This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Does anyone else find it strange that we are spending so much time and energy on this single incident, tragic as it was, when we could be talking about Syria, Somalia or Greece? Is it because the situation in these places is so self-evident that it doesn't require debate, or because people find one death in the USA more interesting/important than the European economies, or the deaths of thousands in Africa and the Middle East? Just wondering....
The death isn't the issue. The racism is the issue. A few elite banging gongs decided to use this incident as a lightning rod for attention. They decided it was good to use to continue getting attention to painting blacks as victims, and themselves as important. The fact that Trayvon Martin died, is pretty irrelevant. The color of his skin is, ironically, the important thing to all the people crying racism.
Post by
Squishalot
Is Google responsible for the ads it provides, or are the advertisers?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/competition-watchdog-slays-google-in-misleading-ads-case-20120403-1w9yx.html
(The same sort of principle can also be applied to Youtube, file sharing sites, and the like, if you think about it.)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Is Google responsible for the ads it provides, or are the advertisers?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/competition-watchdog-slays-google-in-misleading-ads-case-20120403-1w9yx.html
(The same sort of principle can also be applied to Youtube, file sharing sites, and the like, if you think about it.)
They should sue them for the search results too. Sometimes the results I get when I search google, give me websites with misleading information in them. Google should be responsible for the content of every website it shows results for. When they are done, they should sue wiki, because it isn't 100% accurate. After that they should sue McDonalds, because I saw newspaper sitting in someone's car in their parkinglot, that had inaccurate information. I like to see courts do really stupid stuff that is highly damaging over benign issues.
Post by
Squishalot
And you tell me that my analogies are bad.
Minus the cynicism, consider that Google are the ones who are putting the ads up. Would you sue a billboard owner for running a bad ad that it has control over, or the company asking to run the ad? It's nothing like a newspaper sitting in a McDees carpark.
And last time I checked, it's not illegal to put misleading information online. It is, however, illegal to misleadingly advertise.
Post by
MyTie
And you tell me that my analogies are bad.I can't be facetious with you. I just can't. Squish is stuck in the world of literalism. I'm sure you got my meaning, but that is entirely beside the point. It makes me a little tired. And no, I don't tell you that your analogies are bad. I don't care.
On-Topic: Google AdSense runs how many thousands? millions? of ads? Fact checking each one to ensure accuracy would be a heavy and stupid... STUPID economic burden that would save people from GASP, going to a website they didn't intend on. It's a dumb court ruling.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
And no, I don't tell you that your analogies are bad. I don't care.
Uh huh.
I can't be facetious with you. I just can't. Squish is stuck in the world of literalism. I'm sure you got my meaning, but that is entirely beside the point. It makes me a little tired.
Of course I know you're being facetious, but being facetious isn't good for discussion. What's the point in posting if you're just going to parrot off a set of cynical one (or two, or five) liners? At least when I'm being facetious, I'm responding directly to the idea. Like so:
On-Topic: Google AdSense runs how many thousands? millions? of ads? Fact checking each one to ensure accuracy would be a heavy and stupid... STUPID economic burden that would save people from GASP, going to a website they didn't intend on. It's a dumb court ruling.
It's a STUPID economic burden to provide roads that hundreds of millions of people aren't going to use. Maybe we shouldn't build all those roads then, eh? It's a STUPID economic burden to force banks to have branches so that people without internet can do their banking. What a dumb idea.
Economic burden is a rubbish
default
reason for not doing something. If the economic burden is there, then the discussion should be had on whether the users should be required to pay for it.
As for Squish's question about billboard, billboard owner should not be sued, those companies have marketing departments that takes care of content. Same goes for Google...
If someone submits pictures of naked people to your billboard (assuming that that would be illegal in your jurisdiction as well), are you saying that as a billboard owner, you think you should have no obligation to prevent that going up? I agree that the content owner who submitted the ad has responsibility, but the host also bears some responsibility for vetting and ensuring that the content is fit for distribution.
Let me spin it another way (which is probably more reflective of the Google case). Suppose there's a billboard that looks like a giant Nike ad, with Nike branding and everything. There's a QR code on the ad that says "Scan here for more information!" When you scan that QR code, it brings you to a competitor's website. As the owner of an advertising service, are you suggesting that you have no responsibility to make sure that the ad you're running complies with legal requirements?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
On-Topic: Google AdSense runs how many thousands? millions? of ads? Fact checking each one to ensure accuracy would be a heavy and stupid... STUPID economic burden that would save people from GASP, going to a website they didn't intend on. It's a dumb court ruling.
It's a STUPID economic burden to provide roads that hundreds of millions of people aren't going to use. Maybe we shouldn't build all those roads then, eh? It's a STUPID economic burden to force banks to have branches so that people without internet can do their banking. What a dumb idea.
Economic burden is a rubbish
default
reason for not doing something. If the economic burden is there, then the discussion should be had on whether the users should be required to pay for it.Ok. If YOU don't buy my reason as a good enough reason for YOU I'll give YOU another. I'll even package it the way YOU want me to package it, because YOU don't think being facetious is good for discussion. Perhaps this will be good enough justification for YOU. If YOU still don't think that I have a good enough justification for my opinion then YOU will just have to move along.
Google should not be held responsible for everything people use their services for, because Google is not the one being deceptive, but simply providing the tools that people are using to be deceptive. However, that was not the intended use of the tools. For instance, a knife vendor should not be held accountable for a knife murder. A knife vendor simply cannot account for every action that a person does with their knives, nor is it their responsibility. I would say, in the instance of Google, the car company that was being deceptive should be held responsible.Let me spin it another way (which is probably more reflective of the Google case). Suppose there's a billboard that looks like a giant Nike ad, with Nike branding and everything. There's a QR code on the ad that says "Scan here for more information!" When you scan that QR code, it brings you to a competitor's website. As the owner of an advertising service, are you suggesting that you have no responsibility to make sure that the ad you're running complies with legal requirements?
It is reasonable to infer that a billboard owner would not scan the QR code on the billboard, call all the phone numbers, check out the small address on the bottom to make SURE they were all Nike. As long as there isn't a large sexual organ slathered across the billboard, or a hanging black man with KKK people skipping into the horizon, or something obvious, then I don't think the billboard company is liable to fact check every ad that someone puts up. Just like TV stations don't fact check every ad, nor do newspaper companies. They don't check on doctors ads to ensure that the doctor graduated and paid their dues. It just isn't part of communications. It is part of advertising, but not part of communications medium. I find it remarkable that you don't feel the company that was being intentionally deceptive is the company to blame here. It's remarkable to me. I read what you say, and I find it slightly shocking.
Post by
Adamsm
Well that's refreshing, and maybe a possible change to some views. Good for her.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that if someone reports it to Google, on a site by site basis, they have the responsibility to correct it. Which I believe they do- I know we were once reported for copywrite infringement on an ad that had a tagline that listed the ingredients in the fudge. Apparently no one else is allowed to make fudge with cream and butter. I sent in a complaint, and they reversed the block on that ad, but I do know that if you report someone's ad they will suspend it.
If they refuse to address complaints, I can see them then being liable after the fact. But if they do have the appropriate rules for their website, and they do enforce the rules when infractions are reported, then I think they're doing their job. I don't think that websites that host user created content, or are a directory of sorts, have the capacity to review every single post for anything that violates any rule or law before it's posted, just like the FCC can't have someone review every minute of footage on every television channel and every radio broadcast prior to it being aired, or review every contract for every television channel to make sure that they have the appropriate licenses for every program and commercial they put out. If someone breaks the rules, they can impose a fine and other sanctions after the fact, and take steps to keep it from reoccurring, but they can't scan every piece of information involved across the country to prevent it.
It's the same with newspapers- they can't have someone go to every store and home that runs a want/personal/for sale ad and make sure that the items and people represented are what they said they were. If the newspaper gets a report that the ad isn't on the up and up, and continues to run it, then maybe they're liable. But to ask them to chase down every person who runs an ad and make sure before the ad goes out that the car is definitely in "good" condition, or SWF 34 isn't really SWM 64, is just not feasible.
Post by
MyTie
Apparently no one else is allowed to make fudge with cream and butter.
That was me that reported you. I own the copy right on cream and butter. I'm suing cows everywhere.
Post by
gamerunknown
On a different note, my disappointment in the coalition in general and the
Liberal Democrats
specifically continues to rise.
Post by
MyTie
US Government agency throws a
$820,000
conference. The employees dropped thousands of dollars on luxury items and convention giveaways -- including more than $6,000 on commemorative coins, $8,000 on a "yearbook," and $3,200 for an in-house mind reader.Planners spent $31,000 on a "networking reception" that featured $19-per-person "American artisanal cheese display" and $7,000 in sushi. Taxpayers also footed the bill for a $3,200 session with a mind reader, $5,600 for in-room parties, $3,700 for T-shirts and almost $2,800 in water bottles.
A separate cocktail reception included $1,500 for "Boursin scalloped potato with Barolo wine-braised short ribs" and a $525 bartender fee for a cash bar. A senior official spent $2,700 to entertain other employees after the closing dinner. And three officials spent almost $400 for rented tuxedos.I would feel that my trust in government money management has been betrayed, but I never had that trust in the first place.
Post by
Squishalot
I find it remarkable that you don't feel the company that was being intentionally deceptive is the company to blame here.
I agree that the content owner who submitted the ad has responsibility
, but the host also bears some responsibility for vetting and ensuring that the content is fit for distribution.
However, that was not the intended use of the tools. For instance, a knife vendor should not be held accountable for a knife murder. A knife vendor simply cannot account for every action that a person does with their knives, nor is it their responsibility. I would say, in the instance of Google, the car company that was being deceptive should be held responsible.
By contrast, we have rules that gun vendors need to ensure that the people they sell their weapons to aren't fruit loops, for example. Responsible service of alcohol puts liability on bars who serve alcohol to the intoxicated (at least in Australia it does). Other vendors have proactive responsibilities to ensure that the services they provide don't result in public damage.
If someone breaks the rules, they can impose a fine and other sanctions after the fact, and take steps to keep it from reoccurring, but they can't scan every piece of information involved across the country to prevent it.
Isn't that what's happening in this instance? They're fining Google for breaking the rules and asking them to put in place a procedure to prevent it happening again, just like you'd fine a radio broadcaster for playing something offensive and ask them to implement a system? We've had a case in Australia recently involving a radio presenter who was basically verbally abusing a journalist - at the end of the day, it's the radio station who gets fined, not the presenter, because they're the ones broadcasting the program and they're the ones who are responsible for what they show.
Arguably, one way of removing any risk of misleading advertising would be to insist that the website address is located in the ad (i.e. the link input in AdWords becomes the visible link in the advertising box) for ads that you want to automatically upload without a vetting process.
Post by
asakawa
On a different note, my disappointment in the coalition in general and the
Liberal Democrats
specifically continues to rise.
I hear ya!
I guess civil liberties is about to become a thing here with internet monitoring and now secret courts. The pasty tax and buying a meeting thing were just funny but this is getting serious.
Post by
gamerunknown
Here
is a petition for British residents to repeal the legislation allowing for increased surveillance.
Post by
MyTie
NBC issues apology
for airing edited Zimmerman 911 call. The way they edited it made Zimmerman sound like a racist. By contrast, we have rules that gun vendors need to ensure that the people they sell their weapons to aren't fruit loops, for example. Responsible service of alcohol puts liability on bars who serve alcohol to the intoxicated (at least in Australia it does). Other vendors have proactive responsibilities to ensure that the services they provide don't result in public damage.
Google isn't selling weapons or drinkable poison. They are ads. I feel their responsibility is diminished.
Post by
MyTie
Obama "declares war" on Supreme Court
, in anticipation of a decision on his healthcare law.
Post by
gamerunknown
He declared the Supreme Court declaring legislation passed by a wide margin in Congress unconstituional as "unprecedented", which is possibly the worst turn of phrase available to someone that studied and taught law.
Post by
MyTie
He declared the Supreme Court declaring legislation passed by a wide margin in Congress unconstituional as "unprecedented", which is possibly the worst turn of phrase available to someone that studied and taught law.
It helps him to make up stuff, since reality doesn't support his ideologies, and his narcissism doesn't allow self correction.
Worst.... President.... Ever.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.