and they didn't approve of them. We wanted to test "Ad Words" again this year so we hid all the butterfly knives and placed some advertising. This time they refused us because we sell knives termed as "tactical." I give up. They are simply anti-knife. It seems they could find more dangerous things to fight than internet knife dealers but I've never really understood liberal agendas so I'll remain baffled. Take care.
 
Google seems to be anti-gun too...but then...who isn't?:(

I've switched to alltheweb because of Google's "politics." I'm sure alltheweb may be politically incorrect (from my perspective) too. But, until I knw for sure, that's who I'm going with.
 
I used to like Google, now I think they suck! :) I guess they're afraid a minor would search for knives, order them, kill someone, and then the news would say "Minor finds knife on Google.com and stabs his teacher!"
 
Understand what's going on here:

When people run an internet search, they typically visit only the top fraction of the results. If they get back 100 hits, they'll probably only look at the first five to ten of 'em.

A substantial fraction of internet searches are people either looking to buy something or researching a purchase decision.

If you are an advertiser selling widgets, to be successful you've got to be sure that your site is in the top ten hits for "widget." It doesn't matter how good your product is or how good your price is if you're #50 on the list.

Search engines use a variety of criteria to determine the order of the results for a given search. A simple example might be the number of times that the search key word appears on a given site. So, if site A mentions "widget" 10 times, B mentions that word five times, and C only once, then A will be the first site on the results list, B the second, and C the last.

One of the criteria that Google uses to determine the order of results is how much money the site's owner has paid Google. This is how Google makes their money. Google allows advertisers to buy their way to the top of the listing of results for a search in a given category. And remember, Google is the most popular search engine on the internet.

This gives Google an enormous amount of power.

Google is -- always has been -- anti-knife and anti-gun. If you have a website and you sell flashlights and knives and some of those knives happen to be balisongs or "tactical" knives, Google will NOT allow you to buy a better listing in flashlights.

Remember, if you are an advertiser selling flashlights, to be successful you've got to be sure that your site is in the top ten hits for "flashlight." It doesn't matter how good your product is or how good your price is if you're #50 on the list.

Google penalizes the flashlight part of your hypothetical business because of the "tactical" knives they also sell.
 
Originally posted by Knife Outlet
Nobody told you Yahoo uses the Google search engine?
Click to expand...

At the end of last year Yahoo bought Inktomi and has been using that technology since January or so of this year.
 
It is only another form of censorship. It would be interesting to test their reaction to such nasties as tobacco and drugs etc. Those with the money and the technology will always have the power isn't that what freedom is all about???
 
I didn't try drugs or tobacco but I did try pornography and pornographers have no problem buying ad-words ads. Makes me squirm thinking they think I'm lower than a pornographer.
 
Google's explaination on balisongs is that they are illegal in some states. That's true.

Try a google search for "radar detector" an object which is illegal in some states. You'll see that they have gladly taken money from dozens of sites selling those dodgie goods.

I suppose that google's justification for restricting "tactical" knives, is that they want to keep those evil knives from hurting people.

I'll bet that more people are injured, more people are killed, and there's more property-damage is done every year by drivers who feel at liberty to speed because they've got a radar detector than by people with "tactical" knives.

The unquestionable conclusion is that google has a corporate anti-knife and anti-gun bias (Kalifornia company, don't you know). And they are trying to use their powerful position as the dominate internet search engine to promote that agenda.

Let's say that you want to buy yourself a nice, peaceful, politically-correct kitchen knife. Fred may have the best price out there on the knife you want. But, when you do your google search, Fred's site will be burried way down on the list because he couldn't buy the preferential treatment his compeditors could because he also sells "tactical" knives. That hurts the would-be buyer of that nice, peaceful, politically-correct kitchen knife.

What the managment of google has done is introduced their personal political agenda into the algorithm that determines the results of internet searches.

I find that offensive and abusive.
 
google uber-sucks. they used to be very sleek and fresh, compared to other sites. now they're the MTV of search engines. that's right, you heard me! MTV. *shudder*

abe m.
 
I find http://www.ixquick.com/ works fine for me.

Go there and Search for "butterfly knives" for example. You'll find the first two entries are Sponsored Results. They're at the head of the line, but identified as having paid for the privilege.

Now Search for "handguns". Same routine: you get both clearly marked Sponsored Results and lists by search criteria.

Unlike Google, they don't try to impress you with thousands of minimally interesting sites, page after page, or endless repetitions of a few. You generally get about 40 best possibilities.
 
We have 19,000 members here. One email from each of us to "Google Central".....? (At least they'll know we're alive!) ;)
 
Originally posted by cockroachfarm
We have 19,000 members here. One email from each of us to "Google Central".....? (At least they'll know we're alive!) ;)
Click to expand...

let's just be sure to do it all at the exact. same. time. BWA HA HA HA HA!!!

abe m.
 
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – Popular search engine Google is not winning any big fans of guns and ammunition this week after ruffling the feathers of a federally licensed firearms dealer in Connecticut by refusing to promote his gun advertisement.

The search engine is being accused by the gun dealer of favoring porn over the federally legal sale of guns on the Internet, and for promoting adult content that can be harmful to children.

The arms dealer, Rick Millo, owner of Valley Firearms, was completely unaware of Google's policy against gun ads and favoritism of porn when he subscribed to the Google AdWords service, which runs paid advertisements for businesses alongside search results that are relevant to the advertisement's keywords.

A Google search for words related to "porn" typically yields 95 pages of porn sites that are accompanied by paid porn-related advertisements in the right hand column. A search for guns yields many pages of search results, but none of those pages have paid ads.




Millo was incensed by the search engine when it suspended his advertisement promoting his used gun sales and auction business. According to Millo, Google was the one that provided him with the recommended keywords to promote his ad and then changed its tune completely.

Millo's ad made a brief appearance on AdWords before being pulled. The gun seller received an email from Google informing him that his ad had been suspended and that a Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'firearms and ammunition.'

"As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site," the Google email stated. "This content is not permitted as ad text or keywords. We do not allow ads for websites that sell guns or related products."

Google further stated that it does not edit the content on its search engine, but that it reserves the right as a privately held company to determine who its advertisers are.

Millo's particular beef is that when porn advertisements are clicked through on the right side of a search page, very often the user is sent directly to hardcore porn links, which Millo contends could be harmful to kids. According to Millo, his gun business is federally approved, one hundred percent legal, and provides "law abiding products" for the general public.

"They [Google] are protecting the First Amendment by protecting porn companies, but when it comes to guns, they are desecrating the Second Amendment by refusing to feature gun ads," Millo told XBiz. "They obviously don't feel that pornography is a bad thing, but guns are."

"What's to keep a fourteen-year-old from seeing hardcore porn linked to those ads?" Millo asked XBiz. "Minors are breaking the law by clicking on those porn sites and Google is doing nothing to control it."

Millo has since turned his advertising needs to Overture, an affiliate search engine belonging to Yahoo!, although he is still waiting to hear whether Overture's advertising policies are gun-friendly.

"We sell a legitimate legal product to adults and Google's mentality is discriminating against an entire industry," Millo added.

Google spokesperson David Krane was not available to speak with XBiz, although he submitted this statement on behalf of his company: "Google believes strongly in freedom of expression and therefore offers broad access to content across the web. The decisions we make concerning advertising in no way affect the objective search results we deliver. Google's search results will continue to display information about guns and related products."
 
What in the hell ever happened to good ole capitalism? Anybody that thinks it's the vast right wing conspiracy, or the liberal agenda, or the absence of family values, or krishnainsanity that is eroding our country as a nation is deluded. We, the people, have lost the power of self determination because special interest groups of all sizes and shapes, of every political race, creed, and color, and from every direction, have bought our rights. The ones that are best at it buy the Presidency because we let them, period. It all trickles down from there, throughout the legislature, into the judiciary, and ends up all over us, in the form of laws and regulations paid for by fees and taxes on the common man. So sad, too bad, get used to it. And don't forget to vote for YOUR special interests. After all, getting raped by the person of your choosing is better than getting raped by another, isn't it? Did you really think Google was any different than your Congressman? Are you so naive as to believe that either will do the RIGHT thing? What time do the Bulldogs play today, anyway?
 
Hello stitch,

The problem with complaining about special interest groups is that there are good and bad ones. What is wrong with a group of like-minded people with strong concerns about an issue getting together and trying to influence politics? The NRA is a special interest, for example. The Christian Coalition is also a special interest. It is not just evil corporate lobbyists who are trying to take power away from the people, although those guys do exist and cause alot of harm.

I belong to an organization that is fighting against corporate outsourcing and the import of H1B immigrants to take jobs from Americans. Steve Gates is lobbying for the right to outsource, and bring in more Third World immigrants at low wages to put Americans out of work. In my opinion, my organization is good and desperately needed to reduce unemployment and prevent the US from becoming a Third World country. I won't say what I think should happen to Steve Gates and his kind.

Anyhow, when you criticize special interests, remember that not all of them are bad. You may even be a member of a special interest group yourself.
 
Frequently, we see people who think that being a successful and maybe even talented actor, musician, entertainer, etc., somehow suddenly makes one an expert on foreign policy, national security, economics, pharacology, medical ethics, criminal justice, etc. And these people try to exploit their celebrity to force their political agenda on everyone else.

Similarly, Google seems to feel that buliding a successful internet search engine somehow qualifies them as experts in criminal law, sociology, etc. And they are trying to exploit their position as the dominate internet search engine to force their political agenda on the world.
 
Originally posted by Gollnick
Frequently, we see people who think that being a successful and maybe even talented actor, musician, entertainer, etc., somehow suddenly makes one an expert on foreign policy, national security, economics, pharacology, medical ethics, criminal justice, etc. And these people try to exploit their celebrity to force their political agenda on everyone else.

Similarly, Google seems to feel that buliding a successful internet search engine somehow qualifies them as experts in criminal law, sociology, etc. And they are trying to exploit their position as the dominate internet search engine to force their political agenda on the world.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but they have every right to do this.

Regarding celebrities, very few people believe that actors and musicians are "experts" at anything besides acting and music. They have opinions on issues like anybody else. In just about every living room in this country you can find people discussing and debating these very same issues. The only difference is that when famous people talk, people gather around and listen.

If I am the owner of an automotive magazine, and for some reason I have a negative opinion of Toyota, I am under no obligation to accept ads from Toyota. As far as I am aware an internet search engine is the same way. Just like a restaurant can decide to deny you service for not wearing a tie to dinner, Google can decide to refuse somebody's money for any reason. That's the other side of "good ole capitalism".

It is not necessary for them to be "experts" in anything in order to determine what advertising they will accept. And considering the many altermative search engines that are available they are not really capable of "forcing" anything.

Now, do I personally think that this is a bad policy? Yes.

Do I use Google? Not anymore.

Would I like to see Google be more friendly towards knive and gun purveyors? Of course.

But do I see it as being part of an evil plot orchestrated to force their crazy California politics on the rest of the country? No.

Do I blame them for having their business dealings reflect their moral understandong? Not at all, even if I do disagree with that understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top