I suspect that advertisers for rational reasons don’t want their ads next to certain content.
My site, Fredoneverything.org, has, or had until a few minutes ago, several Google ads, which served to bring in a modest amount of money, perhaps $200 a month. Many sites carry Google ads to make beer change, and some depend on them. Recently (so far as I now) Google has begun censoring sites in a curious way. This raises non-trivial questions.
This morning I got the following email from Google AdSense, after which I removed the Google ad-code. I write this column. Google does not. Anyway:
Google AdSense: Action required to comply with AdSense program policies.
Hello,
This is a warning message to alert you that there is action required to bring your AdSense account into compliance with our AdSense program policies. We’ve provided additional details below, along with the actions to be taken on your part.
Affected website: fredoneverything.org
Example page where violation occurred:http://fredoneverything.org/a-grand-adventure-except-it-isnt/
Action required: Please make changes immediately to your site to follow AdSense program policies.
Current account status: Active
VIOLENCE: As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with violent content. This includes sites with content related to breaking bones, getting hit by trains or cars, or people receiving serious injuries. More information about this policy can be found in our help center (link). How to resolve:
If you received a notification in regard to page content, we request that you immediately remove Google ads from the violating pages. If you are unable to, or unsure of how to remove the ads from these pages, or would like to continue monetizing the page with Google ads, please modify or remove the violating content to meet our AdSense policies.
If you received a notification in regards to the way ads are implemented on your site, please make the necessary changes to your implementation.
You do not need to contact us if you make changes. Please be aware that if additional violations are accrued, ad serving may be disabled to the website listed above. You should immediately take time to review your pages with Google ads to ensure that they comply with our policies.…..
To reduce the likelihood of future warnings from us, we suggest that you review all your sites for compliance. Here are some useful resources you might be interested in.….
We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
What should one make of this? 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.
The picture is there to make a legitimate political point, that the government of the United States was behaving barbarically, torturing prisoners and turning female soldiers into sadists in the mold of Ilsa Koch. This is a matter of importance to citizens in whose name this is done, and to the parents of soldiers. It is something that cannot be nicetized. Prettying it up would–not incidentally, I begin to suspect–serve only to hide the government’s behavior from the public.
Why did Google object to the picture? Was it just mindless automated political correctness? The tone of the writing in the email—it is prissy high-school prose—suggests a recent and censorious female graduate of one of our dismalized universities. So maybe only reflexive sophomorism is involved.
However, 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.
Now, it may be that Google with its huge numbers of clients does not really know that FOE exists (though I find this shocking). I’m lucky if I get as many as a combined couple of hundred thousand visitors a month on my home site, fredoneverything.org, plus sites that sometimes or always pick the column. (E.g., The Unz Review and Lew Rockwell.) Maybe the thought-management department at Google has fallen into the hands of huffy and marginally literate Berkeley girls, and one of them stumbled cross FOE and didn’t like it. This happens.
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.
COMMENTS TO FRED:
* Julian Assange, after meeting with Eric Schmidt who for some reasons later made clear wanted to visit him, came to the conclusions (which were so well documented that Newsweek published his expose) that there’s a revolving door between high level State Department positions and Google perches, and that there are tight mutual political interactions with Hilary Clinton as well. Google chieftains openly cooperated in and suggested themselves modifying content to further State’s agenda.
* GOOGLE—THE WORLD’S NEXT BIGGEST ISRAELI POLICEMAN.
Thanks for the interesting article, Fred. This is very unfortunate, because I see ads on really terrible filthy websites where people use foul language and there is a lot of nudity and other inappropriate content, but to target your site and Amren, is clearly politically motivated.
However, before Google, there were other search engines, and doing fine. Then suddenly, 2 Jewish kids started a small company Google, and, in no time, it becomes #1 and toppled the giants of the industry, such as bing and yahoo and other search engines (older, more established ones).
And then there was myspace, very popular. Then a Jewish kids stole some ideas and started facebook. Suddenly, facebook becomes #1, and myspace is or almost bankrupt.
What is the explanation?
How are Judaists able to enter a well established field, and take it over in no time?
I suspect they are people in power who work with them to bring them into power, make them #1 and dismantle the opposition.
Judaists work together as a team. They have a very strong sense of shared identity and paranoia towards outsiders, the goyim. The Oligarchs probably met and decided they wanted Judaists to control search results, not goyim. So they financed Google, the Jewish media promoted it, the Jewish regulators blessed it and, in no time, the Judaists were telling us search results.
The reason they probably wanted to monopolize search engines and social media is not just for money, but more to control the goyim.
Google knows all the websites the Judaists do not like (such as patriotic websites or anti-Israel websites) from its database and can effectively shut down all of them, by removing them from its search results.
I suspect it will do that after other search engines have been bankrupted out of existence. Once Google is the only search engine in town, there will be a total black out of all patriotic and conservative websites or those who dare speak against Israel. A police state on the Internet is coming with Google in charge.
Solution? Start building databases of websites and we must work with other countries which are free from Israeli influence, such as China, Russia, Iran, to develop search engines run on their servers. A meta search engine, which searches multiple search engines located in different countries, might be the way to go.
* Google purchased youtube and started censoring videos critical of Israel or Judaists.
For example, Youtube allowed ISIS videos showing beheadings, but when a pastor posted a video simply talking about killing of Christians in the Middle East, youtube banned it:
(Bill O’ Reilly does not understand why youtube would do that. This is because the Judaists hate Christians the most, more than Muslims, or any other religious group, and try to use Muslims to subjugate and oppress Christians and keep them down).
“Many Jews therefore view enthusiastic Christian believers—no matter how reliably they support Israel and American Jews—as enemies by definition,” – Michael Medved, 2009.
So Reverend Kapner started hosting his own videos and others started new video hosting sites, such as trutube.tv. The same ideas can be used to deal with Google’s censorship in other areas.
* Evil is usually committed by well manicured and impeccably educated men in air conditioned offices, speaking in soft tones. That pretty much defines Google or your average Capitol Hill drone.
I don’t trust Google given the fact that principals of Google are allowed to park their private 747 at a military base and use it’s facilities. You don’t get that perk without doing some serious favors for uncle Sam.
I don’t trust Google because of the back doors it inserts in it’s code for Android and it’s open admission that it reads gmail and routinely tries to steal other companies IP.
I don’t trust Google because of their collusion with the USG in monitoring the internet on the behalf of the NSA, so they don’t have to get their hands dirty.
* Yet Google promotes the racist anti-white website Salon. Many of the essays published daily in Salon violate Google’s own corporate policies regarding race, gender, and providing a safe place to work for its diverse staff.
* It was an open secret that Google (as well as other high tech companies such as Facebook) played a big role in fashioning Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. I know because I read about it in various MSM articles. It is also no secret that many Obama administration officials go to work for Google and Facebook upon leaving government service. So there is a revolving door of sorts. One reason for Google to play so closely with the Obama administration is concern over application of the federal antitrust laws against Google. They saw what that did to IBM in the late 60′s and Microsoft in the late 90′s (both cases brought by Democratic Administrations and ultimately settled under Republican Administrations). See [link.] Add to that concern the vast expansion of the surveillance state after 9/11, and you may be able to understand Google’s actions.
