6 ms·

And of course this would affect all their properties including search. There was a time, long ago, when we expected objectivity from google in search, etc. Thos

And of course this would affect all their properties including search. There was a time, long ago, when we expected objectivity from google in search, etc. Those days are long gone as google is a political actor. What's next? Banning ads that deny christ? Are they going to ban ads from politicians who espouse a point of view that google disagrees with? Given google's influence, they can influence who wins elections. Hell they had a significant part in the chaos created during the arab and eastern european "revolutions". "It's a private company" argument works when private companies are much smaller or influential than governments. When private companies get so large and politically active, we have to break it apart. The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out.

yongjik 5y ago
> There was a time, long ago, when we expected objectivity from google in search, etc. Not sure what kind of "objectivity" you are demanding here. Hypothetically, if someone searched for "who created linux" and if there happened to be a really popular page that started with "Steve Jobs created Linux in the summer of 1978..." at the first spot, everyone working at Google Search would have considered it a failure and asked "How can we fix this?", definitions of objectivity be damned. Denying climate change is not that different. It's not "wrongthink", it's simply wrong, and hence less useful to users than results that are not wrong.
- adamiscool8 5y ago
  If some evidence was proffered that Steve Jobs actually did contribute to creating Linux in 1978, as a user, I would much prefer to see that, than to have Google hide it from me because it's against the "current consensus opinion". A policy like this just seems like a recipe for disastrously persistent misinformation.
  - foxes 5y ago
    Okay so just to be clear you along with OP are both climate change deniers? It’s an anti climate change ad , they are removing blatantly wrong information. It’s not like it’s censoring legitimate research or something, it’s removing garbage ads. Damm.
    - adamiscool8 5y ago
      That's not what the article says: >As a result, content that calls into question or denies the scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change will not have Google advertising alongside it. In addition, Google will no longer run any advertising that "contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change."
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
They're ads, my guy. The search results that you ignore because they're not search results. I think it makes sense that the people selling the ad space want to avoid reputational damage of being associated with drivel. > The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out. Well, if you read Google's statements from the article, Google's advertising partners are pressuring them to do this because the non-climate denying people buying Google's ad space, unsurprisingly, do not want their content run alongside drivel.
thujlife 5y ago
Advertizing != search
- tediousdemise 5y ago
  Google purges search results. For example, try searching something considered stereotypical or racist. The only results you will get are ones about reparations or empowering minorities - no stereotypical or racist content whatsoever.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    I just tried it and you are wrong.
- meragrin_ 5y ago
  Um, I guess you have not run a search on Google in the past couple of decades?
rubyn00bie 5y ago
> The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out. Uhhh. I think the people working there don’t want to directly empower harmful lies… even for money. Why would you think it’s some “other” when the obvious choice is simple? Additionally, there have long been bans and regulation on harmful content, it’s nothing more than “safety and soundness.” I find it peculiar how you immediately bring up unrelated topics like “deny christ” and people who dislike google. It’s like you’re trying to generate outrage of something ordinary and I find it confusing.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
Some would say denying anthropogenic climate change is akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Please separate people who agree that the climate is changing but dispute that mankind is the major driver There was a 98-0 vote in a senate saying climate change is real. No one denied it.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Some would say engaging the such hyperbole is harmful and destroys credibility that's sorely needed.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    Hyperbole how? Climate change denial contributes to inaction, which causes harm.
  - lovich 5y ago
    What credibility is needed? Climate change is a fact and it’s going to disrupt society. Letting people claim that it’s not real to build “credibility” with the same people who don’t believe in the objective fact does not but build “credibility” for the liars
michaelmrose 5y ago
The difference is of course Consequentialism. If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently. This is fundamentally different from banning ads that deny Christ or espouse a political position that is merely contra to their leaderships position but not disastrous or inherently immoral. Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race. As to the genesis of such a policy consider its own staff and leadership. They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species. As this decision will only earn them limited good will and will certainly cost them money I would suggest that this course of action is undertaken because they believe it is the right thing to do.
- simorley 5y ago
  > The difference is of course Consequentialism. Which is just rationalization to justify something you agree with. > If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently. You are talking about a company that helped foster the "revolutions" in the middle east and europe that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of people. I don't think the death of anyone is on their minds. Your logic is also what pro-lifers use. Will google ban planned parenthood ads? Would you support it? You and google are the defenders of future generations right? > They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly Such a fine line between educated and indoctrinated. > believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species Ah, the same demographics that uses the most energy, creates the most waste, responsible for the destruction of most species, living in cities where most wild life was wiped out. I'm part of the demographics you describe and rather than the false virtues you attributed to the demographics, I'd say the demographics is self-righteous, hypocritical, brainwashed, etc. > Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race. If that was the case, wouldn't it be better to shut down google and all industrial activity? But of course, no real scientist believes climate change will be the end of the human race. It's just politically driven people who scare monger with lies. Obviously you don't believe that climate change will wipe out the human race since you are using the internet. Ignoring the fact that google didn't ban such ads for 25 years, lets say you are right. Lets try a categorical imperative on your logic. Google would have to ban everything from the US government/military, every media organization, every fast food, soda, pharmaceutical, gambling, etc ads. Funny how ads that will directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people are okay to you, but ads that will lead to the death of hardly anyone is banned. What's the percentage of anti vs pro climate change ads? 1 to 1000? You see pro-climate change ads everywhere. You hardly see anti-climate change ads. So this has nothing to do with ads but politics. Google is just going to use it to silence politicians. Honestly, your argument is humanity will become extinct. So lets cheer google banning some ads. I know your ideology/religion is climate change, but does that make any sense to you? So funny to see people defend google - a monstrous corporate entity.

yongjik 5y ago

> There was a time, long ago, when we expected objectivity from google in search, etc. Not sure what kind of "objectivity" you are demanding here. Hypothetically, if someone searched for "who created linux" and if there happened to be a really popular page that started with "Steve Jobs created Linux in the summer of 1978..." at the first spot, everyone working at Google Search would have considered it a failure and asked "How can we fix this?", definitions of objectivity be damned. Denying climate change is not that different. It's not "wrongthink", it's simply wrong, and hence less useful to users than results that are not wrong.

adamiscool8 5y ago
If some evidence was proffered that Steve Jobs actually did contribute to creating Linux in 1978, as a user, I would much prefer to see that, than to have Google hide it from me because it's against the "current consensus opinion". A policy like this just seems like a recipe for disastrously persistent misinformation.
- foxes 5y ago
  Okay so just to be clear you along with OP are both climate change deniers? It’s an anti climate change ad , they are removing blatantly wrong information. It’s not like it’s censoring legitimate research or something, it’s removing garbage ads. Damm.
  - adamiscool8 5y ago
    That's not what the article says: >As a result, content that calls into question or denies the scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change will not have Google advertising alongside it. In addition, Google will no longer run any advertising that "contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change."

brendoelfrendo 5y ago

They're ads, my guy. The search results that you ignore because they're not search results. I think it makes sense that the people selling the ad space want to avoid reputational damage of being associated with drivel. > The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out. Well, if you read Google's statements from the article, Google's advertising partners are pressuring them to do this because the non-climate denying people buying Google's ad space, unsurprisingly, do not want their content run alongside drivel.

thujlife 5y ago

Advertizing != search

tediousdemise 5y ago
Google purges search results. For example, try searching something considered stereotypical or racist. The only results you will get are ones about reparations or empowering minorities - no stereotypical or racist content whatsoever.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  I just tried it and you are wrong.
meragrin_ 5y ago
Um, I guess you have not run a search on Google in the past couple of decades?

rubyn00bie 5y ago

> The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out. Uhhh. I think the people working there don’t want to directly empower harmful lies… even for money. Why would you think it’s some “other” when the obvious choice is simple? Additionally, there have long been bans and regulation on harmful content, it’s nothing more than “safety and soundness.” I find it peculiar how you immediately bring up unrelated topics like “deny christ” and people who dislike google. It’s like you’re trying to generate outrage of something ordinary and I find it confusing.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

Some would say denying anthropogenic climate change is akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

treeman79 5y ago
Please separate people who agree that the climate is changing but dispute that mankind is the major driver There was a 98-0 vote in a senate saying climate change is real. No one denied it.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Some would say engaging the such hyperbole is harmful and destroys credibility that's sorely needed.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  Hyperbole how? Climate change denial contributes to inaction, which causes harm.
- lovich 5y ago
  What credibility is needed? Climate change is a fact and it’s going to disrupt society. Letting people claim that it’s not real to build “credibility” with the same people who don’t believe in the objective fact does not but build “credibility” for the liars

michaelmrose 5y ago

The difference is of course Consequentialism. If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently. This is fundamentally different from banning ads that deny Christ or espouse a political position that is merely contra to their leaderships position but not disastrous or inherently immoral. Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race. As to the genesis of such a policy consider its own staff and leadership. They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species. As this decision will only earn them limited good will and will certainly cost them money I would suggest that this course of action is undertaken because they believe it is the right thing to do.

simorley 5y ago
> The difference is of course Consequentialism. Which is just rationalization to justify something you agree with. > If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently. You are talking about a company that helped foster the "revolutions" in the middle east and europe that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of people. I don't think the death of anyone is on their minds. Your logic is also what pro-lifers use. Will google ban planned parenthood ads? Would you support it? You and google are the defenders of future generations right? > They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly Such a fine line between educated and indoctrinated. > believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species Ah, the same demographics that uses the most energy, creates the most waste, responsible for the destruction of most species, living in cities where most wild life was wiped out. I'm part of the demographics you describe and rather than the false virtues you attributed to the demographics, I'd say the demographics is self-righteous, hypocritical, brainwashed, etc. > Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race. If that was the case, wouldn't it be better to shut down google and all industrial activity? But of course, no real scientist believes climate change will be the end of the human race. It's just politically driven people who scare monger with lies. Obviously you don't believe that climate change will wipe out the human race since you are using the internet. Ignoring the fact that google didn't ban such ads for 25 years, lets say you are right. Lets try a categorical imperative on your logic. Google would have to ban everything from the US government/military, every media organization, every fast food, soda, pharmaceutical, gambling, etc ads. Funny how ads that will directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people are okay to you, but ads that will lead to the death of hardly anyone is banned. What's the percentage of anti vs pro climate change ads? 1 to 1000? You see pro-climate change ads everywhere. You hardly see anti-climate change ads. So this has nothing to do with ads but politics. Google is just going to use it to silence politicians. Honestly, your argument is humanity will become extinct. So lets cheer google banning some ads. I know your ideology/religion is climate change, but does that make any sense to you? So funny to see people defend google - a monstrous corporate entity.