Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[out-law.com...]
a publisher bears responsibility for an ad's suitability regardless of how the ad was chosen for a particular slot.
And Google replied...
A Google spokesman said that publishers do have control over the adverts that appear beside a story and can stop particular adverts appearing. He also said that Google itself carries out some work to avoid insensitive matches.
Which is absolute nonsense because publishers have ZERO CONTROL since you don't know which ads are running before they show up on your site and if you do manage to see an aberrant ad, out of the thousands of pages you're running, it still takes 4 hours (or more) before that ad discontinues to run.
ADSENSE PUBLISHERS HAVE CONTROL? LIES! LIES! ALL LIES!
Not only that, the publisher has no way to block specific types of ads, and the competitive filter is limited to 200, and there is no keyword filter (not found on my account anyway) and it appears to be impossible to control the ads.
AdSense publishers have been screaming about this for years and Google (IMO) flat ass lies to the UK.
I'm thinking I need to find a new partner for my site because I really don't like to be associated with flat out liars.
I do not appreciate being used by Google as the one responsible for getting it out without being given the tools to do so properly, and without them banning trouble content more globally and proactively.
No-one could argue with that; but if there are better services around, why not use them?
If there are not, why not control your own advertising?
[edited by: Quadrille at 12:24 am (utc) on Oct. 3, 2008]
If I was running Google Adsense, every publisher would get a list of advertisers and their ads that appeared on their sites.
Or at least the option to access this data like regular Adsense reports.
Never in the history of advertising has their been an Iron Curtain with so much secrecy between publisher and advertiser.
What pisses me off as well is they haven't even tested this idea to at least prove it won't work.
Google is like Big Government thinking it's so much smarter than individuals. As if publishers will kill so many ads once they know which ones appear on their sites, they won't make any money.
Or only 1 out of every 100 publishers will think to reallow certain ads back if their daily revenue shrinks to near zero.
Google is a paradox between extreme innovation and extreme conservatism. It is only now, for example, considering paid advertising (see WSJ home page today). So fast on some ideas, so slow on others.
p/g
every publisher would get a list of advertisers and their ads that appeared on their sites.
For one thing it would help if we knew which sites the ads are appearing on. It may be relevant to one but not the others.
I had an ad on it on the very first visit promoting third reich (read:nazi) movies. If I'd live a tad bit more the east, I'd be in Germany where such things are illegal.
I presume that you take not of the ad with a page shot and send an email to Google about this.
I do think G should be the one that controls this. I am amazed they even allow the N word.
I strongly believe that asking G to give us the list of advertisers, which let's not forget is constantly changing - unless they are placement ads, would be an enormous mistake.
I cannot talk about anyones sites but my own, but the sheer man power involved to look at all the ads all the time due to the enormous number of ads (not all in English) just is absolutely infeasible. And I presume many others will be the same as me.
Afterall we are talking about possibly hundreds of thousands of advertisers.
Keywords is one solution that has been mentioned here and many times before and I am all for that. But asking to see every advertiser is completely pointless.
But asking to see every advertiser is completely pointless.
The top 200 (by volume) ads that get displayed on your site are listed with the option to ban any of them. I reckon that if i could make sure the top 200 ads that were most commonly displayed on my site were ok, I really wouldn't care so much if a few bad ads sneaked through.
I wouldn't give you a list of top paying advertisers (seriously doubt there can be such a thing) if I was Google, although I would give you an unlimited filter without your having to ask for one.
Once one assumes the responsibility of setting advertising standards, they must be applied evenly to every ad. Does anyone really want to have a staff of ad-checkers scrutinizing each and every one of the tens of thousands of ads that run on a typical site?
The whole idea of an ad network is that the publisher, in effect, sublets space on his site a third party who assumes the responsibility for selling, collecting and policing that space.
Most Web sites, as far as I can tell, are at best marginally profitable. Having to police ad content would sink a great many of us.
With the current system, publishers can make a good case for saying that they do not control the content of the ads and leave it at that.
Take care: different legal systems, different ways to deal with things.
IMHO: (INAL) Out here a publisher in the traditional sense is always responsible for what (s)he publishes. Including the advertising.
A traditional publisher also keeps control over what goes in or not, even in terms of advertising.
The "I cannot control it, so I'm not responsible" defense might not work in all courts around the world. And Google stating you have some control (even if it is ridiculously little) will hurt that defense big time.
To me it's simple: either Google rectifies the situation they created by recalling that statement properly and publicly stating no publisher has any control beyond preventing known competitors from advertising on your site, or they do give us what they say they are giving us.
Living outside the US I prefer the second one a lot as I doubt the defense "Ich habe es night gewusst"(*) will fly out here.
Actually I doubt traditional publishers get a "mere conduit" status in the USA either, so why would the online ones get it?
(*) For those not skilled in searching: "I didn't know" in German, used as a defense in Nuernberg/Nuremberg. It didn't fly then and there either looking at the results of those trials.
a. Whatever Google maintains, I have no control over advertisements that appear on my site, insofar as even if I vet every advertisement currently appearing, this does not mean that the next one loaded before I get to see it would not be illegal.
b. In this instance my situation is not that of a publisher who has the option of viewing material before it is aired, but rather that of someone who rents out a section of each web page to Google, who do with it as they see fit.
By this analogy I have rented a billboard to a company to display advertisements to passing traffic. Since any control I have is retrospective - even if I can block an advertiser I can't do it until the ad has appeared at least once - I see no way I can guarantee that an offensive advertisement will not appear.
By this defence I am arguing that, with the best will in the world I cannot stop the offence taking place, and am therefore not guilty - by commission or by omission of that offence.
Like we publishers have complied to Google's TOS, Google should comply to our chosen rating level for our pages, and they in turn force advertisers to comply and abide to working within their selected rating system per ad.
That way there can be accountability, and infringements can be traced back to the exact offending party (mostly advertisers), but unfortunately it is a buyer's market, and neither Governments nor International trade organizations will want to interfere in such a matter.
That is unless Google takes the initiative, remember the do no evil?
How many out of order ads are we talking about?
From a legal standpoint... only one matters...the one that nails you.
I find all this fascinating, meaning I don't run Adsense and have wondered about it for several years as a revenue builder. Haven't made up my mind yet, but dang fascinating just the same!
By this defence I am arguing that, with the best will in the world I cannot stop the offence taking place, and am therefore not guilty - by commission or by omission of that offence.
"Mr. Webmaster... did you or did you not know the possibility of inappropriate ads appearing on your website?"
"Er... well, I guess so. But I didn't put them there! Google did!"
"Mr. Webmaster... did you or did you not provide space on your website for a third party to insert inappropriate ads, thus participating in the display and distribution of same?"
"Uh... well, yeah."
Judge: "Guilty."
It is an interesting question. Has anyone yet heard of prosecution of websites for displaying inappropriate or offense ads via Google Adsense?
Has anyone yet heard of prosecution of websites for displaying inappropriate or offense ads via Google Adsense?
Nope. Not one. Not even a hint.
And, despite the nightmare scenarios that populate this thread, I don't expect to either. ;)
(And refrain from revealing how their program works, etc. etc. etc.)
:)
@tangor, quadrille:
I doubt google is going to come and break me out of jail if one of their advertisers had a kiddie-porn ad that made me land in jail awaiting my trial. All I got when I caught such an ad was an apology.
[I do live in a country where such things are actively and aggressively prosecuted]
@alwaysthinking, signor_john and others:
I'm not proposing micromanaging. I want to have keyword and regex based filters as well as minimum bid value etc. to keep the worst out. Next reporting that you *could* use to micro-mange if you desire to do so. I'd only use it to manage the unwanted stuff. A solution to send all ads to the ad review thing isn't a solution in my book, nor what I'm asking of Google.
