5 ms·

Google Censors Guns, Ammo & Accessories from Shopping Results

33 points by TDL 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- citricsquid 14y ago
  It's an "upcoming change" that Google confirmed: http://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=176077 http://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...
citricsquid 14y ago
Seems to be down, pastebin mirror: http://pastebin.com/5RWeF5qQ http://pastebin.com/5RWeF5qQ or google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.guns.com%2Fgoogle-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sugexp=chrome,m...
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  OT, how exactly do you find the google cache link, when this kind of thing happen? I looked it up earlier but didn't find it.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    Either search "cache:[url]" via google or you can do it via the address bar in chrome. cache:http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-re...
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Take the original URL and prepend "cache:" in the google search box. In this case: cache:http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html
rogerchucker 14y ago
Good
superxor 14y ago
Living here in India it's surprising to see the mostly unregulated Gun sale in the US. I believe it's a right the constitution of US grants to its citizens. But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US. It seems like common sense to us here that allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence. Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - glhaynes 14y ago
    This is indeed oversimplifying. A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least. Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status. [Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]
    - protomyth 14y ago
      The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1). Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well. 1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001
protomyth 14y ago
"Google AdWords doesn't allow the promotion of weapons or devices designed to cause serious harm or injury." Swords are allowed?!? Which sword is not designed to cause serious harm or injury? Allowing swords and then disallowing knives is just weird.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  My guess is it has something to do to the amount of crimes with knives vs with swords.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    They might want to rewrite their intro then as it does not match the table. Also, tasers aren't exactly safe.
    - vibrunazo 14y ago
      Meh, discussing subjectivity and semantics is boring. Nowadays most swords are designed as cosmetic decoration, not "designed for serious harm and injury". You could interpret it either way, it's just semantics. Same for tasers. Anyway, boring.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        The semantics of rules is the only important thing about rules. Sorry to bore you, and wondering why you bothered?
- wickedchicken 14y ago
  A knife is easily concealed, letting you walk right up to somebody late at night and pull it out before the victim can run. A sword not so much.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I can do that with a kitchen knife also, and a knife is a pretty useful tool - heck - ask any worker who has to open boxes all day. The rules are really confused.
damoncali 14y ago
Google has long been unfriendly to firearms related websites. They don't allow their ad server to be used by them, or for adsense to be shown on them. For example, my own site, http://bisonballistics.com http://bisonballistics.com, cannot use adsense because it links to sites that sell firearms parts. I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal. I'd be shocked if there was a good reason for this, but I'd love to hear it. Entrepreneurs have filled the gap with specialized ad networks, just as Gunbroker did when ebay pulled similar antics. EDIT: a couple of you have taken issue with my definition of ethics - fair enough. The broader point is that google just doesn't like firearms, no matter how they are used.
- Nitramp 14y ago
  Google also doesn't accept advertisement for pornography, religion, and a whole bunch of other things that might be controversial to certain people under certain conditions. I don't think it's necessarily singling out weapons, it's rather staying out of lines of business that might cause Google more harm than benefit (I assume there'd be a lot of money to be made from pornography ads).
  - damoncali 14y ago
    That's kind of my point. Google seems to find firearms to be as offensive as gambling, prostitution, illegal drug sales, and criminal activity. I would suggest that that is a rather limited, urban hipster point of view, while their business is global.
- legutierr 14y ago
  One reasonable explanation from a business perspective would be a PR one. If someone used Google to find and eventually purchase a gun used in a horrific crime, that would do much to tarnish Google's image.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  > I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal. Oh c'mon. Let's not get there. As someone in the gun community you should be more than aware that "ethics" are extremely subjective to one's opinion. There's no global truth for ethics. Respect other's opinion's and you won't be shocked if there's a good reason for this. The good reason is: some people don't actually agree with you.
staunch 14y ago
I think the issue is that they're changing Google Shopping from a search engine to be only paid listings. They were okay with listing weapons before because they didn't make any money off them, but now all listings will be paid. They don't want to earn money from weapon listings. eBay has the same policy. I don't agree with the policy personally but I certainly have no problem with a private company doing things like this.
- damoncali 14y ago
  ebay can at least make the argument that the legal headaches/uncertainty with enforcing interstate gun laws may not be worth the money they get from gun auctions. Google won't even allow you to link to Cabelas.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
maratd 14y ago
In the end, it's Google's product and they should run the service as they wish. However, this and the previously announced change of charging for placing listings in the service leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. In the end, I'll just end up using one of many alternatives. This is also on the extreme end of hypocrisy. Google frequency complains about the censorship it faces around the world and then turns around, and censors results when it doesn't have to here in the US. A part of fighting censorship is tolerating content you may not like. In fact, that's what being part of a tolerant society is. Putting up with shit you don't agree with.
mindrag 14y ago
I'm upset by what I see as a sense of entitlement by gun owners who think that every retail outlet should be selling guns. Many gun buffs won't shop at Target because that store won't sell guns. Now they are complaining about Google. It's not like Google is the only way to shop online. Heck, it's not even the BEST way to shop online. Get over it and shop somewhere else.
- damoncali 14y ago
  Many gun buffs won't shop at Target because that store won't sell guns...Get over it and shop somewhere else. I think that's what they're doing.
maxharris 14y ago
Using the word "censor" is inappropriate here because it doesn't distinguish between two very different things: 1) government-imposed silencing of speech by force (this is what "censorship" should mean) 2) a private person or group refusing to be a platform for someone else's speech (the definition of "censorship" should not include this. If it did, you would be "censoring" all those whom you did not assist in being heard.) Each of us has a right to say whatever we want, but not the right to force others to help us say it. [This isn't relevant to my point, but I'm very pro-gun. I'm just not pro-force.]

33 points by TDL 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

citricsquid 14y ago
It's an "upcoming change" that Google confirmed: http://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=176077 http://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...

citricsquid 14y ago

Seems to be down, pastebin mirror: http://pastebin.com/5RWeF5qQ http://pastebin.com/5RWeF5qQ or google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.guns.com%2Fgoogle-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sugexp=chrome,m...

vibrunazo 14y ago
OT, how exactly do you find the google cache link, when this kind of thing happen? I looked it up earlier but didn't find it.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  Either search "cache:[url]" via google or you can do it via the address bar in chrome. cache:http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-re...
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Take the original URL and prepend "cache:" in the google search box. In this case: cache:http://www.guns.com/google-guns-ammo-accessories-shopping-results-9403.html

rogerchucker 14y ago

Good

superxor 14y ago

Living here in India it's surprising to see the mostly unregulated Gun sale in the US. I believe it's a right the constitution of US grants to its citizens. But I've read that this is a major cause for higher homicidal rate in the US. It seems like common sense to us here that allowing nearly everyone to purchase Guns is counter-productive and will only result in more violence. Correct me If I am wrong, I understand this is a highly polarized issue in US and it's election time too.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- glhaynes 14y ago
  This is indeed oversimplifying. A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least. Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status. [Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]
  - protomyth 14y ago
    The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1). Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well. 1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001

protomyth 14y ago

"Google AdWords doesn't allow the promotion of weapons or devices designed to cause serious harm or injury." Swords are allowed?!? Which sword is not designed to cause serious harm or injury? Allowing swords and then disallowing knives is just weird.

vibrunazo 14y ago
My guess is it has something to do to the amount of crimes with knives vs with swords.
- protomyth 14y ago
  They might want to rewrite their intro then as it does not match the table. Also, tasers aren't exactly safe.
  - vibrunazo 14y ago
    Meh, discussing subjectivity and semantics is boring. Nowadays most swords are designed as cosmetic decoration, not "designed for serious harm and injury". You could interpret it either way, it's just semantics. Same for tasers. Anyway, boring.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      The semantics of rules is the only important thing about rules. Sorry to bore you, and wondering why you bothered?
wickedchicken 14y ago
A knife is easily concealed, letting you walk right up to somebody late at night and pull it out before the victim can run. A sword not so much.
- protomyth 14y ago
  I can do that with a kitchen knife also, and a knife is a pretty useful tool - heck - ask any worker who has to open boxes all day. The rules are really confused.

damoncali 14y ago

Google has long been unfriendly to firearms related websites. They don't allow their ad server to be used by them, or for adsense to be shown on them. For example, my own site, http://bisonballistics.com http://bisonballistics.com, cannot use adsense because it links to sites that sell firearms parts. I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal. I'd be shocked if there was a good reason for this, but I'd love to hear it. Entrepreneurs have filled the gap with specialized ad networks, just as Gunbroker did when ebay pulled similar antics. EDIT: a couple of you have taken issue with my definition of ethics - fair enough. The broader point is that google just doesn't like firearms, no matter how they are used.

Nitramp 14y ago
Google also doesn't accept advertisement for pornography, religion, and a whole bunch of other things that might be controversial to certain people under certain conditions. I don't think it's necessarily singling out weapons, it's rather staying out of lines of business that might cause Google more harm than benefit (I assume there'd be a lot of money to be made from pornography ads).
- damoncali 14y ago
  That's kind of my point. Google seems to find firearms to be as offensive as gambling, prostitution, illegal drug sales, and criminal activity. I would suggest that that is a rather limited, urban hipster point of view, while their business is global.
legutierr 14y ago
One reasonable explanation from a business perspective would be a PR one. If someone used Google to find and eventually purchase a gun used in a horrific crime, that would do much to tarnish Google's image.
vibrunazo 14y ago
> I dare you to find one word on that site that encourages anything unethical, unsafe, or illegal. Oh c'mon. Let's not get there. As someone in the gun community you should be more than aware that "ethics" are extremely subjective to one's opinion. There's no global truth for ethics. Respect other's opinion's and you won't be shocked if there's a good reason for this. The good reason is: some people don't actually agree with you.

staunch 14y ago

I think the issue is that they're changing Google Shopping from a search engine to be only paid listings. They were okay with listing weapons before because they didn't make any money off them, but now all listings will be paid. They don't want to earn money from weapon listings. eBay has the same policy. I don't agree with the policy personally but I certainly have no problem with a private company doing things like this.

damoncali 14y ago
ebay can at least make the argument that the legal headaches/uncertainty with enforcing interstate gun laws may not be worth the money they get from gun auctions. Google won't even allow you to link to Cabelas.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

maratd 14y ago

In the end, it's Google's product and they should run the service as they wish. However, this and the previously announced change of charging for placing listings in the service leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. In the end, I'll just end up using one of many alternatives. This is also on the extreme end of hypocrisy. Google frequency complains about the censorship it faces around the world and then turns around, and censors results when it doesn't have to here in the US. A part of fighting censorship is tolerating content you may not like. In fact, that's what being part of a tolerant society is. Putting up with shit you don't agree with.

mindrag 14y ago

I'm upset by what I see as a sense of entitlement by gun owners who think that every retail outlet should be selling guns. Many gun buffs won't shop at Target because that store won't sell guns. Now they are complaining about Google. It's not like Google is the only way to shop online. Heck, it's not even the BEST way to shop online. Get over it and shop somewhere else.

damoncali 14y ago
Many gun buffs won't shop at Target because that store won't sell guns...Get over it and shop somewhere else. I think that's what they're doing.

maxharris 14y ago

Using the word "censor" is inappropriate here because it doesn't distinguish between two very different things: 1) government-imposed silencing of speech by force (this is what "censorship" should mean) 2) a private person or group refusing to be a platform for someone else's speech (the definition of "censorship" should not include this. If it did, you would be "censoring" all those whom you did not assist in being heard.) Each of us has a right to say whatever we want, but not the right to force others to help us say it. [This isn't relevant to my point, but I'm very pro-gun. I'm just not pro-force.]