6 ms·

Google has given $150k in free ads to deceptive anti-abortion group

40 points by ductionist 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago
I see the green-name astroturf is strong on this one. The whole setup is odd. Google giving free advertising to selected non-profits is inherently a political act. Giving free advertising to "both sides" doesn't balance it out or make it non-political.
veriuhri 7y ago
And?
- Paraesthetic 7y ago
  exactly
  - Fam2019 7y ago
    Humans are allowed to be murdered under two conditions: * They are at earliest stage of their life * The parent ordering the murder is female
    - omarchowdhury 7y ago
      They at earliest stage of their life But is that a human?
      - krageon 7y ago
        The right question is "is this murder". By talking past the sale so to speak (asking a question about a later piece of rhetoric), we are in danger of legitimising (to onlookers) a piece of rhetoric that is hand-crafted to cause outrage.
        EliRivers 7y ago
        The very fact that it's allowed suggests heavily it's not murder; our green-coloured chum's statement is inherently contradictory and as such cannot be sensibly addressed.
        krageon 7y ago
        When a soldier shoots another soldier, that is murder even when it is allowed. The fact that it is allowed is immaterial to the definition of what it is.
        gboone 7y ago
        The description is taking of life. The definition is either killing or murder. Killing is broadly seen as not wrong, while murder is. For example, there are laws against murder. But if, while defending yourself, the other is killed that is not considered wrong, in most cases. You are right that taking life is taking life. And I would agree that a case could be made for murder in some cases with soldiers. So the real question is is it killing a fetus or murdering a fetus? No one debates there is life.
        krageon 7y ago
        > No one debates there is life. People do in fact debate whether or not there is human life.
        pnongrata 7y ago
        People debate about that all the time, whether there's life, a 'soul', etc.
        EliRivers 7y ago
        I disagree. Murder is a crime; a legal idea. If that same legal system allows killing under various circumstances, it's not murder. State sanctioned legal killing is explicitly not murder. If you choose to define it as murder, that's up to you, knock yourself out, but the state has power and authority - you don't.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - rasz 7y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk Every Sperm is Sacred - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
    - bob_doggo 7y ago
      why is this anti-abortion bullshit on hacker news, shouldn't the standard here be quite a bit higher?
      - bitlax 7y ago
        Actually you're the one breaking the Hacker News guidelines by making this kind of unsubstantive comment.
      - veriuhri 7y ago
        My sentiments exactly.
- rdiddly 7y ago
  And, tricking people by lying is what Satan does. The end.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
panpanna 7y ago
So they run a bunch of clinics that pretend to offer abortion but when you get there they try to talk you out of it? First of all, how can an organization running this many clinics be considered a non-profit eligible for Googles ad grant?
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  Non-profit status is pretty abused in the U.S. I thought. There's a really good John Oliver segment on these clinics. They're pretty evil. Sometimes they don't talk you out of it. They lie to you until it's too late for an abortion.
frittig 7y ago
I'm not sure what the issue is. I couldn't find in the article a screenshot of the exact ad (why?) but assuming that it is presenting itself as a pregnancy crisis center than I see nothing wrong. If someone had an unwanted pregnancy there are several things that can be done, abortion is one of them, but there are others. If, let's say, the mother doesn't want the baby because she cannot financially support it, then a charity that can support the baby might be a better solution to the mother than abortion. Some organizations only offer abortion (planned Parenthood) others don't (the one in the article). Each mother should have the option and knowledge to choose the one that is appropriate for her.
- Cenk 7y ago
  Planned Parenthood does not only offer abortions.
  - gboone 7y ago
    Yes, they also offer condoms if you're pregnant.
    - Cenk 7y ago
      Besides abortions and condoms Planned Parenthood also provides, amongst others: * Pregnancy services and prenatal care * STD and HIV testing and treatment * Birth control * Vasectomies * Screening for reproductive cancers (like breast, cervical, testicular, and prostate cancers) * Pap tests * Vaccines * PrEP and PEP (medicines to help prevent HIV) * Transgender health services, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT) These are all important health services, and reducing PP to condoms and abortions is dishonest at best.
- Doxin 7y ago
  Presenting yourself as a pregnancy crisis center, but then opting to omit information about a very important option seems rather deceptive to me.
teddyh 7y ago
Former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich gave a mere $1,000 to Prop 8, and he was forced to resign over it. Will Google face any backlash from giving $150,000 worth of advertising to this pro-life organization?
- javagram 7y ago
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Although at the time Eich gave to prop 8 that position was a popular one (Prop. 8 did win a free and fair election after all), when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. In contrast the politics of abortion in the U.S. have remained pretty frozen over the past decades despite intense debate and increasing polarization (as shown by the polls at the link). It’s not exactly the same thing I think. Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. If the advertising is truly deceptive that’s a different story, but I read through the article and it failed to give any examples. Is this any different from a brand buying keywords related to a competitor?
  - teddyh 7y ago
    > when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. But his opinion hadn’t shifted. At least he didn’t say so at the time. So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. Anyone could be reasonably excused for having a wrong opinion when it is the currently popular one – it’s easy to not examine one’s opinion and simply go with the mainstream of society. But, if one’s opinion is that unexamined, when popular opinion shifts, it’s on oneself to either shift with the times or to be held to account for one’s now non-mainstream opinion. > Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood?
    - javagram 7y ago
      > So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. It’s relevant to the decision of a company worried about associating itself with that opinion. The pro-life view fluctuates between being the majority and minority fairly regularly. A majority of Americans consider abortion immoral. A nonprofit that tries to provide alternatives to abortion would not be seen as a negative thing to a large portion of the population, so google has no reason to discriminate against them unless it wants to take a political view on the matter (which it would have the right to do). > Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood? Did planned parenthood apply for this grant and get denied? Google doesn’t discriminate against them in other contexts. E.g. here’s a news story talking about google matching employee donations to PP https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-charitable-donations-set-record/95636922/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-c...
1892892koko 7y ago
I disagree with the premise that these groups are deceptive. There's two claims implied by that statement that I don't agree with: 1) A large portion of the women heading to these centers are unaware of the existence / legality of abortion in their state. Considering these are online advertisements, they can necessarily do an online search to determine that information already, and it's well-known public discourse. 2) The only valid response to an unplanned pregnancy is abortion. Therefore, not recommending abortion is deceptive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- silversconfused 7y ago
  This is 2019. Doing an online search is making an entry into your permanent record. Anyone who needed to know about such things would be well advised to use a library computer or some other shared workstation, and that HUGELY raises the barrier to information. Fear sucks.
  - 1892892koko 7y ago
    That's a weak justification for the article's claims IMO. The stigma behind abortion is apparently at the level where people are afraid to even search the legality of it, yet at the same time it is legal in many states? Television shows regularly joke about it, and we are openly discussing the subject here, but the average person is afraid to ask "is abortion legal in my state?"

40 points by ductionist 7y ago

I see the green-name astroturf is strong on this one. The whole setup is odd. Google giving free advertising to selected non-profits is inherently a political act. Giving free advertising to "both sides" doesn't balance it out or make it non-political.

veriuhri 7y ago

And?

Paraesthetic 7y ago
exactly
- Fam2019 7y ago
  Humans are allowed to be murdered under two conditions: * They are at earliest stage of their life * The parent ordering the murder is female
  - omarchowdhury 7y ago
    They at earliest stage of their life But is that a human?
    - krageon 7y ago
      The right question is "is this murder". By talking past the sale so to speak (asking a question about a later piece of rhetoric), we are in danger of legitimising (to onlookers) a piece of rhetoric that is hand-crafted to cause outrage.
      - EliRivers 7y ago
        The very fact that it's allowed suggests heavily it's not murder; our green-coloured chum's statement is inherently contradictory and as such cannot be sensibly addressed.
        krageon 7y ago
        When a soldier shoots another soldier, that is murder even when it is allowed. The fact that it is allowed is immaterial to the definition of what it is.
        gboone 7y ago
        The description is taking of life. The definition is either killing or murder. Killing is broadly seen as not wrong, while murder is. For example, there are laws against murder. But if, while defending yourself, the other is killed that is not considered wrong, in most cases. You are right that taking life is taking life. And I would agree that a case could be made for murder in some cases with soldiers. So the real question is is it killing a fetus or murdering a fetus? No one debates there is life.
        krageon 7y ago
        > No one debates there is life. People do in fact debate whether or not there is human life.
        pnongrata 7y ago
        People debate about that all the time, whether there's life, a 'soul', etc.
        EliRivers 7y ago
        I disagree. Murder is a crime; a legal idea. If that same legal system allows killing under various circumstances, it's not murder. State sanctioned legal killing is explicitly not murder. If you choose to define it as murder, that's up to you, knock yourself out, but the state has power and authority - you don't.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rasz 7y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk Every Sperm is Sacred - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
  - bob_doggo 7y ago
    why is this anti-abortion bullshit on hacker news, shouldn't the standard here be quite a bit higher?
    - bitlax 7y ago
      Actually you're the one breaking the Hacker News guidelines by making this kind of unsubstantive comment.
    - veriuhri 7y ago
      My sentiments exactly.
rdiddly 7y ago
And, tricking people by lying is what Satan does. The end.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

panpanna 7y ago

So they run a bunch of clinics that pretend to offer abortion but when you get there they try to talk you out of it? First of all, how can an organization running this many clinics be considered a non-profit eligible for Googles ad grant?

Waterluvian 7y ago
Non-profit status is pretty abused in the U.S. I thought. There's a really good John Oliver segment on these clinics. They're pretty evil. Sometimes they don't talk you out of it. They lie to you until it's too late for an abortion.

frittig 7y ago

I'm not sure what the issue is. I couldn't find in the article a screenshot of the exact ad (why?) but assuming that it is presenting itself as a pregnancy crisis center than I see nothing wrong. If someone had an unwanted pregnancy there are several things that can be done, abortion is one of them, but there are others. If, let's say, the mother doesn't want the baby because she cannot financially support it, then a charity that can support the baby might be a better solution to the mother than abortion. Some organizations only offer abortion (planned Parenthood) others don't (the one in the article). Each mother should have the option and knowledge to choose the one that is appropriate for her.

Cenk 7y ago
Planned Parenthood does not only offer abortions.
- gboone 7y ago
  Yes, they also offer condoms if you're pregnant.
  - Cenk 7y ago
    Besides abortions and condoms Planned Parenthood also provides, amongst others: * Pregnancy services and prenatal care * STD and HIV testing and treatment * Birth control * Vasectomies * Screening for reproductive cancers (like breast, cervical, testicular, and prostate cancers) * Pap tests * Vaccines * PrEP and PEP (medicines to help prevent HIV) * Transgender health services, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT) These are all important health services, and reducing PP to condoms and abortions is dishonest at best.
Doxin 7y ago
Presenting yourself as a pregnancy crisis center, but then opting to omit information about a very important option seems rather deceptive to me.

teddyh 7y ago

Former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich gave a mere $1,000 to Prop 8, and he was forced to resign over it. Will Google face any backlash from giving $150,000 worth of advertising to this pro-life organization?

javagram 7y ago
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Although at the time Eich gave to prop 8 that position was a popular one (Prop. 8 did win a free and fair election after all), when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. In contrast the politics of abortion in the U.S. have remained pretty frozen over the past decades despite intense debate and increasing polarization (as shown by the polls at the link). It’s not exactly the same thing I think. Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. If the advertising is truly deceptive that’s a different story, but I read through the article and it failed to give any examples. Is this any different from a brand buying keywords related to a competitor?
- teddyh 7y ago
  > when he resigned 6 years later public opinion had already shifted significantly and was clearly in the process of shifting more. But his opinion hadn’t shifted. At least he didn’t say so at the time. So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. Anyone could be reasonably excused for having a wrong opinion when it is the currently popular one – it’s easy to not examine one’s opinion and simply go with the mainstream of society. But, if one’s opinion is that unexamined, when popular opinion shifts, it’s on oneself to either shift with the times or to be held to account for one’s now non-mainstream opinion. > Google treating legally recognized nonprofits equally seems fair to me. Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood?
  - javagram 7y ago
    > So, the fact that his opinion was once popular is irrelevant if he still held it when it became widely unpopular. It’s relevant to the decision of a company worried about associating itself with that opinion. The pro-life view fluctuates between being the majority and minority fairly regularly. A majority of Americans consider abortion immoral. A nonprofit that tries to provide alternatives to abortion would not be seen as a negative thing to a large portion of the population, so google has no reason to discriminate against them unless it wants to take a political view on the matter (which it would have the right to do). > Did Google really give equally to something akin to Planned Parenthood? Did planned parenthood apply for this grant and get denied? Google doesn’t discriminate against them in other contexts. E.g. here’s a news story talking about google matching employee donations to PP https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-charitable-donations-set-record/95636922/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/20/google-c...

1892892koko 7y ago

I disagree with the premise that these groups are deceptive. There's two claims implied by that statement that I don't agree with: 1) A large portion of the women heading to these centers are unaware of the existence / legality of abortion in their state. Considering these are online advertisements, they can necessarily do an online search to determine that information already, and it's well-known public discourse. 2) The only valid response to an unplanned pregnancy is abortion. Therefore, not recommending abortion is deceptive.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
silversconfused 7y ago
This is 2019. Doing an online search is making an entry into your permanent record. Anyone who needed to know about such things would be well advised to use a library computer or some other shared workstation, and that HUGELY raises the barrier to information. Fear sucks.
- 1892892koko 7y ago
  That's a weak justification for the article's claims IMO. The stigma behind abortion is apparently at the level where people are afraid to even search the legality of it, yet at the same time it is legal in many states? Television shows regularly joke about it, and we are openly discussing the subject here, but the average person is afraid to ask "is abortion legal in my state?"