I took Google Ads off my site tonight. I took them off once before but this time it is permanent. Their system of automated word matching ended up with my running an ad for Ali al-Timimi’s legal defense. You may recall Al-Timimi,according to the AP, an Islamic scholar who prosecutors said enjoyed “rock star” status among a group of young Muslim men in Virginia. [He} was convicted Tuesday of exhorting his followers in the days after Sept. 11 to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.
Perhaps Google doesn’t care about such things in their pursuit of lucre or in their “multi-culturalism,” but many Americans might be slightly concerned about the following: The evidence included a 2003 e-mail in which al-Timimi described the Columbia shuttle disaster as “a good omen” that “Western supremacy (especially that of America) that began 500 years ago is coming to an end, God willing.”
Google can conduct its fund-raising for this religious sociopath on another site, not this one. Hereabouts: Google no more.
I’m pissed too. The Angel Danger story broken by FOX at around five this afternoon and now (10PM PDT) four hours old and all over the news sites on the web….AND NOT A SINGLE LINK. I’ve been using the New YAHOO for the past two days and I find it really good. I mean even Kaus broke it and no listing.
I too got rid of Google from my work and home computers. I think their superficial multiculturalism is symptomatic of how the liberal world of today cannot make a value judgement. Bye Bye Google, I knew you when…
speaking of “superficial multiculturalism”,
is there some reason the
anti-globalization,anti-corporate,
anti-capital,anti-WTO crowd
doesn’t camp out on the steps and threaten
beat down the doors of the likes of Google?
(Roger…Google ad bar is show on the right
as i type this into the text box.
Ye have yet to kill the thing.)
The Google elitists are a bunch of multiculturalist idiots. They are utterly incapable of distinguishing between the friends and enemies of civilization. Yes, itís time to pull the plug.
There is something truly creepy and authoritarian about Google: their lack of respect for copyright and privacy, some of the racist sources they quote on Google News, their refusal to quote other quite legitimate sources such as LGF on Google News, their incredible arrogance. And now, there’s this:
Google gives ‘googling’ reporters cold shoulder
August 09, 2005
By Rhys Blakely, Times Online
A news website which “googled” Google’s chief executive claims to have been blacklisted by the internet search engine.
Eric Schmidt appears to have taken umbrage after Elinor Mills, a journalist for News.com, used information available through the Google website to prepare a profile of him.
Using the search engine for just 30 minutes, Ms Mills was able to discover Mr Schmidt’s home address and an estimate of his personal fortune.
She also learned that he had attended the Burning Man art festival and is an amateur pilot as well as news stories outlining estimates of how much Mr Schmidt has made through Google share options.
News.com said the article had been written to highlight the potential threat to privacy posed by large internet companies.
However, after the story was published, Google, which has adopted the motto “don’t be evil”, told News.com that it would not speak to any of its reporters for a year, according to News.com.
The news website said: “Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues.”
“We didn?t go out and break into any databases to get this information,” Jai Singh, the News.com editor in chief.
“This is all publicly available information,” he added.
News.com subsequently included a correction in the article, stating that the original version had incorrectly implied that Google Desktop Search can track what’s stored on a user’s PC.
“The service does not expose a user’s content to Google or anyone else without the user’s explicit permission,” it said.
In common with other search engines, Google keeps records of searches and the websites visited through its search engine.
Google in the UK said: “I’m afraid that we are declining to comment”. Google’s US office did not immediately respond.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1727941,00.html
Not only do they raise money for terrorists they give more space to Sheehan’s stalking of a preisdent than they do real news.
so good for you Roger. Nice to some people care about something other than money.
here’s a perfectly good alternative: http://clusty.com/
If one believes in omens, it ought to be pointed out that space shuttle Columbia met destruction because its left wing proved unstable.
I remember ranting and raving over on LGF that every day, and every hour of each of those days, for well over a month, Farenheit 911 was featured in the Entertainment section of Google News. Man, did they shill that piece of crap. I wrote them asking about it several times and never did get a reply. Good search engine, but an arrogant organization.
Kartoo is an interesting meta-search engine.
Add Yahoo News and Teoma for searches to your Favorites folders (also identify Teoma in Internet Options) and delete Goggle. You’ll feel better afterwards.
It is now thirteen hours after FOXNews Channel broke the Angel Danger story and neither Google nor Yahoo has a single word on their search engines. WTF????
Now, Roger, if you could get Type Key to work properly you might do yourself a service
Oh, they go to Burning Man and support the “cause” of the victim du jour. They are so hip. I guess they do have a right to lie and manipulate, then.
It’s all for my own good.
It’s all for my own good.
It’s the latest evolution in personal irresponsibility:
hey, don’t me, the corporation made me do it.
Hey, don’t blame the corporation for the misdeeds of its employees.
Hey, don’t blame me for what the software does…
try Grokker–different approach, kinda cool.
Roger,This is interesting,
“The evidence included a 2003 e-mail in which al-Timimi described the Columbia shuttle disaster as “a good omen” that “Western supremacy (especially that of America) that began 500 years ago is coming to an end, God willing.”
It would seem that they believe for them to rise it is neccessary should fall,there is no desire to rise through their own merits,no mention of an Islamic Space Program for example.
The appears to be a real root cause,no ambition!
Let me preface the following by saying I am a real fan of Roger and the important voice of reason he contributes as a liberal who stuck with his principles even at the risk of strange bedfellows.
> “perhaps Google doesn’t care about such things”
I seriously doubt that an actual person at Google read the ad. AFAIK, anyone can place virtually any ad in a few minutes. It’s 100% automated. Yes, I’m sure they have an automated filter, but it’s impossible to catch all the bad stuff without catching some good stuff.
Google’s AdSense has done a wonderful thing that we all take for granted but that wasn’t possible even a few years ago: an easy way for websites with low or modest traffic to earn a little money. AND, for small advertisers (good and bad) to get the word out about their products, services or causes. The “price” is that it MUST be highly automated. If not, the system simply wouldn’t work.
Google lets each site lists URLs that won’t appear, so it’s easy enough to get rid of any specific ad without tossing out the baby. (You may argue that this would be a lot of work … which is my point entirely!!!)
As for Google News and Able Danger: the headlines are picked by a computer, i.e. until it’s front-page news on the MSM, it’s unlikely to appear there. Sure, some of their sources may be dodgy — but, last I checked, they did include some non-PC blogs. (And, I’ll bet that nearly every time that a dodgy source was the lead, the story was was widely covered in the MSM — i.e. the story would still have shown up even if the dodgy source wasn’t checked.)
I do NOT think that Google is above criticism (I don’t work there), and there are alternatives for search and now for ads. The great thing about the free market is that anyone is free to switch.
Still, I don’t see much sense in leaving them for the wrong reasons (though it may feel good) — i.e. replacing one automated system with another won’t accomplish much. ANY system that offers roughly the same openness (i.e. benefit to the little guy) will likely have similar glitches.
If automated matching itself is the problem … then the blame should go on that not on Google per se.
One final point from a strong opponent of McCain-Feingold: since I believe that advertising is speech, do we actually WANT an ad network to censor offensive ads?
PeterUK,
It would seem that they believe for them to rise it is neccessary should fall,there is no desire to rise through their own merits,no mention of an Islamic Space Program for example.
The appears to be a real root cause,no ambition!
I’ve long been saddened by the zero-summers – the folks who believe the cause of poverty is wealth, the cause of homelessness is mansions, etc.
It never occurred to me that Islam may be the ultimate zero-sum ideology. The achievement of all they can imagine is completely dependent upon the utter destruction of all else. Fascinating. Gotta rumminate that one a bit.
As a computer programmer who’s at least nominally familiar with the types of algorithms that things like AdWords and Google News use, I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with the previous poster who pointed out that the system is open to basically everyone and is totally automated: in Google News’ case, about the only influence Google has is in the selection of sources to scan, and we can quibble about the statistical significance of their choices, but it seems safe to say that as the sources’ bias goes, so goes the bias of Google News, without “Google’s multiculturalism,” as if Sergei and Larry imposed some kind of litmus test, having anything to do with it.
Now, that’s not to say that it isn’t fair to say that if the ad-provisioner will take all comers, then you won’t run their ads. It most definitely is fair. But it’s probably not fair to suggest that this is due to some agreement or support on the part of the ad-provision company (Google) for the advertiser (whomever, whom Google almost certainly doesn’t even know).
Knucklehead,
Bin Laden doesn’t want to remove the House of Saud and replace it with a modern democratic government,he wants to replace it with a Caliph completely indistinguishable from the present rulers.
The communists said they would “bury” us,but where are the great projects here,there is no great visions of the “Electrification of the Caliphate”,only “We will drag you down and rule”.Is this the choice that was given to the peoples of the glorious civilisations of the region?
For the sake of the human race,can we do anything but resist?
I still see Google Ads offering me a muslim bride.
To the software guys: I hear you.
However, the company that provides content, even in the form of fully automated news sites, is still vulnerable to opinion of the readers.
Google, because of its open, often very ìin your faceî political stance adapted by the management and employees has opened itself to suspicion that something more than a blind algorithm is responsible for the news content. I am sure that at this point they feel invincible. Good for them. However, there was a time when Netscape felt the same.
Discretion is larger part of valor. Me, I am going Clusty http://clusty.com/.
Paul: “in Google News’ case, about the only influence Google has is in the selection of sources to scan, and we can quibble about the statistical significance of their choices, but it seems safe to say that as the sources’ bias goes, so goes the bias of Google News, without “Google’s multiculturalism,” as if Sergei and Larry imposed some kind of litmus test, having anything to do with it.”
Clearly, for Google News it’s all about the sources chosen and the weights assigned to the various sources. But by looking at the output you can get a decent idea of which sources are given the most credibility (weight). At the bottom of all of this is an algorithm that has rules about how to weight different sources, and it is that algorithm that gives LGF the same credibility as a neo-nazi site. And behind all of that is someone’s political views.
But you’re right about Google ads – the system can only work if it’s automated. And I can’t imagine the good Sheikh was raising too much money at this site. If that’s so his ad money was going to waste.
But if Google weren’t so damn smug I don’t think they would raise people’s hackles the way they do.
I’ve also been annoyed with Google’s selections, but it was so convenient and I was used to it. Now I’ve put Yahoo on the toolbar, but can’t seem to get rid of the Adobe button attached to it like a Siamese twim.
Does anyone know how to get rid of it?
Katherine typed:
> Google, because of its open, often very ìin your faceî political stance
Hmm; I don’t exactly hide under a rock and I haven’t come across this. A sincere question: are there some prominent examples you can cite?
Yes, they’ve nixed some conservative ads. A quick search also shows that The Nation complains that Google nixed some “progressive” ads. Getting fire from both sides isn’t proof of balance, but it does point in that direction.
And, Roger is asking for them to nix an ad. They (like any censor trying to please the multitudes) will always be caught between a rock and a hard place.
The commenters here are a smart bunch, but I still think that most (though not all) of the criticism is misplaced. “Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.” (Google’s PhDs are smart, but even the best software still falls far short of human judgement.)
Scott,
You write an excellent apologia for Google but I’m a little puzzled as to why I shouldn’t reject a search engine/ news feed that enshrines by algorihthm the bias that I find repulsive in the major media as a whole.
Google has a market target, I’m not only not in it, I want nothing to do with it. In the broadest terms and based upon election results, Google is shooting for 45% (and shrinking) of the market. Fine, if that’s the strategy, go for it – just don’t try and tell me that the algorithm was neutrally determined.
Rick,
I totally support the idea of boycotting companies you disagree with. It’s a much better approach than (for example, and not aimed at you or anyone in particular) running to the government for yet another regulation.
My objection is that many people (including Roger in his initial post) are portraying the results they don’t like as if a person at Google chose that result to further a specific agenda. In the case of the offensive ad, that’s simply not true (with 99.9% confidence). If Roger wants to toss them out over something that’s not true, he’s welcome to it — but it seems rather silly. (Again, I have very high regard for Roger and for most of the commenters, that’s why I take the time to correct what looks like a clear technical error.)
As for Google News: if you don’t find the summary useful, by all means don’t go there!