6 ms·

Adsense is Google and Google is an American company, you have to be very careful about the words in use. Usually it means a massive blocklist of words, when fin

Adsense is Google and Google is an American company, you have to be very careful about the words in use. Usually it means a massive blocklist of words, when finding them don't display the ads on that page. Even bigger newspapers sometimes don't have ads on the more morbid type of news pages.

lostlogin 6y ago
This is very dystopian. Don’t say the bad word, the machines are listening.
- sofixa 6y ago
  It's not the machines, it's the advertisers. If you're paying for publicity, you don't want it next to things anyone might find unsavoury. You don't want your products to be associated with X.
  - leppr 6y ago
    In that case the ad networks themselves should provide tools that automatically detect forbidden words and disable ads, instead of arbitrarily enforcing their policy on random small players.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    Associated with words defined in a dictionary? How pedantic do you have to be to say "I don't want to advertise with Britannica because their dictionary has the word rape"?
    - christophilus 6y ago
      I think it’s more that you don’t want your ad to show up on a page about rape, but you’re fine with it showing up on a page about joy. Coca-Cola works hard to associate their brand with happy experiences. They’d probably take out ads on the positive words in a dictionary but not the negative ones. If this site was making no distinction, it would lose Coca-Cola as a sponsor. Not really defending Google, but the puritanical explanation isn’t the best one.
      - wernercd 6y ago
        I mean in some aspect I agree in spirit with your point but your point is off topic. It may be questionable to have your stuff advertised on a page about the history of Germany... But lets be honest... that's not why these things are being taken down. They aren't being removed because advertisers are complaining. Please show me where anything of that sort is mentioned - either in the OP of this thread or specifically in the article about "buckle-less belts"... In the example of this thread... they are being removed because someone (presumably a competitor) reported their app for SUPPORTING "rape and pedos". A dictionary with a definition of rape getting removed for "supporting" rape by defining it - while competing dictionaries aren't removed for also defining the same words? Why aren't they getting removed for having a definition of rape that advertisers don't want to be listed on? Please... show me where I'm wrong that the dictionary application was removed for 'advertiser complaints'... or the original article has its stuff removed for advertisers complaining.
  - mrweasel 6y ago
    I'm sure you're right, but that means that ad money is valued above everything else. That's kinda dystopian. In the long run, it has to make ad financed content less viable. We'll end up with advertiser friendly content, with no consumers.
  - adpcm 6y ago
    There are completely legitimate reasons which still cause trouble [0] like description of Broadcast TV episodes with (gasp) murders and killers.. Why am I seeing the words "Hugging" and "Cuddled" in summaries? The TV Calendar is monetised using Google Adsense. As part of Googles drive to be more advertiser friendly (you may know this as the Adpocalyse - it didn't just affect Youtubers) their system is now telling me the Calendar has SHOCKING CONTENT on it, and that ads will be removed from such pages. [0] https://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/frequently-asked-questions.php https://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/frequently-asked-questions.p...
  - levosmetalo 6y ago
    Isn't it obvious that the same people who are actually looking for a translation of some word would not have any issue* seeing that some word in an ad? * - at least not bigger issue than seeing any ads at all, but those would run ad-blocker anyway.
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  I disagree that his given example is dystopian. He is specifically taking about pages with Ads on them. Corporations don't want to be associated with said terms, so they wouldn't want to be advertised in that context.
  - imagine99 6y ago
    No, you're missing the point completely. His competitors were using the same data source. The problem here is not ads appearing next to "bad" words, or what and who gets to decide what "bad" words even are, that's a whole other discussion. The issue here is that Google, Amazon or $bigcorp allows its "blocking" algorithm to be misused, to be weaponized by competitors and that it allows no possibility of human review, that you can't get any human via phone or email to review a completely arbitrary (and often enough plain wrong) decision a random algo has committed (through human instigation or on its own rampage, as it happens often enough). That nobody has to account for and take responsibility for algorithmic decisions ("Sorry, computer says no. Good bye). I have become so frustrated with this issue (we seem to discuss it every other day on HN) that I've come to think that you should not be allowed to offer services using automation without a clear and working process of escalation to a human in case of trouble. If we allow this behavior to continue and to spread (and look, I get it, doing business this way is very attractive and scales beautifully), things will only get worse. We'll get to the point where it's "sorry, your car was deactivated because $passenger reported that you used a bad word in his presence. Do not contact us again". Maybe this will wake people up and show them that this way of offering services is broken. Or "sorry, our algorithm decided you get the death penalty based on 100 reports of people that you did $badthing. chops head off Sorry, don't contact us again." Too much hyperbole? We'll see. Algorithmic determination of prison sentences already exists.
    - 411111111111111 6y ago
      You're addressing the example of the opener, not the given example that was called dystopian. So if anyone is missing the point, it's you. we only know what the opener said about his story, so i dont feel comfortable saying wherever what happened to him was dystopian or not.
Griffinsauce 6y ago
I appreciate you're trying to help but this is infuriating. That puritanical, prudish attitude has done so much damage already, we should stop accepting it as "Americans gonna American".
- leppr 6y ago
  What we should accept is that platorms which are not designed to be neutral, won't be. Is the problem that Google caries with it the puritan American culture, or that too many people which might not share that culture rely on Google?
  - fwn 6y ago
    I think that, in this specific case, this is pretty clear: If there's a culture that does not allow a dictionary to define rape, there's something wrong with this culture. I'm certain most Americans agree with me here which makes me assume that this specific problem is not one of culture, but probably scale and an absence of responsiblity at Google. The more general question is interesting though, because it could go several ways. For example: You could argue that people should anticipate that the platforms they rely on are not under their control (and should maybe act on that). Or one could argue that the platforms should anticipate the diversity of cultural standards they are catering to by easing their moral rigidity. (For example through a more diverse/decentral company structure, etc.) Here in Europe, some approach a somewhat similar question with some form of data nationalism, for better or worse. It plays into the same realization that there is an unresolved cultural difference between global platforms and local standards and intends to politically support local initiatives, corporations, etc. That, I think, doesn't solve the problem, but shifts the level of granularity. Great problem, many angles.
    - Zanni 6y ago
      But that's not the case at all. The dictionary that defines rape is still up and still ranking in Google search results. There's just no advertising allowed on that page. And you could argue that Google is being overly-puritanical, but you could also argue that most of their advertisers don't want to be associated with such words, even in a neutral context.
lrem 6y ago
And this is a passed down requirement, coming from the major advertisers. Google is simply enacting their will to never advertise on anything remotely related to a laundry list of taboos. I have a vague memory of something about this being in ToS (which I read ages ago, before joining the company) and I think we got smarter about this (preventing display on particular content; think like demonetising particular videos on YT). Source: I work in Google. Not in Ads, but this topic has been discussed in TGIF at some point.
onion2k 6y ago
This doesn't explain the fact it was only applied to one business. If it was a simple keyword matcher banning sites that use words on the naughty list then at least it would be fair and equitable stupidity. Google applying it seemingly at random so whether or not you can make an ad-driven living is mostly down to luck makes it much worse.

lostlogin 6y ago

This is very dystopian. Don’t say the bad word, the machines are listening.

sofixa 6y ago
It's not the machines, it's the advertisers. If you're paying for publicity, you don't want it next to things anyone might find unsavoury. You don't want your products to be associated with X.
- leppr 6y ago
  In that case the ad networks themselves should provide tools that automatically detect forbidden words and disable ads, instead of arbitrarily enforcing their policy on random small players.
- wernercd 6y ago
  Associated with words defined in a dictionary? How pedantic do you have to be to say "I don't want to advertise with Britannica because their dictionary has the word rape"?
  - christophilus 6y ago
    I think it’s more that you don’t want your ad to show up on a page about rape, but you’re fine with it showing up on a page about joy. Coca-Cola works hard to associate their brand with happy experiences. They’d probably take out ads on the positive words in a dictionary but not the negative ones. If this site was making no distinction, it would lose Coca-Cola as a sponsor. Not really defending Google, but the puritanical explanation isn’t the best one.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      I mean in some aspect I agree in spirit with your point but your point is off topic. It may be questionable to have your stuff advertised on a page about the history of Germany... But lets be honest... that's not why these things are being taken down. They aren't being removed because advertisers are complaining. Please show me where anything of that sort is mentioned - either in the OP of this thread or specifically in the article about "buckle-less belts"... In the example of this thread... they are being removed because someone (presumably a competitor) reported their app for SUPPORTING "rape and pedos". A dictionary with a definition of rape getting removed for "supporting" rape by defining it - while competing dictionaries aren't removed for also defining the same words? Why aren't they getting removed for having a definition of rape that advertisers don't want to be listed on? Please... show me where I'm wrong that the dictionary application was removed for 'advertiser complaints'... or the original article has its stuff removed for advertisers complaining.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  I'm sure you're right, but that means that ad money is valued above everything else. That's kinda dystopian. In the long run, it has to make ad financed content less viable. We'll end up with advertiser friendly content, with no consumers.
- adpcm 6y ago
  There are completely legitimate reasons which still cause trouble [0] like description of Broadcast TV episodes with (gasp) murders and killers.. Why am I seeing the words "Hugging" and "Cuddled" in summaries? The TV Calendar is monetised using Google Adsense. As part of Googles drive to be more advertiser friendly (you may know this as the Adpocalyse - it didn't just affect Youtubers) their system is now telling me the Calendar has SHOCKING CONTENT on it, and that ads will be removed from such pages. [0] https://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/frequently-asked-questions.php https://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/frequently-asked-questions.p...
- levosmetalo 6y ago
  Isn't it obvious that the same people who are actually looking for a translation of some word would not have any issue* seeing that some word in an ad? * - at least not bigger issue than seeing any ads at all, but those would run ad-blocker anyway.
411111111111111 6y ago
I disagree that his given example is dystopian. He is specifically taking about pages with Ads on them. Corporations don't want to be associated with said terms, so they wouldn't want to be advertised in that context.
- imagine99 6y ago
  No, you're missing the point completely. His competitors were using the same data source. The problem here is not ads appearing next to "bad" words, or what and who gets to decide what "bad" words even are, that's a whole other discussion. The issue here is that Google, Amazon or $bigcorp allows its "blocking" algorithm to be misused, to be weaponized by competitors and that it allows no possibility of human review, that you can't get any human via phone or email to review a completely arbitrary (and often enough plain wrong) decision a random algo has committed (through human instigation or on its own rampage, as it happens often enough). That nobody has to account for and take responsibility for algorithmic decisions ("Sorry, computer says no. Good bye). I have become so frustrated with this issue (we seem to discuss it every other day on HN) that I've come to think that you should not be allowed to offer services using automation without a clear and working process of escalation to a human in case of trouble. If we allow this behavior to continue and to spread (and look, I get it, doing business this way is very attractive and scales beautifully), things will only get worse. We'll get to the point where it's "sorry, your car was deactivated because $passenger reported that you used a bad word in his presence. Do not contact us again". Maybe this will wake people up and show them that this way of offering services is broken. Or "sorry, our algorithm decided you get the death penalty based on 100 reports of people that you did $badthing. chops head off Sorry, don't contact us again." Too much hyperbole? We'll see. Algorithmic determination of prison sentences already exists.
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    You're addressing the example of the opener, not the given example that was called dystopian. So if anyone is missing the point, it's you. we only know what the opener said about his story, so i dont feel comfortable saying wherever what happened to him was dystopian or not.

Griffinsauce 6y ago

I appreciate you're trying to help but this is infuriating. That puritanical, prudish attitude has done so much damage already, we should stop accepting it as "Americans gonna American".

leppr 6y ago
What we should accept is that platorms which are not designed to be neutral, won't be. Is the problem that Google caries with it the puritan American culture, or that too many people which might not share that culture rely on Google?
- fwn 6y ago
  I think that, in this specific case, this is pretty clear: If there's a culture that does not allow a dictionary to define rape, there's something wrong with this culture. I'm certain most Americans agree with me here which makes me assume that this specific problem is not one of culture, but probably scale and an absence of responsiblity at Google. The more general question is interesting though, because it could go several ways. For example: You could argue that people should anticipate that the platforms they rely on are not under their control (and should maybe act on that). Or one could argue that the platforms should anticipate the diversity of cultural standards they are catering to by easing their moral rigidity. (For example through a more diverse/decentral company structure, etc.) Here in Europe, some approach a somewhat similar question with some form of data nationalism, for better or worse. It plays into the same realization that there is an unresolved cultural difference between global platforms and local standards and intends to politically support local initiatives, corporations, etc. That, I think, doesn't solve the problem, but shifts the level of granularity. Great problem, many angles.
  - Zanni 6y ago
    But that's not the case at all. The dictionary that defines rape is still up and still ranking in Google search results. There's just no advertising allowed on that page. And you could argue that Google is being overly-puritanical, but you could also argue that most of their advertisers don't want to be associated with such words, even in a neutral context.

lrem 6y ago

And this is a passed down requirement, coming from the major advertisers. Google is simply enacting their will to never advertise on anything remotely related to a laundry list of taboos. I have a vague memory of something about this being in ToS (which I read ages ago, before joining the company) and I think we got smarter about this (preventing display on particular content; think like demonetising particular videos on YT). Source: I work in Google. Not in Ads, but this topic has been discussed in TGIF at some point.

onion2k 6y ago

This doesn't explain the fact it was only applied to one business. If it was a simple keyword matcher banning sites that use words on the naughty list then at least it would be fair and equitable stupidity. Google applying it seemingly at random so whether or not you can make an ad-driven living is mostly down to luck makes it much worse.