Chadwick Matlin at The Big Money explains:
Up until now [Google] has taken action against ads, not advertisers. If an ad violated one of Google's terms of use, the search giant would take it out of circulation, but that's it. Google briefed TBM on its new policy: It will now ban the advertiser, not the ad, effectively neutering the advertiser's ability to shift from one ad and shell site to another. Think of it like the struggle between the police and a graffiti vandal. Up until now Google has only been erasing the tags after they've been put up. Going forward, they're going to take away his spray cans and put a GPS collar on him, making sure he never does it again. It would be a principled stand by any company, but especially by Google because of its position in the market.
The problem with permanent advertiser bans is that it can lead to false-positives, but this is a promising start on Google's part.
Google Does Non-Evil Thing: Bans White Teeth, Flat Stomachs [The Big Money]
RELATED:
Unethical, Annoying, And Ubiquitous Ads: Internet Miracle Cures For Everything
Easy Weight Loss And Free Cash: A Dubious Product Online Marketing Empire Revealed
Free Trials Can Be Trojan Horses For Sketchy Companies
(Photo: evil robot 6)
]]>A drop in the bucket. These things are going to take serious legislation to demolish.
]]>@tbax929: Yes, well, welcome to the internet.
]]>Another reason I love me my Opera browser. If it doesn't already get blocked by it, I can generally use the block content function have it done.
One problem are those 'sponsored ads' on sites. They seem to be a little trickier to get rid of. But at least they're not popping up in my face.
@jpdanzig:
Public Broadcasting wouldn't *NEED* corporate sponsors if individual donors picked up the slack...
]]>Google is especially aware of this because they own the Doubleclick adserver.
Glad they are changing this policy though.
Also - the internet is mostly free because it is mostly ad supported.
]]>Either Google needs to stop these advertisers from targeting mothers with scammy ads, or the Consumerist needs to stop reading my thoughts through my computer screen.
]]>"The problem with permanent advertiser bans is that it can lead to false-positives"
Bull Shit. Name one reputable company that accepts ads for outside companies. Can't, can ya?
Example:
Somewhere on the Sears site you might find a mention of K-Mart, but you won't find an ad for WallyWorld.
WallyWorld might mention Sam's, but never Target.
Catch a pattern?
NOBODY goes out of their way to advertise for their direct competitors or other brands.
So why should a blog or scummy website loaded with ad content be allowed to exist?
]]>@Dustbunny:I've always guessed that the "single mom"-meme implies that a product or service is so user-friendly that a "single mom"- who would obviously be extra-harried and distracted in her everyday affairs- can benefit from it, then us happily-married folk (or childless singles) would find it even more delightful and "easy-peasy".
]]>Here's Google's page about the warning: [www.google.com]
]]>Good for Google! The New York Times' classical music radio station WQXR had sunk to running spots for direct response scammers in recent months, and it showed how desperate the Gray Lady had become for revenue. Fortunately the station has been sold to public radio, and the scammer ads are gone. Now classical liseners just have to contend with sponsor announcements that rattle on like ads...
]]>Facebook and Google were both created to 'scam' people. I'm using the term 'scam' loosely here as to some it means you get scammed out of money, to others it means you somehow get ripped off somehow. In this case the scam is data-mining. You're not told your info is being sold (note: they probably have this in small print somewhere in the eula) or more importantly who it's being sold to.
]]>@scoobydoo: Google is notorious for not being easy to contact when they screw up.
I have not heard this before. Do you advertise or have business with Google?
]]>I work in tech support. I like when people tell me they need spyware installed on their computer.
]]>What about the acai berry ads and the "one simple rule" ads? Also the ones where there's the ripped guy and the fat guy "before and after" pics. Can we get rid of those?
]]>@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Every year, the nurse asks me if I'm there for my flu shot and I reply that I'd much rather have an anti-flue shot.
]]>Sorry, it struck me as funny. :D It's like when people ask, "Do you want to give a dollar to cystic fibrosis?" I'm like, "Um ... no, I'll save my dollar for the people who are FIGHTING cystic fibrosis."
]]>