Google has a reputation for dishing out punishments for supposed violations of their terms of use in an uneven manner.  Many conservative blogs have found themselves on the blunt end of Google’s political bias.

Now, Weasel Zippers, a popular Conservative blog and long-time blogroll member here at PRN has had their AdSense account suspended by Google, meaning they currently have no ads generating revenue.

From the proprietor of Weasel zippers:
"I’ve been using Google ads for years now as the site’s nearly sole source of income. Suddenly I get hit with a policy violation for not having original content, the only problem is according to their vague guidelines this would make almost every news website on the Internet that uses Adsense (and the vast majority do) out of compliance. Hard not to see that I am being unfairly singled out, almost certainly because of my political views. I wouldn’t be surprised if lefty trolls have been reporting us to Adsense, it wouldn’t be the first time.

We’re now left dead in the water until I can find a suitable replacement, if that’s even possible. Google runs the Internet, especially the ad market."

Quoted:


http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/85185323573/google-targets-conservative-blogger-weasel





Looks like Google is trying to clean up the Interwebs from those pesky conservative sites.

Quoted:
Just checked the site, see no mention of this, and they have a crap-ton of ads.

Quoted:

He finds good stories that are pretty much buried. It's not any different that what Drudge does in a sense.

Googled, Gobbled, and Throttled: The Road to Samizdat

To begin, I suspect that it is simply fraudulent. Much of the news involves violence: Princess Diana’s death, the Rodney King beating, the bombing of Gaza, the riots in Baltimore and Ferguson. So sites have ads removed for covering these?

If Fred On Everything dealt in gore-porn, in grotesque photos of dismembered bodies, Google’s behavior might make sense. However, in over 700 posts spanning more than a decade, FOE has one shocking photo, of a victim of American torture at Abu Ghraib.

there is a pattern in the pulling of ads. In all three cases that I know of, the content of the sites has been of a sort objectionable to the government. Start with FOE, which has been highly critical of Washington’s wars and racial policies.

Earlier, Antiwar.com had its ads pulled by Google, again for posting a photo of an Abu Ghraib victim.

Hmmmm. The endless wars are important to Washington and fill a lot of rice bowls. The feds cannot be happy with an articulate site of large circulation that opposes military adventurism. Since Antiwar depends (I think) on contributions from angels and its readers to stay afloat, pulling ads plausibly seems an attempt to cripple it.

The third site to have ads pulled was American Renaissance, another political site. It opposes mass immigration from the Third World and the sorts of misbehavior by blacks that is reported daily on Drudge, Breitbart, Worldnet Daily News, and European papers.

It is here worth noting that American Renaissance, though invariably painted as a site of extremists, isn’t. For example, the explosive popularity of Donald Trump’s opposition to immigration attests to the very large numbers of Americans who agree with him, and thus with American Renaissance. AmRen is not the  home of some fringe. It represents the views of a large number of people whose politics are not acceptable to the politically correct.

But AntiWar.com is another thing. It is a big site, and enough noise was made over the pulling of its ads that higher-ups a Google must have known about it. Further, AntiWar never says anything about the usual forbidden categories of race, feminism, homosexuality, and such. Since I cannot readily imagine that Larry Page and Sergey Brin would on their own want to protect the endless wars, it is perhaps not unreasonable to suspect Washington’s hand. Companies like Google become de de fact quasi-governmental entities. Google’s policies look an awful lot like political censorship disguised as protecting the public from disturbing photos.

Google is essential. It is the card catalog of the world library, more powerful than the governments of many nations. It is virtually the only game in a very important town. It can subtly, or not so subtly, determine what entire populations can easily know. France cannot do this.

To me it is unnerving that such a phenomenally powerful entity should be unsupervised, unaccountable, and probably deeply in bed with Washington. But there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it. Except remove their code.

AdSense has been known to ban political activists in the midst of their most pitched battles against state repression. In January 2012 a number of graphic photographs got Sahara Reporters, a Nigerian government watchdog site, banned.

Perhaps Google has good reasons to enforce a policy that protects it family-friendly business. One way or the other, the enforcement is inconsistent. Bigger sites, which make Google more money and subject far more eyeballs to the allegedly offensive material, brim with violations. Take the ban on “sexual tips or advice.” Let’s forget for the moment that this would place educational health or psychology sites under the broad rubric of unacceptable adult content.


Google’s absolutist policy is marred because its implementation feels arbitrary. Just as a jury, given ample evidence, can distinguish between manslaughter, self-defense, a killing during war, or malicious murder, in daily life we consider the context of moral acts, a context that usually is revealed by something that can be surmised but not measured. I mean intent. Not only does Google have an unsophisticated process for gauging context or intent, but the company also seems to be run by people who just don’t care about it and can’t be bothered to even after you ask nicely.

Quoted:
Fuck google in general, but the vast majority of online and radio 'news talk' shows are rehashing the exact same shit from the same third party source.