Wednesday, December 17th, 2008
Well played, Reuters. Well played.
Google is oddly censoring ads that include the names of corporations, and cowardly caving each time a company claims a trademark violation. Standard libertarian disclaimer: Google can run its ad program however it pleases. And I can criticize them for it when they implement stupid policies that violate their own “don’t be evil” motto.
Federal appeals court strikes down gag provision associated with the National Security Letter portion of the PATRIOT ACT. Good. That was a particularly Orwellian part of an already creepy bill. Made it illegal for you to tell anyone if you discovered the government was spying on you. Even if you’d done nothing wrong.
Fuck You Penguin. Dude has apparently had his fill of cute animals.
Marijuana still not eradicated. Clearly we need tougher drug laws.
You know the economy’s gone south when even the lawyers are having a hard time making ends meet.
Puzzling headline of the day.
Looks like some big names in the GOP were on the Freddy Mac payroll, too.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 17th, 2008 at 6:52 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
I have no problem with Google blocking trademarked names and only allowing the companies who own the trademarks to use them. Why should Google be held responsible for liable suits against them just for letting someone post an add saying “Wal-Mart sucks” or whatever they want to place?
Regarding the ruling on USA PATRIOT Act National Security Letter gag orders,
That paragraph seems to imply that the ISP asked for help in fighting this (which probably put it in some jeopardy) and didn’t cave and just release the records to pacify the FBI. I want that company to be my ISP!
Also,
97% gag policy. So, basically by default the FBI uses a power that says, “The government is doing its best to ruin your life and you have to shut up and let them do it.” I just wanted to re-emphasize that the FBI is generally no less corrupt and overreaching than local law enforcement. The government’s claim that their targets are “the worst of the worst” bad guys is definitely not bolstered by the fact that it’s the government that wants secrecy and the ‘bad guys’ who want light shed on what’s going on.
Sounds like that teen pregnancy study may have bigger issues. They are also saying pregnancy is up among gay as well as lesbian teens.
“The survey data did not provide Saewyc with concrete explanations for the heightened risk of pregnancy among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth, but she said there are several possible reasons.”
Nando, I don’t dispute Google’s right to decide which ads to carry, but I also think they would serve our and their own interests better by taking a more circumspect view on how much power to give a trademark holder. Google is giving those trademark holders a lot of unnecessary power over Google’s business.
Google doesn’t have to allow mass banning of ads mentioning a trademark. It could take the same approach that they do on YouTube. To wit, “If you think your trademark is being misused in an ad, then submit a complaint about that ad and we will evaluate it.” And, in fact, Google would be perfectly within its rights to take a totally opposite stand to their current one. E.g. “If you think your trademark is being infringed by an ad, then show us a court order and we’ll remove the ad.”
That is definitely not to say that Google should run irresponsible ads that put it in legal jeopardy. But, taking a firmer stand would encourage use of their service and simultaneously discourage hyper-sensitive trademark holders from obtaining sweeping bans on use of names that do not violate their trademark rights.
Regarding pregnant teen lesbians, the article speculates that these higher incidences of pregnancy are signs that the girls are trying to hide their sexuality. That’s probably part of it.
I would also speculate that it’s largely a contraception issue. A straight girl may be more likely to go on dates knowing she might have some fun with the boy, so she is more likely to want to be on the pill or to bring condoms or other contraception. A gay girl may just be dating for cover and may not really consider that she might decide to actually have sex on her dates until it’s too late. Ditto with the boys. The sex on those dates may be more likely to be a last-minute decision, with corresponding lack of birth control planning.
Re: Lawyers in tough times… if there’s any position you don’t want to be in, I believe that stiffing a bunch of lawyers because you don’t have the money to make payroll on Monday would be among the top. Do I smell lawsuits?
I’ve always hated those cute animal posters….
Hey, if you want to start prosecuting all politicians and lobbyists who had any association with Fannie & Freddie, let’s go……..that’ll end up a whole lot bloodier on the Dems side of the aisle, I expect…….
This particular ruling is a bit more complicated than “this section overturned”. The gag results were overturned months ago, but the government unsurprisingly appealed. This court is backing off from the total ban and requiring some “safeguards” in their use, which are primarily checking with a court.
Fuck you penguin: I could only hear the voice of Brian Fellows in my head as I read it. Good stuff.
Marijuana not eradicated? Frankly, I’m shocked. You’d think that stuff just grows wildly or something.
It is understandable that Google would not want to upset companies purchasing ads from them. A blanket ban on using others’ trademarks in Google advertisements sets a boundary in a clear, concise manner. I wouldn’t categorize this as “evil.”
Now, if they stopped linking to websites critical of their advertisers, you might have a motto violation.
A number of my teenage daughter’s gay friends wear “beards”. Some are trying desperately to prove they’re really bisexual, not exclusively gay, and as a result they will sleep with anyone of the opposite sex and brag about it.
I wonder if Marijuana could ever be pushed so close to extinction by eradication efforts that the EPA would fine or imprison you for removing it from your property, but the DEA would fine or imprison you for preserving it on your property.
Hmmmmm.
Google can have a new slogan - Don’t be evil. That’s our job.
chsw