Google's Ban of an Anti-MoveOn.org Ad 476
Whip-hero writes in with an Examiner.com story about Google's rejection of an ad critical of MoveOn.org. The story rehashes the controversy over MoveOn.org's ad that ran in the NYTimes on the first day of testimony of Gen. Petraeus's Senate testimony. The rejected ad was submitted on behalf of Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins — its text is reproduced in the article. The implication, which has been picked up by many blogs on the other side of the spectrum from MoveOn.org, is that Google acted out of political favoritism. Not so, says Google's policy counsel: Google's trademark policy allows any trademark holder to request that its marks not be used in ads; and MoveOn.org had made such a request.
Re:Do no evil? Republicans are evil (Score:2, Informative)
It's not that I like the GOP either - I just think the donkeys, elephants and Googles of this world are all in it for three things: the money, the power, and the women.
using a trademark <> infringing a trademark (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Showing the actions of Moveon in order to criticize them is fair use. There is no question that this ad was not illegal.
Google is liberal. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's obvious. They filter information in a biased way, too. If you look at the fringe sites they allow onto google news, its matches their political views. No right wing nuts, plenty of left wing nuts.
Again, I don't have a problem with google choosing to be biased, but they do.
And maybe they give all trademark complaints instant credit, but I seriously doubt it. This was an invalid complaint and there was no legal reason to pull the ad.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there is a statutory Fair Use [wikipedia.org] for trademarks. A nonowner may also use a trademark nominatively--to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis, United States law actually encourages nominative usage by competitors in the form of comparative advertising.
Of course, Google has been sued numerous times over ad keywords and content, so it's not unexpected.
Re:Actually newsworthy excerpt FTFA (Score:3, Informative)
It's pretty hard to legitemately mischarge this kind of service. I consider it to be pretty obvious that someone managed to get stuff for less and when they got busted, they had to charge the remaining sum.
Re:Actually newsworthy excerpt FTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Actually... they needed to charge for the additional money to avoid violating campaign finance laws (which the NYT was a strong supporter of). Any discount given to a political group, party, or candidate counts as a contribution. Newspapers are forbidden to donate money to political groups, parties, or candidates. The employees of the newspaper can donate (up to maximum contribution limits), but the actual newspaper cannot. What it sounds like happened was that some sales droid offered the discount not fully understanding the ramifications...
Nephilium
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't this policy result from Google getting sued for allowing competitors to buy ads that keyed off a trademarked name?
I.e. if you searched for 'Hertz rental car', you'd get a bunch of Avis ads because Avis had paid for their ads to show up whenever someone searched for 'Hertz'?
Assuming that's the case, you can hardly blame Google - they're screwed either way.
Re:What about the other ads with trademarks? (Score:3, Informative)
A professional perspective (Score:3, Informative)
So... it's not a conspiracy and it's not a corporate ethics thing, it's just that some people are better at their jobs than others.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
I could say, "but that's not what happened." But one time I said that and was criticized for a "straw man" attack.
So I'm going to say: "Do you have a specific example in mind?"
Re:Wrong (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, there is only a small percent of people in the US that don't have health care that could otherwise have it. I was recently on a boat with some people partying and we started discussing this health care crisis. One guy told us a story about his cousin having some disease that she was born with and they have to pay for the medication out out of their pocket. They can't get insurance coverage on her because it is an existing condition and so on. Then I realized that this cousin's parents where the owners of the $45,000 boat we were sitting in, It was their loaded escalade sitting right next to lincon mark LT that we used to pull the boat with. They live in a $350,000 house sitting on 20 acres of lightly wooded land. and think that the government should pay the medical expenses of their kids. I guess maybe they could afford a bigger boat then. This is the state of health care in the US. When they say poor, they don't mean financially poor, they mean "Ah, you poor little baby" poor.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Informative)
So just becuase you know some rich bastards trying to game the system doesn't mean that everyone is, some people truely need the help.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:0, Informative)
Oh Yeah? Where were you when Google was getting sued over people taking out ads in searches for their competitors names and put this policy in effect in order to deal with the problem? What are your true colors and biases?
Re:Sooo.... (Score:4, Informative)
They did say that, but in corporatese (reid, oops, read their blog).
1) moveon requested no triggers based on their name. Smart.
2) antomveon fell awry of this. Awww, shucks.
3) Google told antimoveon how to chnage their ad so it was permissable. They declined.
antimoveon are not just losers, they're sore losers and dumb ones at that.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:2, Informative)
There aren't that many neo-cons out there. Many people within the conservative sphere have held conservative views their entire life.
(*I know you're not wondering. You just slapped a label on something 'bad' and don't have to consider who they are at all. You've constructed your parody opponent and by golly, you're sticking it to 'em!)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:4, Informative)
No, you live in the United States, a country which, if it is to survive, must do something to improve its public education system.
The fact that it's possible to find Americans in places like Slashdot loudly and repeatedly trumpeting the supposed 'fact' that the USA is not or was never intended to be a democracy is, quite frankly, bizarre and not a little disturbing.
I assume that, like others of your ilk, you would like to say "it's a republic, not a democracy," but even if that wasn't what you were thinking, you're still quite wrong about the US.
Democracy [wikipedia.org] is a word that indicates a wide degree of citizen participation in either the selection of government officials, or in the direct governance of the state itself. But knowing that a state is a democracy is not the same as knowing how that state's government works.
The United States' peculiar flavour of republic [wikipedia.org], for example (with its Electoral College), is quite different from e.g. Canada's Constitutional Monarchy [wikipedia.org], but both are indisputably representative democracies [wikipedia.org].
I suspect that the distinction you really wished to make was between a direct democracy [wikipedia.org] and a representative democracy [wikipedia.org] and you may well be right that the United States has adopted more of the features of a direct democracy than its founders intended, but it's ridiculous to deny that it is and always has been democratically governed.
Interestingly, I came upon a stub article (for the term Republican Democracy [wikipedia.org]) on Wikipedia while assembling links for this post. It's rather weakly written and seems to exist to bolster these weirdly popular claims that the US is not a democracy (I find this Wikipedia entry a little chilling; is somebody astroturfing the idea that the US isn't a democracy?):
But it makes the same mistake that is usually made by those claiming that the US is not a democracy; that is, it appears to confuse a form of government (e.g. a republic) with a means of selecting such a government's officials (i.e. via democratic institutions). A republic need not be a democracy, and a democracy need not be a republic, but the US republic is a democracy.
Re:using a trademark infringing a trademark (Score:3, Informative)
An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks "Keep Blackwater in Iraq?" and links to an article titled "Bastards at Blackwater -- Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?"
Google is being hypocritical.