• chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The communication suggests this is coming from Google AdSense which is the publisher advertising side of things, informing the site admin that their site contains content that will likely result in them being removed from being eligible to sell ad slots to advertisers on their network.

    Whether or not the assessment of individual flags are correct is another discussion (of which I genuinely don’t care and don’t have time to look into), but it is perfectly normal and acceptable for ad exchanges, Google AdSense in this case, to inform publishers that they’re about to lose out on profit potential because their content is not in compliance with what the advertisers are expecting from the exchange.

    Google AdSense could just as easily immediately kick the publisher from the program, at which point they’d no longer be eligible to sell ads through AdSense, but their content will continue to remain online. No censorship is taking place here.

        • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Antivax? Hate speech? Sounds pretty fucking right wing to me.

          In any event, losing out on some ad revenue sure as shit isn’t censorship. 🤡

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Please provide exampels of antivax and hate speech articles hosted on Naked Capitalism. I’ll wait. Also, maybe go read up on what the term censorship means so as not to make a clown of yourself in public going forward.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t think there’s anything normal or acceptable about a private entity acting as a gatekeepr to the internet and deciding what content people can see based on their own opaque reasons.

      • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No one needs to pay to put ads next to content they don’t agree with. Google is informing them that advertisers don’t want their ads on these pages. They don’t have to remove the pages, thereby not being censored, they’d just suffer the consequence of not getting ad revenue.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          Google has become the main way people find content online, and if content doesn’t show up in search results then it’s effectively censored. The consequence here is that advertisers decide what content is acceptable. Again, this is very clearly a big problem for society.

          • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            This has nothing to do with search. Just advertising. They’ll remain in search results as long as they don’t take the page down and remain otherwise complaint with search policies.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 months ago

              Google’s search algorithm is equally opaque and almost certainly driven by advertisers as well. This is a well known problem.