More Lawsuits Against Google... To Protect The Children

from the just-think-of-the-children dept

Fri, May 5th 2006 1:12am — Mike Masnick

Can we come up with a name for anyone who declares that something needs to be done "for the children?" We're hearing that phrase way too often. The latest is that a county politician in New York has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging the company has sold advertisements to sites that promote child porn. This is a silly, self-promotional lawsuit, probably filed more for political reasons than anything else. Google's advertising platform is a self-serve platform -- meaning anyone can buy an ad without human intervention. Google does eventually review the ads, but most ads will go up quite quickly automatically. The law here is extremely clear: a service provider is not directly responsible for what people do on their platform. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act talks about this very issue, saying that the service provider should not be treated as the publisher of offensive material -- which pretty much puts Google in the clear. Furthermore, Google does do its best to remove any such links or ads and report them to the authorities. To suggest that the company "promotes and profits from child pornography" is ridiculous and shows a misunderstanding both of the law and how Google works.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

dorpus, 5 May 2006 @ 1:48am

Heh
We have a lawyer for Google, do we? Truth is, Google already set itself up for failure when it became a central repository for information, and the social responsibilities it entails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin Mesiab, 5 May 2006 @ 2:08am

Social Responsibility?
Google has no obligation to you or me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dorpus, 5 May 2006 @ 2:23am

Re: Social Responsibility?
Tell that to the vast hordes of techies who hate Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 5 May 2006 @ 2:57am

Extent of cda 230
First, 230 probably doesn't apply because none of the kiddie porn appears on any of Google's pages. The ads that Google runs on porn pages are not offensive, so it doesn't apply there either.

But more importantly, I don't think the law is as clear as you claim. 230 provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Personally, the phrase "interactive computer service" is a rarity, but it's probably better understood as definitely refering to ISPs (ie. those actually providing internet service, like an AOL) if you look at Congress' intent. My blog is an interactive computer service under the definition, but if I made another's kiddie porn available on it, I doubt a court would grant me an exception.
More power to Google if they could win that point though, because whatever Google can do with content on its sites I can do on mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SAM, 5 May 2006 @ 3:06am

RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
YEAH , IT'S TRUE THAT THE LAW AND THE PARTICULAR ACT MAY HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED AGAINST GOOGLE , BUT , IT'S ACTUALLY TRUE THAT STRINGENT LAWS HAVE TO BE PROPERLY MADE AND ADDRESSED TO CONTAIN CHILD PORN ONTHE NET.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Breithaupt, 5 May 2006 @ 3:26am

I'm going to sue British Telecom for allowing two robbers to plan a robbery of my house using a BT landline :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 5 May 2006 @ 3:35am

Lol
Haha that lawyer got pwned, sueing is getting way out of control, I mean that case where the robber sued the house owner because he fell through their roof.....then stop climbing on people roofs you moron. Its all stupid now!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 5 May 2006 @ 3:52am

On second thought, anyone else find it strange that WaPo runs an article on typosquatting and ads, and within a couple days Yahoo! gets sued for putting ads on parked pages and Google gets sued for improperly gaining ad revenues? The WaPo article was a load of garbage, but because of it I bet there are more lawsuits coming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fuzzix, 5 May 2006 @ 4:06am

Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
People who like stringent laws type all in CAPS. I'm sure there's a connection somewhere, I just need a little time to find it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DreadedOne509, 5 May 2006 @ 5:11am

Re: Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
Yes, it is called idiocy.

This goes back to many others articles, social woes and our laws. People want to blame everyone else for there own stupidity. It's my fault I didn't vote in some elections, and again my fault for voting for the wrong asshole in others. There, I've assumed blame for everything wrong in the world today. Sue me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mau, 5 May 2006 @ 5:28am

hilarious
Just hilarious...

And by the way the planning-a-robbery-over-the-phone comment... priceless.

And... WE DON'T NEED STRINGENT LAWS... I don't see me ending up like China (no offense, but I just don't)... we need smarter laws... and probably a bit of good parenting could also do the trick...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Topher31, 5 May 2006 @ 5:49am

Well, when you look into it
If you just read the headline, then you will be quick to say this is stuipid, or parents should be forced to raise their kids, not the internet, television or video games. etc etc etc.

But, if Google is selling advertising to child porn sites, this is another whole ball of wax.

I find that Google isn't selective in how they get their monies. If your a child porn website, Google will take your money and promote your website just like any other website. Google just wants money, they do not care about ensuring quality and acceptable content is promoted on the web.

Google allows phishing websites, websites filled with trojans and other viruses, and obviously now, child porn websites to proliferate on the web. These sites just pay Google X amount of dollars, and Google ranks their pages #1 and puts them first as sponsored links.

I DO NOT BELIEVE for one second that Google monitors these websites or removes illegal or inappropriate websites from their ad program. Face it, they don't care, its just more money for them. They might have guidelines and such, but this does not explain how these websites tend to always get ranked #1 and appear as sponsored links, even with searching for something completely unrelated.

Look, there are stringent laws and rules about advertising in newspapers, radio, and television. They can't have swear words in them, can't sell cigarettes or drugs (like in Canada, drug advertising is illegal), etc. A television, newspaper or radio station violating these rules may be fined, or even have their broadcast license revoked.

There needs to be these kinds of rules on the web. While you can't enforce the WORLD WIDE WEB with general rules, you can ensure companies like Google, who proliferate web advertising, can take more care to advertise for quality and appropriate websites.

Before speaking trash about this article, realize that Google does need to be taken down a notch or two. If they are not selective about who they advertise for, then they desever to be named in these kinds of lawsuits. Google can't just take peoples money and ignore the content they are trying to advertise, Google needs to take respect to become a RESPONSIBLE advertiser.

Google has this motto "Do No Evil", it doesn't say anything against spreading it around or being the axis of evil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 5 May 2006 @ 6:08am

Re: Heh
As a company, the only obligation Google has is to it's shareholders
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam, 5 May 2006 @ 6:17am

Re: Well, when you look into it
First of all, Google has no responsibility, social or otherwise, to clean up the internet. If there is child pornography online, Google isn't responsible for it. Google's search engine is fully automated, no human interference with what's rated first. As they've described before, Google's rating system is based not only on the pages relevance, but by the number of also relevant pages that link there. The ad system is also automated. It's a lot of work for humans to go through everything someone might want to advertise through Google. If they get complaints about one of their ads, then they can look for the ad in question, and remove it.

Why don't we go after the child pornography instead. If Google's really making it that much easier to find, use Google to find it, then remove the offending site. Don't blame the search engine for all the content on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drkkgt, 5 May 2006 @ 6:19am

How does he know?
Since Google ads are targeted to what you are searching for or off keywords on the page usually, I wonder how he came across these supposed ads?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eb, 5 May 2006 @ 6:20am

Re: Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
Perhaps because people who prefer stringent laws shout a lot IRL?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 5 May 2006 @ 6:23am

Since we are talking about google... here is something interesting to try... type "failure" into the search line and click on "I'm feeling Lucky"

Enjoy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 5 May 2006 @ 6:26am

With google, you have to search for somethign to see pertanent ads. So, to see child porn ads, you'd have to be .... searching for child porn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 5 May 2006 @ 6:30am

Blocking or taking down child porn will do nothing to protect children. Yes, yo uread that right, read it again if you don't believe me and keep thinking about it until you agree with me, because it is FACT.

cut the weeds, they'll just grow back in a few weeks. Pull out the roots, and they'll stay gone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mouse, 5 May 2006 @ 6:34am

TO TOPHER31
1. Stop look for child porn and you will stop seeing ads for it.

2. Learn to spell, use grammatic tenses and verb conjugations correctly.

3. Clearly you need to be taken down a notch or two yourself.

4. That is all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakov, 5 May 2006 @ 6:45am

Ignorant Politician
Honestly this guy is an efing morron. He has no redeming issues to push, so he is harping on "save the children" ohh yea, lets sue someone...google is big blame them. The case will get thrown out, but this dick has made his point got into the press that he is agains child porn -- NO EFIND DUH. So he can go on TV or radio and say I want to protect our children from evil websites and childporn and my oponent is a -- well a petifile. I HATE POLITICIANS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
U$ Courts Suck, 5 May 2006 @ 6:48am

Google is the new M$. I predict an anti-trust lawsuit around the corner. Billy boy should be loving life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Onit, 5 May 2006 @ 7:01am

Morning Coffee, Naked
You guys are the CRACK in my Coffee! Thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Axe, 5 May 2006 @ 7:02am

Whats the big deal?
Politicians have known since they first started out as snake-oil salemen that the harder you thump on the Bible the more people look your way.

Google is not innocent either. They're in the business of making money. No holds barred. It's an ancient concept in business to break the law and earn as much as you can before you get caught. The payouts and settlements you see in the News are only a fraction of what these companies have earned.

I sold my Google stock not because they no longer have a white vest or are profitable, but because they somehow pissed off some really powerful players that now have Google in thier sights.

As for the idiot politician, I'll pay $5 to anyone who publishes dirt on the jerk. That's about all it's worth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Getting Warmer, 5 May 2006 @ 7:26am

Totsquat
V. Totsquat:
1.) An attempt to further ones political or moral agenda by invoking the "for the children" argument. Commonly used by oppressive regimes to subvert a culture of freedom and personal responsibility.

2.) The act of squatting by a small diapered child for the purpose of relieving excrement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Loblaw, 5 May 2006 @ 7:35am

More
(impending sarcasm)

I think maybe Congress should address this issue with first an oversight committee. A group that could supeona the Board of Directors of Google and then each and every shareholder. Once they have questioned everyone of this group then they need to get someone who has nothing better to do with their time to come and answer more questions so the whole process can take at least 2 to 3 years.

And the questions need to be direct and to the point. Examples:

"Mr. Page- When did you start reading kiddie porn?"
"Mr. Rosenberg - Do you think it is fair that Google makes so much money and I don't"
"Dr. Schmidt - Was Penny Robinson as hot in real life as she was on TV?

And once this commitee is done they take the report that is generated (50+ pages) and make 10,000 copies of it and pass it around Washington DC to show everyone what a great job they did. And after 30 days of the report being releases everyone in the US forgets the report and nothing else changes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 7:37am

Re: TO TOPHER31
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lisa Foster, 5 May 2006 @ 7:41am

Responsibility
Suing Google would be like suing the phone company because of phone sex. Google is the medium, not the source. If there was no demand for pornography, then there would be no pornography. Look in the mirror. There is where the responsibility lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Curtis Edenfield, 5 May 2006 @ 7:45am

Lets all sue the world!
My back hurts because I was forced to work hard during my life. I'll sue all my former employers!
Gas prices are beyond my means to continue driving, I'll sue the Goverment for not regulating prices.

GOD hasn't provided in a manor that I believe in, I'll sue all releigons!!

Google needs to correct a problem that allows the lowest form of scum the ability to advertise. But suing them is not nessescary. I don't know the 2 guys that own google personaly, but I think if they where told of this problem instead of sued, they'd still fix this loophole.

Suing only costs money, not just the companies involved.
Court cost
Production loss
Lawyer Fees
All of this adds up an the effected company that has to pay for this wants to recoup thier losses so they increase the price of thier product. So we all end up paying for that lawsuit.

Instead of suing why not talk to the people that own the company and ask them to fix the problem, if this doesn't work then let the investors know. If that still doesnt work STOP using the product, if nobody buys or use's thier product that will get thier attention.

My 2 cents for common sense
Curtis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 5 May 2006 @ 7:54am

Re:
Well given 9/11 & the prevalent hate for GW I figured it would probably have something to do with GW when you typed in failure. People always look for the negative in the things they like or hate and GW is just extremely hated by Americans...why I'm not sure, he is ignorant and says a lot of stupid shit but damn I prefer him in office over Kerry.

I agree with south parks way of viewing politics you have two choices for who gets in office, neither of them are good as the majority of people who want to run for office have the worst qualities a person can have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wow, 5 May 2006 @ 7:59am

Re: Well, when you look into it
I'd have to say that your understanding of search engines is absolutely infantile. A search engine like Google does not have any human intervention at any point. It can't. The massive amounts of data and information that google provides is simply a portal to the rest of the internet. They don't whip up this content or purposely make it available, just as your ISP doesn't push porn on to your computer's screen, despite what you keep telling your wife and kids. Google's technologies like PageRank are completely automatic. So when you say that Google has a responsibility to filter what information they allow you might as well say that DVD player manufacturers should monitor what kind of DVD's are played in their machines. Google provides as much kiddy porn as they provide religious services. That is to say none, but you can find both on the web and Google provides a search service for the Web.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aixkami, 5 May 2006 @ 8:03am

great excuse
the "for the children" line is a favorite among politicians who want to strip our 2nd amendment rights too - it is a very politically expedient catchphrase. I have two children, and find both applications of the phrase ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 8:22am

Re: Re: Heh
right and exxon/mobile/etc has no obligation to safely transport oil across the world without spilling it into the ocean...they just have an obligation to their shareholders. get a clue idiot
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 8:27am

Re: Re: Well, when you look into it
why doesn't anyone get it ? google does have a responsability: to keep making money. how do they accomplish that ? by attracting users; if you piss enough people off and this becomes more of an issue (sure, maybe this is a molehill - i don't know), you open the door for your competitor to say: "Look, google doesn't care about your kids."

The customer is always right (@ least for large multibillion dollar companies like google) and alienating them will be their undoing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
discojohnson, 5 May 2006 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Heh
corporate ethics anybody? i'm not saying that google is doing a bad job, just that corporations have a responsibility for certain things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eb, 5 May 2006 @ 8:46am

Re: Re: Re: Heh
Corporate ethics are an even bigger joke these days than congressional ethics. Neither exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MagentaStudios.com, 5 May 2006 @ 8:50am

corporate responsibility
Yes, a company has a responsibility to provide it's product or service as advertised- it does not have a responsibility to pre-screen every ad submission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Curtis Edenfield, 5 May 2006 @ 8:53am

Re: corporate responsibility
Yes, a company has a responsibility to provide it's product or service as advertised- it does not have a responsibility to pre-screen every ad submission.

Spoken like a true Republican
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TB, 5 May 2006 @ 8:59am

Googling
The idea that companies only have responsibility towards their shareholders and not to the society at large is what got the world into the environmental and social mess it's in.
Either companies like Googles take it upon themselves to shape up or new laws will be inevitable, whether you want to call them stupid or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyber Kat, 5 May 2006 @ 9:07am

Children and the Internet
I can't understand why parents who wouldn't dream of dropping their children off on the corner of Broadway and 42nd St in NYC, think nothing of allowing them full, unsupervised access to the internet. It boggles my mind.

Time to wake up - the internet is not a babysitter like TV - it's a window on the whole wide world, and like the whole wide world some of it is fantastic, some of it sleazy and some of it down right dangerous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
grafer, 5 May 2006 @ 9:12am

Re: TO TOPHER31
Ease up on the dude. You're acting like your panties are in a WAD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 9:17am

PORN CHILDPORN lol rofl
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RoyalPeasantry, 5 May 2006 @ 9:26am

Can we come up with a name for anyone who declares that something needs to be done "for the children?"

We do, its Pedophile. Lover of children.

And mouse...
1. Stop look for child porn and you will stop seeing ads for it.

2. Learn to spell, use grammatic tenses and verb conjugations correctly.

3. Clearly you need to be taken down a notch or two yourself.

4. That is all.
You should listen to your own advice... Stop look for child porn indeed. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 5 May 2006 @ 9:29am

Evolution! Evolution! Evolution!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 9:40am

Re: Evolution
by Zeroth404 on May 5th, 2006 @ 9:29am

Evolution! Evolution! Evolution!

Maybe it should be Revolution! Revolution! Revolution!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Merchant Prince, 5 May 2006 @ 9:52am

Suggested Name for the "For the Children" Types
I suggest that we refer to these good people as "Pied Pipers" because, though they claim to be protecting the children, they are merely using this as a foil to force me to exist like an innocent child in a world that they control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
George Glass, 5 May 2006 @ 9:59am

not legally responsible
Of course Google has pissed people off:

1. They are a multi-billion dollar company and people don't feel bad giving them grief.
2. They are GOOD - and not everyone likes that.

They have plenty of money without having to accept ads for child porn - but they wouldn't have plenty of money if they had to check every ad. Like the DVD analogy - if you don't like it that your DVD player doesn't censor illegal content - then don't buy a DVD player!!! If you don't like the Google product, stop paying for it! Oh wait, it's free! Perhaps you would like to start paying for it now - so that it has 'better' censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blogismycopilot, 5 May 2006 @ 10:03am

Google is being educated,
The more succesfull something becomes the more it becomes a target. A target for one of the biggest oxymorons there is; political ethics.

"Can we come up with a name for anyone who declares that something needs to be done "for the children?" "[sic]'

How about an Acronym? PPS, (parasitic public servants).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Heh
I think the point is that a company doesn't have social responsibilities, merely legal ones. If a company's officers do not do everything legally within their powers to maximize shareholder profits, at least in the US, those officers are breaking the law. Thus, if the rule is that Google isn't responsible for the content with their automated system, they have to take the money.

"Do No Evil" went out the window when they went public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pongidae, 5 May 2006 @ 10:20am

Re: Re: Re: Heh
"right and exxon/mobile/etc has no obligation to safely transport oil across the world without spilling it into the ocean...they just have an obligation to their shareholders. get a clue idiot"

You're an �idiot� as well as an �anonymous� coward and obviously need a �clue� in the use of an analogy! Of course ExxonMobil (by the way, just one word and one company not 2 words or 2 companies and there is no e) has a responsibility to not spill oil into the ocean, they unlike Google control the product from extraction to the pump. In the same manner Google has the responsibility not to spill their search engine into your living room! Which, correct me if I am wrong, but they aren�t doing that, right?
Now using an interpretation of your analogy:
If you (anonymous coward) were to go to your local truck stop (your computer) hijack a truck (use Google) which happened to be an oil tanker (internet content, including porn) and then crashed that truck into your trailer (your search for kiddy porn) and spill the oil all over you double wide (finding child pornography that some one has hosted/posted). Whose fault is that?
1. Is it the fault of the truck stop (your computer maker / OS supplier)?
2. Is it the fault of the truck manufacturer or truck owner (Google)?
3. Is it the fault of the tanker manufacturer (the internet)?
4. Is it the fault of the earth for allowing oil to be created (the internet)?
5. Is it the fault of the idiot behind the wheel who stole the truck (your act of searching)?
6. Is it the fault of the idiot who bought the double-wide (the host and/or poster)?

If you guessed any combination other than 5 and 6, you probably should look at your self and stop trying to find a scapegoat for all you problems and all the ills of the world.
I can hear you now, �the Google made me do it�. Next thing you know you�ll be back to pointing at your neighbors and calling them "evil" and "Google user" and either drowning them or burning them at the stake because of their wickedness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Random Surfer, 5 May 2006 @ 10:45am

Re: How does he know?
When you buy an ad with Google, you select the keywords and how much you wish to "bid" for these keywords. So, if I wanted to, say, make sure my ad was showing to a lot of people, I might "bid" on the keyword "the." The cost for such a keyword would probably be high to be ranked number 1, but if I really wanted people to go to my site, I'd pay it.

There's a difference between "sponsored results" and the regular results. Normal results are based solely on page rank. Sponsored results are based on how much you're willing to spend per click.

I'm not saying Google is responsible for the content of website's advertised through their service (in fact, they even claim the opposite in their terms of service). I'm only saying the system is not as automated as you - and others - have made it out to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watu02, 5 May 2006 @ 11:12am

Re: Well, when you look into it
The comment that "Google needs to be taken down a peg or two" seems to be the main driver for this comment.

Size matters these days, it seems to attract mostly anger and envy.

Google seems way more responsible that Msoft, Yahoo and others who turned over access to private information to the Feds without even telling its users. Google at least brought it out in the open and fought it.

Are all automated, large scale systems to be outlawed or are they to we weighed against the good that they do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pongidae, 5 May 2006 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Heh
"right and exxon/mobile/etc has no obligation to safely transport oil across the world without spilling it into the ocean...they just have an obligation to their shareholders. get a clue idiot"

You're an �idiot� as well as an �anonymous� coward and obviously need a �clue� in the use of an analogy! Of course ExxonMobil (by the way, just one word and one company not 2 words or 2 companies and there is no e) has a responsibility to not spill oil into the ocean, they unlike Google control the product from extraction to the pump. In the same manner Google has the responsibility not to spill their search engine into your living room! Which, correct me if I am wrong, but they aren�t doing that, right?
Now using an interpretation of your analogy:
If you (anonymous coward) were to go to your local truck stop (your computer) hijack a truck (use Google) which happened to be an oil tanker (internet content, including porn) and then crashed that truck into your trailer (your search for kiddy porn) and spill the oil all over you double wide (finding child pornography that some one has hosted/posted). Whose fault is that?
1. Is it the fault of the truck stop (your computer maker / OS supplier)?
2. Is it the fault of the truck manufacturer or truck owner (Google)?
3. Is it the fault of the tanker manufacturer (the internet)?
4. Is it the fault of the earth for allowing oil to be created (the internet)?
5. Is it the fault of the idiot behind the wheel who stole the truck (your act of searching)?
6. Is it the fault of the idiot who bought the double-wide (the host and/or poster)?

If you guessed any combination other than 5 and 6, you probably should look at your self and stop trying to find a scapegoat for all you problems and all the ills of the world.
I can hear you now, �the Google made me do it�. Next thing you know you�ll be back to pointing at your neighbors and calling them "evil" and "Google user" and either drowning them or burning them at the stake because of their wickedness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ten, 5 May 2006 @ 11:28am

We are all responsible
Just like a taxi driver is responsible if he carries a terrorist that says "Hey, I am a terrorist and I am goilng to blow up a preschool today." The driver is responsible because he KNOWS the terrorist is going to do harm.
So say the terrorist has a bomb, and jumps in the car and says "take me to the preschool." The driver is still responsible!
If my neighbor has someone breaking into his house and he is out of town, and I see that guy, I am morally responsible to do something to stop it. Same with google.
I say, they are responsible for the sex-terrorist in their "taxi." because they can see the bomb and they are delivering the guy to the preschool. (ie home or computer.)
Ten
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bogamol, 5 May 2006 @ 11:34am

Re: Re: Re: RESPONSE TO ARTICLE
Maybe we should make it illegal to type in all caps.

;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 11:48am

Re: Heh
Google is not a repository for information. It is a pointer to all the other repositories of information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charlie potatoes, 5 May 2006 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: by joe
joe, you're the stupidest sum bitch that ever shit between two shoes. god love you and the rest of your 32%
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 5 May 2006 @ 12:29pm

Google is a search engine. anything it finds should not be its own liability. the ads though might be different.

Technically speaking, google is a metadata center. It only references sources. I have to tell that to the people I work for all the time. they keep saying "yahoo has our old company name, you need to change that." Imagine tryign to explain that to these technology ignorant people. now imagine trying to convince a court of that. judges and jurys should be carefully selected so that they know what the hell they're talking about, but thats another story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
etienne, 5 May 2006 @ 1:39pm

Re: google - failure
omg brain thats uber funny!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2006 @ 1:41pm

flame on, flame on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott (profile), 5 May 2006 @ 1:57pm

Re: Well, when you look into it
You do not believe for one second that google reviews their ads?

well you sir, are very ignorant.

I've been advertising on google since the day adwords launched. both normal sites and adult sites. I know from experience how strict they are and that everything gets reviewed by a human. It just takes a few days sometimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gordon, 5 May 2006 @ 5:32pm

Moron
after reading all of the comments here, i still think its a load of crap and he doing for publicity so he can voted for again. I sent him an email telling him what I thought of the suit and him. This is the address "Jeff.Toback@mail.co.nassau.ny.us"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary, 5 May 2006 @ 8:18pm

Re: Well, when you look into it
But, if Google is selling advertising to child porn sites, this is another whole ball of wax. I seriously doubt there are any actual websites that are giving away or selling child porn. They all seem to be regular adult porn sites that prime the search engines with "lolita", "preteen", "child porn", etc. I've spent a fair amount of time researching the legal issues around child porn, so I've done many google searches with the both the words "child" and "porn" in them. I almost never get a hit that seems to legitimately be offering child porn. I personally believe that the very few hits that at least seem like they could be legit are really government stings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SailorAlphaCentauri, 8 May 2006 @ 10:49am

Another name...
for those who claim to do all things "for the children" would be to call them sufferers of Lovejoy Syndrome, after Mrs. Lovejoy of the Simpsons who often cries "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 8 May 2006 @ 1:06pm

Re: Re: Evolution
Evolution! Evolution! Evolution!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 May 2006 @ 2:28pm

His name is Jeff Toback
I know the policitian's daughter....and she's the biggest jerk ever...so I can assume he's the same way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mystery, 2 Jun 2006 @ 8:38am

Re: Well, when you look into it
Hi,
I aM knowledge. Do not worry about gOogle. Use them to your advantage. Nobody will bring them dowm for the Judges are partial to Billionaires. But there is a catch 22 for such companies. it is Nature! Earth changes. California is in the path of destruction. Say good bye to the coast line, it is meeting a plate heading towards it frrom the mysteriouis Godly depths of the Pacific Ocean. Mexico and the coast of California will be attached by this plate and taken onto the Pacific ocean. Since tectonic plates have no disc brakes, you can imagine the destruction that will happen. The ancient prophecy that the Atlantic will meet the pacific will become fact.
So, then, any business in California is soon to be history.
Good bye Arniold Schwarzi, by pass heart vales and all. Good bye to Mexicans trying to enter the USA.

Back to my point. Make as much money as you can on adwords. Screw the vindictive asttitude of the employees at Google. They will all die.

We are also in the process of a two year draught coming into play. There will no food in the food stores as there wil grow nothing, absolutely nothing. If you do not have your own safe drinking water and a safe tract of land to grow your own food, raise you livestock, well my friends , i warned you. The cities are going to hell and are slowly disintigrating. By 2043 they will al be ruins. There will be no electricity either during that time. No electicity, no gas, no travel by car, and you arre stuck were it catches you. Earth is healing its body. If mankind tries to fight nature, they will loose. So now back to Google. They will disappear too. ha! So now, do you see why you must make as much mulla as you can to do what yopu have to to survive. But if you do not care or believe me, then go ahead and die. Nobody will remember you.
Love God and follow this wisdom. I am your friend even if you do not like what I say. Life will go on after the earth changes, but only for the radical few of God. Radical mean going against the accepted norm. PREPEARE AND SURVIV FOR THE GOLDEN AGE THAT WILL COME.
mYSTERY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mystery, 2 Jun 2006 @ 9:03am

Re: Re: Well, when you look into it
Hi,
let me point this out. A smart decadent guy like Larry Page (Ceo of Google) does know what goes on. He knows exactly wht his search engine is. Just as Napolean knew the name of every soildier in his army. Do not be so naive. Yes the search engine seems to have a life of its own. But that does not mean they do not know its content. They do. A mind is enormous and can hold untold amounts of information. i am that way myself. So I know. I love to lknow as much as I can. There is always room to know more. A mind has no boundaries.
I dared to critisize their double standard of values in adwords advertising. They promtply booted me out. So you see they do monitor. They also took away my substantial earnings for that time. So they are thieves also. How can they do this? By monitoring.
I am going to enlightine you. There a enormous data bases all over the world that collect personal information on US. Yes you and I. Big brother is trying to watch us. Do not ever give out your real name or brithdate unless you need a credit card or such.

Soon these big secret data banks will be destroyed by earthquales. Then we will ahve our privacy back. God does work in mysterious ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Israel, 15 Jun 2006 @ 8:25am

Re: Well, when you look into it
Your writing is very intelligent to me
I guess you're a Canadian.
God bless
You
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Preston, 3 Aug 2006 @ 1:34am

Child Porn - Google
I noticed that Google content ads were running on a NAMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) site in Germany - this group has a number of links to pedophile preteen sites and advocates abolishing the age of sexual consent so they can have sex with children at will.

When I reported this to Google, they said that I should just go and block the site and it was selected since that my site has similar content. Bullshit. I run a luxury travel company, nothing about sex or children!!!

It is hard to block site by site and but a bandaid solution. I disagree strongly with the author's contention that Google is not supporting child porn - they couldn't be bothered to delete the pedophile site from their list. My conclusions is that they do whatever makes $$$ - be it child porn or cooperating with repressive regimes with some of the worst human rights records in the world.

An objective conclusion. They are far WORSE than Microsoft. But oh so profitable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The_Old_Wise_Man, 16 Sep 2006 @ 11:27pm

Re: Well, when you look into it
Gentleman,

We are programmers and as such we try to get high ranking for our clients. Recently one of our clients domain has been dropped by Google for reasons which are totally idiotic and unethical - such as - having a black background on some table with black text. (there is no freaking text - just a picture in the table). As we all know Google is the largest SE and as such is vital for many businesses Internet viability.

At the same time their ethic does not allow to filter child pronography out of their Database Indexes - this is not only hypocracy but in my point of view bordering dangerously on criminality!!!

We programmers have elevated Google to its present position and nobody else, by promoting their purity and simplicity with the Internet community. This seems to be forgotten and Google now turns on us, who invest time, expertise and intellect to boost some poor bastards ranking to make a buck. - result is - you get banned.

They are best advised to review their policy of sensorship and rather invest more money on hacking- and virus protection.

90% of Internet viruses come through Google searches!!

Reason is in reality: make a search on any term on Google and apply the same phrase with MSN and one will find that Google results are many times more than MSN. The difference though is that MSN returns question specific results and Google brings in anything - so people are actually tricked into the believe that Google is better - the opposite is true. The same applies for the Google Search Bar - sometimes it stuffs up a browser and depending on Operating system is only removable if one does a micro-surgery.

This is unacceptable and Google has to keep in mind - that everyone is vulnerable on the Internet and if they cross the wrong people - well who made you - can bring you down!!

Short answer: Google - like Microsoft try to play GOD - in the end often tried - but never succeeded.

cheers to all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beth, 29 Mar 2007 @ 5:06am

internet porn
Google and all internet services provide the doorway for sexually
explicit material. And by not monitoring the substance that
goes through the doorway makes them a part of the problem.
It is really too bad that the internet has no boundaries and
it is so easy for children to be exposed to things that they are not ready to handle. Our internet society is destroying innate
innocence of children by easy and frequent exposure. Sexually
explicit material like that we can easily find on the internet is
not allowed in any other form of media--newspapers, television
radio and movies unless you are older, so why should it be on the internet? Believe it or not, the internet is a just another powerful media that everyone can see and they need to act
responsibly. Why shouldn't they do something about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
desmond francis, 18 May 2011 @ 7:03pm

accessability is to easy! Like Eve eating the apple!
[ link to this | view in thread ]