GOOGLE THREATENS TO DEFUND TECHDIRT? Where Are All The Politicians Complaining?
from the hello?-anyone?-hello?-bueller? dept
OH NO. GOOGLE MUST HAVE ANTI-TECHDIRT BIAS! THEY'RE THREATENING TO DEFUND US! Or not. A couple of weeks ago, we received yet another notice from Google that some of the pages on Techdirt violated its AdSense policies (AdSense is Google's program for putting ads on 3rd party pages). We'll get to what those pages were and what the complaints were in a moment, but the timing struck us as ironic -- as it came a day after we had written about why Google sending a similar notice to The Federalist was not some conspiracy of "anti-conservative bias" to silence them. Yet, when it happened to the Federalist, a bunch of big name politicians and commentators went into overdrive attacking Google.
So my question: where are they now defending Techdirt? Hmm?
The background: a few weeks back there was a bunch of attention paid to a misleading story from NBC claiming that Google had banned the Federalist from its ad program -- The Federalist, of course, being a laughable propaganda machine promoting the president's messaging, no matter how ridiculous it makes that site look. So, immediately, a bunch of people jumped onto the claims that this was yet more evidence of "anti-conservative bias" by Google and an attack on a website that supports the president. A bunch of politicians jumped onto the grandstanding train, starting with old friend Senator Josh Hawley who sent an angry letter demanding answers from Sundar Pichai:
Google’s decision to threaten the conservative publication The Federalist with removal from the Google Ads platform—based on, apparently, the contents of its comments section—is startling, but apparently just the latest instance of Google’s long pattern of targeting any perspectives that deviate from its preferred party line.
Of course, as we explained in our article, we periodically get similar notices. In fact, we've talked about them since as early as 2014. We got another in 2015. Oh, and in 2016. Oh right, and in 2018 and 2019. Amusingly, those last two involved Google demonetizing our article on the impossible choices involved in content moderation!
As we noted last year, the notices to us -- just as in the case of the Federalist -- were sometimes (not always) about finding the content in our comments problematic. Google is often not clear in their messages on this, and in the past, we've often had to go back and forth with Google before they admit that the problem might be in the comments, though they refuse to ever say which comments. As we said then, and we'll say again, this policy is stupid. But it's not "anti-conservative bias." Google is free to make stupid policy decisions (just as we're free to mock them for it). It does that all the time. And, recognizing the impossible nature of content moderation, you can even understand the logic behind how this came to be, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "anti-conservative bias." Instead, I'm sure, advertisers (or possibly just random people) have probably complained about ads appearing "next to" sketchy content. So, Google's ad team writes up some rules that say "you can't put our ads next to 'derogatory' or 'sexual' or 'shocking' content." And then content reviewers don't have time to go investigate -- and they can't determine the difference between if the bad content is in the comments or in the story. The policy just says "nope, not allowed" and whenever Google becomes aware (usually through reports) of such content, it says "you can't put our ads there." Even if the content is in the comments.
Anyway, that brings us to our latest batch of "demonetized" stories. Literally the day after we wrote about the Federalist getting a similar notice, Google said the following list of stories could not have Google ads, and gave the following reasons:
- Yes, Federal Agents Can Identify Anonymous Tor Users, Because Most People Don't Know How To Be Anonymous Reason: Dangerous or derogatory content
- Github Nukes Repository Over Use Of The Word 'Retard' Reason: Dangerous or derogatory content
- YouTube Takes Down Live Stream Over Copyright Claim...Before Stream Even Starts Reason: Dangerous or derogatory content
- The DOJ's Plan To 'Fix' The T-Mobile Merger Is Already A Hot Mess Reason: Dangerous or derogatory content
- Prostitutes Have Just Moved From Craigslist To Facebook Reason: Adult: Sexual content
- Cop Shoots Cuffed Teen In The Face With A Taser, Claims He 'Feared For His Safety' Reason: Shocking content
- Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody Reason: Adult: Sexual content
- The FBI's Megaupload Domains Are Now Hosting Porn Ads Reason: Adult: Sexual content
- Let. The Motherfucker. Burn. Reason: Shocking content
Of course, plenty of others grandstanded away on behalf of the Federalist too, and I'm sure they'll come to my defense. Right? Right? Here's another of our favorite Senators, Marsha Blackburn:
"Beware the power of Big Tech to cancel conservative voices," she says. I'm sure her tweet about Google canceling my voice is going to be on fire. "Google chokes off ad revenue to silence conservatives!" And me! And me! Come on, Marsha, speak up! What about me? Silence? Huh. How about that?
Here are Tom Cotton and Jim Jordan talking about how this means Google should lose 230 and that it's against free speech. I'm looking forward to their statements in support of Techdirt.
How about House minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy. He's asking "When will Big News and Big Tech #StopTheBias?!" And I agree. When will they stop the bias against smallish tech/law/policy focused websites that report on this stuff. When, Rep. McCarthy, when? I can't wait for you to get to the bottom of this!
Even the president's silliest son got into the fun, saying that the "GOP Senate needs to wake up & IMMEDIATELY subpoena and haul in the CEO of Google for questioning," adding that "Google is an out of control monopoly, with a leftwing political agenda, engaging in a clear campaign to silence dissent. It's election interference, full stop." I'm excited to hear what he thinks of the [checks notes] "election interference" of Google stopping ads on our site for our story on [double checks notes again] why people should support the protesters who are burning police cars. Or, really, that story about fair use? Yes, clearly election interference. Come on, Donnie Jr., Techdirt craves your support.
Or how about Meghan McCain. Okay, this one's a bit unfair, because she's married to the founder of The Federalist, so maybe she's maritally required to spew nonsense about her husband's site, but I assume she believes in equal treatment, right? So I assume she's going to claim that Google's notice to us is also "digital fascism" intended to "completely" ban "all conservative speech."
Meghan, I await your support of us on your next TV appearance.
Even FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr got in the game, claiming that Google's decision to do what it's been doing for years is... an argument for Section 230 reform?
I'm quite sure that Brendan will come to our defense. Right?
Or, maybe this is just yet another example of the impossibility of doing content moderation well, and because the same thing that impacts tons of other sites all the time finally hit a site like The Federalist it makes news. It's not anti-conservative bias, but just yet another example of how difficult it is to do any form of content moderation at scale, and a recognition that this kind of thing impacts tons of sites. Do I wish Google was better at this? Yup. Do I wish they'd give us more information than what we have above? Sure thing. They don't say which content in particular caused the complaint. They don't have much of a functioning appeals process (there is one, but it's limited).
But the fact that all of these political folks immediately jumped to these silly misleading grandstanding position suggests that if there's any "bias" out there, it's their own in leaping to false conclusions and using that to push for policy outcomes they'd like.
Oh, and in case you're wondering what we're doing about this notice from Google? The answer is nothing. Nothing at all. Google will remove ads from our page, and we've got some vague threatening language about how now we might get lower quality ads, and there's always the threat that Google will remove ads entirely from our site. If that happens, that'll happen and we'll deal with it. But, that's my job as the publisher of the site, and I certainly don't expect any politician to come out demanding they help Techdirt. Except Josh Hawley. I'd really like to see Josh Hawley do it. Just because.
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: ads, adsesnse, anti-conservative bias, comments, content moderation, defunding, donald trump jr., josh hawley, marsha blackburn, tom cotton
Companies: google, the federalist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fake Outrage = Free Advertising
Sometimes I think these politicians just fake this outrage to promote their donors' businesses. It is a pretty good plan. After 30 congress critters start using its twitter handle and sparking 'outrage', I can guarantee that more people went to the site just to check it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake Outrage = Free Advertising
Fake outrage isn't even that new. The whole Night Trap congressional testimony involved a bunch of congresspeople resolutely not listening to anything the developers said while grandstanding and making shit up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, I giggled when I saw that talking about tasers is "shocking content". I will go sit in the corner now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think it beats the stupidity of "myth busting" being labeled "sexual content". I imagine a well-endowed myth just to discover that it has been generously padded and has no actual bust worth getting excited about. Foxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
great now you just got this page ad blocked too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I come to TechDirt for the sexual content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still waiting for the "Sex me up, Techdirt" mugs and hoodies in the shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I was stunned when I read that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not the only one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I forwarded this to Josh Hawley, and said I expect to see the same level of outrage that he displayed for The Federalist...
So expect him to totally ignore it, as it doesn't fit his 'only conservatives are silenced...' mindset (and to admit otherwise might finally overwhelm the cognitive dissonance in his brain, resulting in it actually exploding...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloudflare Attention Required!
I just like how the calls for removing section 230 protections from such-and-such website is almost never anything to do with whether they should be held liable for any content posted by another user, and is always just about wanting to see the site punished in general for doing something disliked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I misread
At first I though someone at Google was jokingly threating to buy this InsiderShop item. Then I read the article. So...yay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, But,
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Mike's in a mood again and needing attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, But,
These aren't the droids you are looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See you slacked off in 2017.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, TechDirt didn't slack off ... the commenters did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I certainly don't expect any politician to come out demanding they help Techdirt."
Got to to bribe them, (make campaign contributions) first before they are going to care about you.
Give them loot, they give you the love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that the business model of the oldest profession?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: profession
Yes, and it works, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's all the same. In every way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Indeed it is. However, the professional ladies of the evening are markedly better citizens than politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weaponized Policies
As I remember, there was a companion to The Federalist - a site called Zerohedge that went along with the original reporting. It looks like Zerohedge got completely banned. Also, it looks like The Federalist's recourse in order to stay monetized was to take down their entire comments section.
But back to the original reporting -- done by NBC, it appears that the NBC reporter Adele Fraser collaborated with an outside group called CCDH to complain to Google and enact the ban.
All of this appears to be different from the Techdirt experience. For Techdirt, there was no media tweeting out the ban with glee, no sitewide demonetization, and the comments section is still very much in operation. This is exactly why we know there is a bias at the major big tech corporations. If you say the right things, Google will hold your hand and make it okay. But if you're not politically correct enough, then the sites' policies will be used as a weapon against you.
I guess maybe we should all switch to Brave browser. The complaints of malicious moderation versus mere incompetent moderation could all just disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you prove it?
Oh wait, that's One Simple Question, and I know how you hate answering those!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weaponized Policies
That google or anyone's policy can be abused and weaponized is without doubt. That it can then be cajoled with sweet words is also without doubt. We all have our biases, so do the platforms.
And, in a free country, google should be free to choose not to do business with anyone, for any or no reason. The exceptions to that involve Title II common carriers and some kind of natural monopoly. Think trucking.
The real difference with techdirt thumbing their nose at Google is they have a financially supportive community and they have decided they are not too concerned if they lose direct ad revenue. Federalist, not so much, so choices had to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weaponized Policies
There is no nose thumbing at google here.. Refusing to grovel to google or bend for them maybe. The nose thumbing is at the people who are whining and crying so hard when they get the same treatment.
To google: You don't own us
To the federalist: Suck it and stand on your own feet princess.
To people complaining about anti-conservative bias: Get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weaponized Policies
Also, it looks like The Federalist's recourse in order to stay monetized was to take down their entire comments section.
That was the choice the Federalist made. We had the same option, which we rejected. If we lose Google ads, so be it.
All of this appears to be different from the Techdirt experience.
No, it's not. Anyone can report our content, just like NBC reported The Federalists.
For Techdirt, there was no media tweeting out the ban with glee, no sitewide demonetization, and the comments section is still very much in operation.
Again, that was our decision. As for the "glee" well, that's on the media, not on Google or any bias there. And, indeed, this post here is asking why there isn't similar attention paid to our situation?
This is exactly why we know there is a bias at the major big tech corporations.
Wait. What? What the fuck are you on about? We're having the identical experience to the Federalist. That we chose to take a different path is not about Google bias. That the media chose to take a different path is not about Google.
And what about all those politicians screaming about the Federalist and not us? According to you, that would be evidence of big tech bias against good tech reporting like ours or something.
If you say the right things, Google will hold your hand and make it okay.
Google has done nothing of the sort. They refuse to tell us the specifics of any of those warnings, and we remain under threat of losing our account.
But if you're not politically correct enough, then the sites' policies will be used as a weapon against you.
You are literally making this up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weaponized Policies
To many problems with the tech and What is a bad word.
Wonder around to sites you dont like and insert Key words, to have the Comments/section/forum Shut down.
Or as you mentioned,
Just report it as such.. Get a FEW people to do it. And if its reported, I would ask how MANY does it take to shut it down.
And your comment is interesting also...DO you put a site up ONLY for the ad revenue? If not, then you are well protected FROM people just being mean/stupid, and trying to shut you down.
For how long did many in this country, declare this as a Christian nation? Conservative(I would ask them to re-consider this one, as actions speak louder then words)
I would think the prime part of this is Key words. As G' scans the net for such and declares automatically, what is/isnt supposed to be posted. We can debate the key words, and maybe SOME pictures, but this is as bad as the old comics/cartoon rules. When they edited the roadrunner/Bugs bunny cartoons...Which was stupid in that they CANT retroavtive a law/reg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weaponized Policies
I'm glad you remember that. It's been in every article and news reports
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weaponized Policies
How to tell someone's completely full of shit:
They misrepresent fake news site Zerohedge as an innocent victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops taze dude in the face.
Shocking content indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait til techdirt runs an article about google.com sneakily installing rootkits or malware hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only conservatives had some alternative large platform
Something cunning with a vulpine nature might do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the reason many conservatives are mad at Google playing pick-and-choose with their aggressive demonetization campaign is because of America's laissez-faire approach to the internet for the past 40 years. The very same lack of intense (and I qualify it here, "intense") government regulation over content on the internet is precisely what made service providers like Google so successful.
And, the existence of Section 230 is what enabled Google to amass large sums of advertiser money, immune to lawsuits over its users' content, both on Google and in their subsidiaries (example: YouTube). As a publisher on both the web and YouTube, I am well acquainted with AdSense's strict guidelines regarding placement of ads, the way you can name them, and what you can call them (you can't call Google Ad units misleading things "Featured Content" or "Special Deals", you can't encourage users to click on the ads, and in most cases you can't even draw attention to them).
In 2017, YouTube had the adpocalypse. The adpocalypse, broadly defined, was the mass demonetization of YouTube partners for content it deemed as unfriendly. Some of the demonetization process was done by humans, but mostly by robots, and you probably know as well as anyone the keywords targeted people of color, LGBTQ+, as well as people discussing controversial subjects such as depression and mental health. The things that caused apocalypse to happen was a range of things, but off the top of my head it was Logan Paul going into a forest and filming the body of a man who hanged himself, Elsagate, those damn annoying text to speech videos of the news, and whole TV shows and movies being reuploaded by people other than the companies that made them. That was one thing. Google owns YouTube, YouTube hosts the content and YouTube has the right to take it down.
With AdSense, the frustration is that publishers now must police their own content, in addition to that of their users, so that their revenue streams aren't hurt. You're right, there is no Section 230 being broken here since legally they aren't going to be in trouble for the content. But with money being a way to fund the website, it does go a long way to keeping it up. That's why publications like the Federalist are upset.
I also get that certain advertisers might not want to be on there, and leverage their current ad campaign budget with Google as a reason to not have it on there. Advertisers who are doing that "Stop Hate for Profit" campaign must be saving millions because they don't have their dollars going to Facebook. And all because of a little social pressure, Section 230 intact.
I think the reason publicly-funded organizations like NPR cut off its comment section is because they didn't want to dedicate the staff to sort through it, or risk a nasty comment causing some philanthropic organization to pull their funding for a NPR member station. Many news sites are restricting comments to paid subscribers or members, although they cite staffing reasons versus pressure from advertisers as the reason.
For what it's worth, I hope TechDirt never takes commenting anonymously away. I'm no politican, and I may not always agree with the arguments in every article, but I'd defend your coverage any day and praise the heavens for the fact you don't run intrusive ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank You well said. IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why the frack should we care about corps, except that they have more money then, EVERYONE??
Why should they care much for any thing we say?
(beyond hate speech that is)
When the internet got interesting we were seeing Alcohol and condom commercials..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's rich coming from him and his R-tagged colleagues.
Unless he meant something like "Free speech is just what I agree with."
In any case, he's right, but it sure sounds pretty hypocritical coming from his side.
Republicans are not the only ones guilty of this, but it's definitely more prevalent in their party: they want to control and often censor the speech of others, but they are the fastest to cry about "free speech" when their own expression is being moderated, downgraded or even just criticized, totally ignoring the irony of wanting to prevent others' "speech" simply on the basis that it's a critic of theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]