Google forced to accept anti-abortion advertising

[Kernel Sanders]

I celebrate your ability to be naïve, I really do.

It is painfully obvious that a service such as Google should be following basic equality rules. We're all manipulated by advertising (even if we're too panic-stricken to admit it) and that ensures that equality of access is vital. Its still going to twist us (given the differences in advertising budgets), but at least basic f-wittedness is avoided

The biggest effect of advertising is awareness, not influence - and that's when talking about mufflers. Forget an emotional, opinionated issue like abortion on which people already have strong views. Do you really think that even a single person has changed their view on abortion because of something they saw on the side of a google search? Google ads are not a forum for the free exchange of ideas, are not a valid informative source, and are not a journalistic source or any other kind of medium that should have equality pounded into it.

Even if you accept the ludicrous notion that people pull their abortion stance from web ads, why should google be forced to provide equality of viewpoints? The FCC doesn't consider the Fairness Doctrine worth enforcing even for informative, journalistic sources such as news agencies. You seriously think that electronic billboards need to be held to a higher standards than the "News"?

 

[Scucca]

Do you really think that even a single person has changed their view on abortion because of something they saw on the side of a google search?

Its not for me to tut at people. I can only support the simple principle: equal access to advertising mechanisms. I'd of course love to see the diseased thinking of the anti-choice cretins wiped off the online map, but I'd be going against my principles if I supported open manipulation

You simply underestimate the importance of equality

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Its not for me to tut at people. I can only support the simple principle: equal access to advertising mechanisms. I'd of course love to see the diseased thinking of the anti-choice cretins wiped off the online map, but I'd be going against my principles if I supported open manipulation

You simply underestimate the importance of equality

Equality is indeed important, but less basic and less important than the right to free speech. If you're going to tell google that they either can't display certain ads or that they must display certain ads, you better have a damned good reason. Banning ads inciting violence, good reason. Banning ads declaring that company XX is about to file for bankruptcy (current-events version of "FIRE!"), good reason. Dictating what content Google is allowed to show because maybe it might influence somebody's opinion on something somewhere at some time - doesn't even come close to cutting it.

If you really think that Google should be forced to give equal access to all points of view, does that extend to racist viewpoints? Do neo-nazis have the right to have anti-Semitic ads come up when people search for local Synagogues? What about sites advocating suicide? Should Google be forced to allow their ads to come up for searches for depression? If not, where's the line? Should we have a national handbook of acceptable opinions? Or maybe we should leave it up to Google to decide what is displayed on Google search pages.

 

[Scucca]

Equality is indeed important, but less basic and less important than the right to free speech.

Given the importance of advertising (and its really not a good idea to dismiss its importance!), they really aren't distinct.

If you really think that Google should be forced to give equal access to all points of view, does that extend to racist viewpoints?

Anything legal.

Clearly we won't be finding common ground. You support, without knowing it, insidious manipulation. I do not. Other than that, I don't think we have any celebration of each other's comments to enjoy. Have a good'un though!

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Given the importance of advertising (and its really not a good idea to dismiss its importance!), they really aren't distinct.

It's also not a good idea to make policy choices based on the idea that the ignorant masses draw their values from a URL with two lines of text over it. If you do you may make decisions like those that trample on the right to free speech in the name of stamping out "insidious manipulation," that in a realm as strong and emotional as abortion would have about as much effect as PeteEU's opinion on the US election

And if you do plan to force equality in advertising, how do you determine equality. Does google have to ensure that each and every opposing viewpoint has an equal percentage of ads? Does every search for "Jew" need to have an ad from a neo-Nazi group for every ad from an actual Jewish group?

Anything legal.

Last time I checked racism was legal. Are you saying that Google has no right to refuse to show KKK ads when searching for the "I have a dream speech" (to pick an example that would come up often for school children)? It would be nice if you responded to one or two of these examples rather than editing them out of your quotes and making general, theoretical statements about "insidious manipulation"

Clearly we won't be finding common ground. You support, without knowing it, insidious manipulation. I do not.

I don't support any kind of manipulation, but I recognize that Google has the right to manipulate people if they damn well please (not that that's what their doing. Manipulation is much, much, too strong a word for "not showing pro-abortion ads" - but I'll play along). It's their website and they can have it be fair and balanced if they choose, or to be racist, sexual, and violent if they choose. Equality is a nice thing to strive for, but it cannot come at the expense of free speech. The government has zero authority to dictate what content Google can have on google.com, and I wouldn't want to live in a nation where it does.

Other than that, I don't think we have any celebration of each other's comments to enjoy. Have a good'un though!

Oh cmon - this is fun :mrgreen:. Why are you on this site if not to have long conversations with people with whom you know you'll never find common ground?

 

[Scucca]

Oh cmon - this is fun :mrgreen:. Why are you on this site if not to have long conversations with people with whom you know you'll never find common ground?

I make a distinction between basic principles and general spit'n'spat. The former, once positions are presented, can only lead to arseyness in the bitch stakes. I'll therefore sadly recognise your position but celebrate that Google were forced to change. And of course type insidious one more time for the crack!

 

[danarhea]

welcome to fascist America

You meant Stalinist, didn't you?

 

[Bodi]

Source [The Independent | Google forced to accept anti-abortion advertising]



I don't think that Google should refuse to allow ads due to political opinion (mostly), but I also don't think they should be forced not to. Who's to say where the line is drawn if Google can't use their discretion when it comes to politically motivated ads. If Christian groups have the right to have anti-abortion ads come up for abortion searches whether Google likes it or not, does the KKK have the right to have racist ads come up for race-related searches?

The Equality Act is a UK law, so I don't know what its intentions or enforcement is, but I think Google should be able to refuse the ads if they want to

This is a joke. The Christians that sued should form their own Search Engine and force competition instead of whining and doing something cowardly like suing Google. IMO, this goes to character, and the Christian groups suing are showing little of it.

Whatever happened to competition? Personal Responsibility?

What is with the idiot judges that are fuining freedom with all this crap about being PC?

I swear, this world is going to hell in a handbasket. :2razz:

 

[RightinNYC]

You meant Stalinist, didn't you?

Or socialist, or communist, apparently.

 

[obvious Child]

Without a policy based on equality (i.e. "I'll take your money as long as its legal"), they're promoting manipulation. An insidious form no less! Word of the day for me

Why does Google have to have a policy based on equality? Why should a firm be forced to deal with everyone? Ever see those signs? "We reserve the right to refuse service."

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

Source [The Independent | Google forced to accept anti-abortion advertising]



I don't think that Google should refuse to allow ads due to political opinion (mostly), but I also don't think they should be forced not to. Who's to say where the line is drawn if Google can't use their discretion when it comes to politically motivated ads. If Christian groups have the right to have anti-abortion ads come up for abortion searches whether Google likes it or not, does the KKK have the right to have racist ads come up for race-related searches?

The Equality Act is a UK law, so I don't know what its intentions or enforcement is, but I think Google should be able to refuse the ads if they want to

Its descrimination against a group based on religion. Its no different than discrimination against the NAACP on the basis of race.


The Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits descrimination of services based on religion, however, it does not extend that right to hateful racists, ie a group without an official religious affiliation. I guess you could get technical and make up some sort of kkk "religion" which then would have rights but that hasn't happend yet.

Problem solved and the law is aleady in place. Cmon people that was an easy one.


Nobody really seems to care that much about advertising censorship anyway. Has anyboy ever seen a cigarette commercial on TV? Not since ive been born at least..

 

[Jerry]

Source [The Independent | Google forced to accept anti-abortion advertising]

I don't think that Google should refuse to allow ads due to political opinion (mostly), but I also don't think they should be forced not to. Who's to say where the line is drawn if Google can't use their discretion when it comes to politically motivated ads. If Christian groups have the right to have anti-abortion ads come up for abortion searches whether Google likes it or not, does the KKK have the right to have racist ads come up for race-related searches?
The Equality Act is a UK law, so I don't know what its intentions or enforcement is, but I think Google should be able to refuse the ads if they want to

Oh here we go...Christianity = the KKK....I've already stopped listening to your argument with that alone.

 

[ARealConservative]

Oh here we go...Christianity = the KKK....I've already stopped listening to your argument with that alone.

that wasn't even remotely what he was insinuating

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Oh here we go...Christianity = the KKK....I've already stopped listening to your argument with that alone.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the Christian groups have the right to have their message heard, does the KKK? If any group has the inherent right to have their ads wherever they want, then every group does regardless of whether their message is socially acceptable or not. Care to start listening again?

 

[obvious Child]

I still fail to see a reason why Google cannot exercise the basic right to refuse service to those it does not want to provide service to.

Should you be free to walk into a store naked and demand service despite the "No shoes, no shirt no service" signs?

Should you be free to walk into a club that has a strict dress code?

Should you be free to ignore whatever legitimate rules a private firm has because you want to and force them to provide you a service or product against their wishes?

 

[Jerry]

that wasn't even remotely what he was insinuating

That's exactly what he's insinuating.

Watch him do it again:

That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the Christian groups have the right to have their message heard, does the KKK? If any group has the inherent right to have their ads wherever they want, then every group does regardless of whether their message is socially acceptable or not.

Why use the KKK for your random example? Why do you pick a racist group who promotes racial genocide and white supremacy to equate to a religion which promotes forgiveness and selfless service?

Care to start listening again?

Use a similar example and sure. Keep going with your 'the first thing Christianity makes me think of is the KKK' bull**** and no.

 

[obvious Child]

I have to agree with jerry here with a caveat. It does sound like sanders considers the KKK similar to Christanity in groups advertisers would wish to avoid. Sanders may not have intended that, but it does sounds like it.

 

[Jerry]

I have to agree with jerry here with a caveat. It does sound like sanders considers the KKK similar to Christanity in groups advertisers would wish to avoid. Sanders may not have intended that, but it does sounds like it.

This, by far, is not the first time Christianity is automatically associated with radical murderers.

I recall Hillary trying to make the point that if we allowed Christian schools to receive funding under a voucher program, that we would necessarily also have to give funding to radical Islamist schools.

Of course, the solution there is to abolish the radical schools, but try telling Hillary that.

I'm just sick of it.

 

[OKgrannie]

This, by far, is not the first time Christianity is automatically associated with radical murderers.

I recall Hillary trying to make the point that if we allowed Christian schools to receive funding under a voucher program, that we would necessarily also have to give funding to radical Islamist schools.

Of course, the solution there is to abolish the radical schools, but try telling Hillary that.

I'm just sick of it.

In case you haven't heard, the BoR gives all citizens the right to believe and worship as they choose and unfortunately, some of them choose radical beliefs. Radicals come in all flavors, Islam, Christian, and others, but they all have a right to believe what they want and teach their children as they choose. Hillary was right that we cannot as a nation give funding to teaching only one religious point of view and be in compliance with the Constitution.

I believe that voucher proponents claim, in order to circumvent the Constitution, that voucher money goes to the parents, not the school, and that parents have a right to choose the school. That would apply even if the school is radical some-religion-you-don't-like.

 

[Jerry]

In case you haven't heard, the BoR gives all citizens the right to believe and worship as they choose and unfortunately, some of them choose radical beliefs.

Holy ****! No way!

Radicals come in all flavors, Islam, Christian, and others, but they all have a right to believe what they want and teach their children as they choose.

Sure. They have every right to stay in a cave or compound, believe as they wish and keep to themselves.

Hillary was right that we cannot as a nation give funding to teaching only one religious point of view and be in compliance with the Constitution.

Ah, so you're under the impression that only 1 religion is practiced in America.

I believe that voucher proponents claim, in order to circumvent the Constitution, that voucher money goes to the parents, not the school, and that parents have a right to choose the school.

Yes of course, it must have to do with circumventing the constitution because absolutely no one in America is interested in improving schools or freedom of religious practice. You're right.

That would apply even if the school is radical some-religion-you-don't-like.

When "radical" = "terrorism" the school is to be closed. Hillary would be the one to ignore the point to keep the power centralized.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

While I am pro-life, not pro-abortion, I think that google can do whatever it wants in advertising.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

That's exactly what he's insinuating.

Watch him do it again:


Why use the KKK for your random example? Why do you pick a racist group who promotes racial genocide and white supremacy to equate to a religion which promotes forgiveness and selfless service?



Use a similar example and sure. Keep going with your 'the first thing Christianity makes me think of is the KKK' bull**** and no.

Again, I am in no way shape or form equating the church to the KKK. I chose the KKK because it is 100% diametrically opposed to the church. My point is that it's easy to stick up for the rights of a group that people generally see in a favorable light. But if what we're talking about is the church's right to be heard, that right also applies to groups that people see in a bad light. If the church (a non-evil, generally agreeable entity) has the right to force its ads on google than the KKK (an evil, non-socially acceptable entity) also has that right.

If you still think that I'm drawing any comparison between the KKK and the church (except to say that they are complete opposites), I guess this conversation is done. You're obviously so blinded by anybody saying anything that you can twist and pervert into being negative about the church (even when it clearly isn't), that intelligent conversation with you is impossible. Mentioning the KKK and the church in the same sentence does not mean I am comparing them, unless your intent is to derail debate

 

[Jerry]

You're obviously so blinded by anybody saying anything that you can twist and pervert into being negative about the church (even when it clearly isn't), that intelligent conversation with you is impossible.

Even without your likening Christianity with the KKK, this quote ends any hope for civil debate.

 

[obvious Child]

This, by far, is not the first time Christianity is automatically associated with radical murderers.

I recall Hillary trying to make the point that if we allowed Christian schools to receive funding under a voucher program, that we would necessarily also have to give funding to radical Islamist schools.

Nice exaggeration. She obviously mean to Muslim and other religions. Which would be mandated under the 1st amendment. You cannot give one religion money for schools and not give to another.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Even without your likening Christianity with the KKK, this quote ends any hope for civil debate.

No worries. You ruled out intelligent debate long ago