Google Gets Prude: Says No More Adult Content On Blogger
from the paternalistic-nonsense dept
Apparently, Google is getting prude in its old age, suddenly deciding that it will no longer allow "adult" content on its Blogger platform, giving bloggers on the site just 30 days to find another home or have their content set to private. Here's the note that some bloggers received yesterday:Of course, as Violet Blue notes, this is only the latest in a long line of moves by Google to stifle, hide or block any content that is sexual in nature. Here's just a snippet of a much longer piece by Blue, detailing the timeline of recent decisions by Google, all of which push content the company deems inappropriate further and further away:
It was one thing when Google Plus rolled out in June 2011 with a strict anti-adult, no sexual content policy for its troubled attempt at a social network; many of us just didn't bother participating, knowing how the content-policy ax always falls (not on the side of artists, writers, activists, LGBT people, or cultural outsiders who speak up).I'm sure there are plenty of good business reasons why Google no longer wants to have this kind of content available on its site, but it's disappointing on multiple levels. It's not "censorship" in the classical sense, but it does seem like a really bad move by Google. It's a company that should know better, and often holds itself up as enabling more speech around the globe, and avoiding making any sort of "artistic" decisions on the worthiness of content. It is immensely troubling that this company now suddenly wants to determine which content it thinks is "appropriate" and which is not, not based on any legal requirements, but on a very subjective standard. Facebook did this sort of thing from early on in doing ridiculous things like banning "breastfeeding" images, and one would hope that Google would take a more reasonable stand. On top of that, giving people just 30 days to figure out where to go, when many have built up their blogs for over a decade just seems tremendously callous.But Google began its palpable aggression against erotic content in June 2013 when Google banned adult content from Google Glass apps, as well as enacting an affiliate porn purge across its Blogger platform.
December 2013 saw Android's Google Keyboard updated to exclude over 1,400 "inappropriate" words, returning no results for typing or swiping words including "intercourse," "lovemaking," "condom," "panty," "preggers" and "STI."
In February 2014 adult and erotic content was banned from Chromecast, followed by March 2014's ban and purge of adult and erotic apps from Google Play (Android's app and media hub).
April saw an ongoing series of Google Search algorithm updates that savaged existing adult website rankings, causing major disruptions in traffic and revenues for many websites.
So it's no surprise that many people believe that Google won't uphold its "freedom of expression" stance when it comes to organic adult search results.
Google is a private company and can make its own choices, but this one seems like a particularly bad choice, which may have other consequences as well. For years, Google has pushed back on demands from copyright holders to magically monitor all its content, saying that it's just not possible. Yet, here it is now saying that it's willing to do exactly that, including making "artistic" judgments on the merits of whether adult content is purely prurient or done for a more artistic or educational reason. The company seems to be opening itself up to charges that if it can make such determinations for that type of content, it can also magically figure out what other content is "infringing" or not. This seems like a move that the company will regret.
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
Filed Under: adult content, blogger, blogs, prude, sexual content
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good
If this move causes them some serious headaches dealing with the fallout, all the better, they deserve it for yanking the rug out from those that have been using their platform in such a short period of time, and for a reason that seems to have nothing to do with legal obligations, and everything to do with the prudishness of whoever is making the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
The check of 'sexual' in nature though is a check on the actual content itself and thus is a more doable proposition. And doubly so since this isn't a legal issue, just their choice. They can make mistakes without the threat of massive RIAA/MPAA lawsuits.
Still a sad tack on the part of Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
According to common sense and logic, yes. However, those that have been pushing to turn Google into their unpaid copyright policing force insist, constantly and without end, that it's 'easy' to spot infringing stuff, as you 'know it when you see it'.
As such, with Google restricting one kind of content, you can bet they will insist that they do so with other kinds of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
But that check requires a judgement call on the part of the one doing the censoring. Google says that they'll allow tasteful or artistic nudes, or nudity that serves a public purpose. There is no objective way to make those determinations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They seem to be quite content on returning the world to the era of Victorian morality; where sex is evil and needs to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That show as just as much, if not MORE sex than it does violence.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Graphic violence? Not a problem. Graphic sex? Huge problem. Societal priorities are so very screwed up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Intercourse" and "condom" are erotic words now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Intercourse" and "condom" are erotic words now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human intercourse
It is disturbing and revealing that Google's policies can so easily be altered to conform to a social norm as regarded by a narrow demographic without some kind of committee intercept. This suggests that any of Google's services can be subject to sweeping changes without fair regard of the rights or needs of long-term users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human intercourse
Maybe that explains why it is that when I encounter the word "intercourse", sexual intercourse is not the first thing that pops into my mind.
Also why I can get laughs from certain crowds by commenting that I engage in intercourse hundreds of times every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Human intercourse
Probably the same group of people who blush when you tell them you masticate a bunch several times a day. I masticated this morning during breakfast, then again around lunch time, and will probably do it again around dinner time. Sometimes I even masticate in my sleep, though my dentist gave me something to prevent that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human intercourse
The Nym wars already proved that in spades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Intercourse" and "condom" are erotic words now?
Yeah, does'nt quite seem to roll of the tongue exactly does it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violence?
as long as the naughty parts of the bodies are all covered up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence?
And that doesn't count the myriad of news videos on YouTube that are already edited for the newscaster 'featuring' violent and/or sexual situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not government censorship, but it's most definitely censorship. People use Google's services to communicate, but they aren't allowed to say particular things. When those who control a channel others use to communicate end up suppressing particular kinds of speech, it's censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
Do they have the right to censor? Sure... it's their ball, they can take it and run home crying. But, then they DON'T get the right to wear the great "internet freedom" hat they grew into popularity wearing.
The early, lean and mean beast that stood up against the status quo and dared to innovate is GONE... they're just another mega corp now - the only difference between them and Apple is the way they lace up their jackboots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship
It is not censorship in the "it violates the First Amendment" sense. I suspect that's what he meant.
"then they DON'T get the right to wear the great "internet freedom" hat they grew into popularity wearing."
They took that hat off years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Historically, this is a bad policy.
And so Beta failed while VHS became a standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Historically, this is a bad policy.
Sony wouldn't allow a lot of things, like other manufacturers to manufacture the BetaMax tapes, while JVC allowed just about anyone who would pay the low licensing costs to manufacture their own VHS tapes. The result was that VHS tapes and players/recorders were far less expensive than BetaMax. Nobody is going to spend $999 on a Sony BetaMax VCR, especially when they can buy a Sharp VHS VCR for $60.
JVC won the battle by being cheaper and far more open and non-controlling, and Sony learned to be less of a dick when the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle appeared on the horizon years later (though, they are Sony, they will always be dicks...they learned their lesson and saturated the market with Blu-Ray players which helped them win that battle.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When security feels like a given, it is difficult to see the need for more centralization of powers and when you are economically more than living on sustenance limit, it is hard to see the value of us versus them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did i miss something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A better strategy for Yahoo would be to promise (and deliver) a free-speech nexus.
And Tumblr would practically close down if it became porn-unfriendly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A better strategy for Yahoo would be to promise (and deliver) a free-speech nexus.
I am so sick of sexuality being this ugly hidden thing, while violence is everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purging adult content in furtherance of maintaining it's government contract is not a "good business reason" - it's blatant ass-suckery to the highest degree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the option is to censor or cease all presence in a country...
We can't tell if this is the best decision on Google's part for business unless we know who is behind it and the power they're using to extort / bribe Google is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Due to the constant spying, trying to figure out how to serve you more ads, I long ago gave up on the major search engines. I see no reason to have a change of opinion on that given this newest move on snipping one piece after another of it's results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is for porn . . . and cats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one reason this might be a smart move...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Move?
Blogger has lost the blogging platform war to WordPress. They see their platform as being used pretty much just as a Tumblr alternative. And blogging isn't as important anymore, especially when are alternative platforms, in general, that are better for specific types of blogs & applications.
From a bigger perspective, though, Google is over as a platform where a user can go to communicate, because one never knows when they're going to pull the rug out from under you...ask Reader users. At best, people who wish to get their word out, will have to depend on a portfolio of services, including paying for their own site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be evil...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nothing. The latest thing is if you consume adult content while wearing Google Glass, the company will push through an update that disables the device altogether. Glad I never wasted any money on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember Win8 Metro is a walled garden.
At first, even M-rated games were outlawed outright, but the cert guidelines were loosened to allow M-rated games that didn't have sexual content. And then it became a non-issue when all the desktop users disabled the Metro and bought third-party start menus.
But yeah, the big companies all want their own walled gardens where they can decide which porn is acceptable and which isn't, and which news that disparages their company is fit to print, and which is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you consider right and good is offensive to others.
Since you've already defined yourself as uncaring about the interests and well being of others, why should we have any interest in upholding or defending your rights? Reciprocity, much?
When we don't protect the right of the lowest and most despicable of us, when we decide a given people, a given culture, a given hobby among our own doesn't count, then we've opened the door to exclude the rights of others, until only a few -- or only one -- decides what is acceptable or unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support
So do not partake in that which you dislike or find offensive, there are off switches, other content, and even DNS services which filter the Net for you. There is no need to force your tastes and morals on others to avoid content you dislike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support
Don't get me started on the ways we may find things like the Bible being banned for prude reasons. Do a search on body parts in Bible Gateway and see what could end up getting that website taken off the index...
That's the problem with banning All The "porno" Things because "Yuck." It's subjective. So be careful what you wish for because the censor might turn his attention to something you value. I've had to change my mind on this because I've discovered that the slippery slope is actually not a logical fallacy after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support
And that's fine -- then just don't. But why would you be OK with imposing your personal views about this on everyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support
So you think your "normal" should be the baseline for everyone else?
God complex much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support
Better learn that humans are nurtured into violence, the sex part is intrinsic to being human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then don't partake in it. Why take away the platform others enjoy because of your own personal disapproval?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a blogger who uses Blogger
I blog about science and technology. I have absolutely nothing that anyone can consider to be adult content. Yet, now I'm scared that Google might mis-flag some of my content as being "explicit" and take down my blog, and that I will then have little to no recourse whatsoever. This goes doubly for other bloggers who write about somewhat more "controversial" (according to Google) topics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a blogger who uses Blogger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's now a point of humor...
The next step is to try to develop a double entendre with such words.
Speaking of which, entendre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's now a point of humor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh the persecution!!!
Might be a good idea to make it Christians Need Not Apply though.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about liability concerns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blogging Adult Content, Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a Prude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love
live tonight otherwise not.I am waiting for perfect men.Don't hesitate to ask me please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]