backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Feb 1 at 12:46 PM

Google extends "do no evil" into the 2008 election campaign

Google's open policy of "Don't be evil," may get one of its first tests in the 2008 campaign with online advertisements through its AdWords network.

The political mudsling and personal attacks against one candidate by another seem to get worse each year. Politicians and their campaign managers know that one of the best and easiest ways to reach potential voters is online. One of the most effective forms of online advertisement is Google AdWords.

Google recently laid down the law when it comes to political ads placed on its massive ad network. Peter Greenberger from the Google Elections and Issue Advocacy Team posted the policy for political ads on the Google Public Policy Blog.

Google says it will accept any political ad from any candidate regardless of the political views they represent. The caveat is that the ads must meet Google Editorial guidelines and Google can terminate ad campaigns at any time as usual.

Where Google steps in to limit the political mudslinging from candidates is in its policy of no attacks on an individual’s personal life. Google says:

Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible. However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual's personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group. So, "Crime rates are up under Police Commissioner Gordon" is okay, but "Police Commissioner Gordon had an affair" is not.

Google also says that political ads can’t advocate against a protected group. Protected groups are considered to be groups distinguished by sex, religion, sexual orientation, disability, religion, color, or nation of origin. We may still have to deal with personal attacks on political TV ads, but at least Google is trying to stop them online.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't be Evil
By arazok on 1/25/2008 3:37:59 PM , Rating: 4
If you really want to 'Do no Evil', ban video ads all together.

Only a moron chooses or changes his vote based on a TV spot. Therefore, TV ads only encourage morons to vote. If you don't want to be evil, you shouldn't do anything to encourage these people to vote.

The undecided voter is the dumbest entity on Earth.




RE: Don't be Evil
By Denigrate on 1/25/2008 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
If I hadn't already posted below, I'd rate your post upward. Sadly true.


RE: Don't be Evil
By Oroka on 1/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By Christopher1 on 1/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By eye smite on 1/25/2008 6:25:58 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, you guys mean like when Clinton was in office and you all voted him in a second time. Would really rather have John Kerry the dimwit in office instead? We all stayed pretty quiet when Clinton was in office because we respected the office of the presidency even though the man in it was deserving of more than contempt, like for starters Clinton should have been stripped down, tarred and feathered, and marched through timss square on every network that wanted to cover it. All you people can do is belly ache and moan because, OMG QQ BBQ he's so wrong and dumb and we're so right. Do you really think any politician can save us from themselves? Raise your hand. It's time to shut TFU and wait for the toilet bowl called America to get through flushing us all. What do any of you really know anyways? Jesus protect me from your followers. I'd like to get home in one piece on Sunday after they leave church.


RE: Don't be Evil
By smitty3268 on 1/25/2008 7:16:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
We all stayed pretty quiet when Clinton was in office because we respected...


LOL. If impeaching a president is your idea of "staying quiet", then I guess it's a good thing you didn't decide to get nasty.... ;)


RE: Don't be Evil
By eye smite on 1/26/2008 10:56:24 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't see him get ejected out of office, so I guess it was a farce of an impeachment then eh? Oh wait, that means Al Gore the nobel prize winner would have been in office, in hindsight, guess it was the smarter choice to leave a lesser bad in office over a dumber one.


RE: Don't be Evil
By smitty3268 on 1/26/2008 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? So because the Republicans failed to kick him out of office, that means they were being nice all along? I guess we agree on the farce part, at least.

As far as Al Gore vs GW, I do think Gore would have done a better job, yes. But don't call Bush dumb, he's not a dumb person at all. That's just something liberals have cooked up to make fun of him, and he's played along since it makes him look like a man of the people.


RE: Don't be Evil
By robinthakur on 1/28/2008 9:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
So are you saying that to seem like a 'man of the people' in America you must endeavour to make yourself seem barely literate, ignorant and generally ill-informed with regards to world geography and opinion?

Pretty sad view of America if that is what you're saying but kudos to the Republic party for realising their target audience so accurately. Outside of America, has there ever been a less successful American President? Not in my lifetime.


RE: Don't be Evil
By robinthakur on 1/28/2008 9:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
So are you saying that to seem like a 'man of the people' in America you must endeavour to make yourself seem barely literate, ignorant and generally ill-informed with regards to world geography and opinion?

Pretty sad view of America if that is what you're saying but kudos to the Republic party for realising their target audience so accurately. Outside of America, has there ever been a less successful American President? Not in my lifetime.


RE: Don't be Evil
By sweetsauce on 1/25/2008 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 1
Everytime people start saying crap about clinton's presidency, i go back and look at the things he accomplished and the things he didn't accomplish to try and understand where people are coming from. Was the country in trouble while he was president? Did we suffer as a nation while he was president? Try as i might, i just don't see it. History proves the country prospered, our economy had a surplus, and all we had to worry about was him getting some head while in the white house. I'd go back to those days in a heartbeat.

You must be blind or just stupid, clinton was one of the most criticized presidents ever. Republicans did everything they could to try and get him out of office. Only one that gets more criticism now is gw, and last time i checked he deserves it and more.


RE: Don't be Evil
By eye smite on 1/26/2008 10:12:21 AM , Rating: 5
Yes maybe, but taking 10k US marshals off domestic flights, reducing our military by 48% and not staying on top of how other countries viewed or plotted against us, even attacked us ( USS Kole) certainly were an end result of those as you call them prosperous yrs weren't they?


RE: Don't be Evil
By Surak on 1/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By murphyslabrat on 1/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By Surak on 1/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By murphyslabrat on 2/1/2008 12:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many CENTURIES do you think it will take to make Bush's record look good?

No, I think Bush has handled this whole thing in a whackjob manner. However, the deposition of Iraqi's former government was, I believe, necessary. Unfortunately, again, as I see it, the primary motive in this whole deally was to install a puppet government akin to how Saudi Arabia had been: giving us oil for almost nothing.


RE: Don't be Evil
By Pythias on 1/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Don't be Evil
By smitty3268 on 1/26/2008 4:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
Does anybody have a link to the post where he endorses child molestation? I'm serious, it comes up every time he posts here and I'd like to see for myself if it's warranted.


RE: Don't be Evil
By Pythias on 1/26/2008 8:42:30 AM , Rating: 1
http://wap.dailytech.com/mobile/Comments.aspx?news...

quote:
forcible rapes that would disappear were we to legalize adult/child sexual relationships


May he burn in hell.


RE: Don't be Evil
By smitty3268 on 1/26/2008 3:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's a pretty bad post, all right. Although it almost sounded to me like he had been abused himself as a child? He clearly has some serious issues.


RE: Don't be Evil
By robinthakur on 1/28/2008 9:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
I kinda agreed with what he was saying until that "legalise adult/child relationships" bit which was stupid. Still, having finally seen the post which originated all this "He's a paedo" schtick, he seems more like the victim to me reading his post, as the only information about himself which he volunteers is that he was abused as a child/young adult. It sounds like this causes or greatly influences his odd world views, not that this excuses them.

Completely on the other side of the fence, in places like Afghanistan, its certainly not unusual for older men to marry pre-pubescent girls!! Going further back to Ancient Greece, it was a norm in society for young male adults to be paired up with older men, often friends of the family, for sexual relationships. In short the rules and laws by which we currently live by make this illegal, but it has not always been so. I however do not agree with Christopher1's views.


RE: Don't be Evil
By arazok on 1/28/2008 11:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
It goes beyond what he has posted here on DailyTech. Somebody posted a Wiki link about this guy which I cannot find at the moment. He is an admitted pedophile who advocates legalizing adult/child sex where consent is involved (as if a child could consent).

He's been in the media off and on for some time. He's very open about who he is (yet oddly enough doesn't have the balls to reply to any posts calling him out). He likes to frequent public places where children hang out, and has posted a top 10 type list of places to oggle kids. The cops can't do anything because he has no record, and he isn't actually breaking any laws.


RE: Don't be Evil
By rdeegvainl on 1/26/2008 9:01:48 AM , Rating: 3
Does the fact that one supporter is a child molester make the candidate a bad choice? Not to endorse child molestation, but that is retarded. All you have to do then is find a child molester that supports each of the candidates, and suddenly everyone is the "dumbest voter".
Please take read up on these things called logical fallacies. Here is a link.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html
Attack his argument, not the person behind the argument. Here, he is not expressing any view on child molestation, so why bring it up?


RE: Don't be Evil
By Pythias on 1/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Don't be Evil
By murphyslabrat on 1/26/2008 12:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, see the post above you. Just because there is a con to the option, doesn't necessarily mean that the other options are any better. You need to look at the whole scope of a candidates stances, instead of ignoring a candidate because of one little detail.


RE: Don't be Evil
By Pythias on 1/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By smitty3268 on 1/26/2008 2:51:06 PM , Rating: 1
Or maybe NAMBLA's smart enough to know that people will vote against whomever they endorse, and so they tell you to vote for the person they don't want to win? Thereby manipulating you into voting exactly who they wanted all along.

Really, you should just ignore what other people say and vote for who you like best, not based on what someone else says.


RE: Don't be Evil
By Pythias on 1/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't be Evil
By Skitchin on 1/28/2008 1:44:04 PM , Rating: 1
Wow..a real world combination of two different South Park episodes!


RE: Don't be Evil
By inperfectdarkness on 1/28/2008 10:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
i've said it before, i'll say it again:

we need to convert PBS into a national politics channel. ban all political advertising elsewhere. give equal airtime to all candidates. one easy location to find out everything you could want to know about anyone running for office.

we simulatneously eliminated special-interest group financing--and we give a huge boost to 3rd party candidates. it's a win-win for politics in america.


Two politicians enter, one politician leaves
By Denigrate on 1/25/2008 3:52:44 PM , Rating: 3
I think that Thunderdome needs to be implemented for these stupid political races, at least for the primaries. The length of time they waste our time lying about the things they will/won't do is ridiculous.




RE: Two politicians enter, one politician leaves
By bodar on 1/25/2008 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 3
Quick! Someone photoshop the Clintons' heads on to a pic of Master Blaster!

"Billary runs Barter Town." Ahh, classic cinema.

Extra credit - Barack Obama as Mad Max


By Polynikes on 1/25/2008 5:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, that would be hilarious... I need to go find a picture of Master Blaster.


Ok, a nice publicity stunt for Google but,
By mindless1 on 1/27/2008 8:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
I kinda want to know about a candidates personal life, particularly the things they don't want the public to know. If they're upstanding enough to run the country I think that should be mirrored in their personal life as well. You don't just pull some guy off the street and vote for him because he says the right words, he should have led, still be leading a life you feel is representative of who you want as your President.

If there's a lot of personal dirt to dig up that seems relevant enough to a voter to sway them, then maybe they aren't the right candidate for the job. I wouldn't necessarily abandon a candidate if he'd smoked pot in college or been divorced, but if he runs around in women's clothes not as a life choice but in secret because he didn't want anyone to know (sorry for the double standard, since it does seem acceptible today for women to dress in unisexual, formerly men's clothing styles) or practices beastiality, chooses not to play 40 parking tickets or whatever, maybe knowing something more about the candidates would cause some voters to pause till they find out more about just who they're voting for.

Like it or not, each individual has the right to vote based on any criteria they like, even if you or I don't agree with their reasoning.

Sorry Google but I don't buy your reason. We aren't just voting for an icon or an idea, we're voting for a person and that person is reflected by their personal life. If they don't want their personal life in public, there are a lot of jobs more compatible with this desire.

I'm not trying to advocate vague innuendo, just the spread of truth, information instead of censorship of it. Let the audience decide what to do or not do with the information. Do no evil would not mean prevent people from speaking anything that is true. Truth is not evil, but maybe using one's market position to try to effect a level of control over others might be. Time will tell.

I for one often see a commercial from one candidate mudslinging another as a bad reflection on the /one/ doing the slinging, and I'm also glad to know a bit more about the character of the person who does or at least allows it to be done in their campaign.




RE: Ok, a nice publicity stunt for Google but,
By Darkskypoet on 1/27/2008 9:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
That might work if people weren't stupid... And if real proof was needed before an ad could be created. As people are stupid, and winning a libel suit many years after the campaign is lost has little meaning; attacks on another's personal life tend to benefit the individual (regardless of the truth therein) who will stoop to the lowest depths of depravity.

Personally I think, someone should not have to completely give up any measure of privacy to hold public office. The fact that many people are like you, and want to judge the personal life of those who may wish to seek office is precisely why so many extremely successful people would absolutely avoid any public office that otherwise might benefit from their skills, charisma, etc. Instead, the parties dig up those who (might be able to) pass some contrived moral personal dirt digging test, and then only after that, consider the skills such an individual has to offer.

The surprising exemption to this seems to be GWB... In the ever so important 'moral' supremacy republicans seem to tout, how does a drunk, unsuccessful, deserting, blow monkey still become president?

Oh wait... Born again Republican... Right... Scrubs you of all evils...

In essence, the more the personal privacy of those in power is degraded, the less quality of the candidates, and the more pawns are placed to be controlled via money interests from the outside. Throw the pawn up to destroyed by the pressure... and simply vote via proxy. Real power is having someone else sit in the legislature and/or executive for you.


By mindless1 on 1/28/2008 8:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's not giving up privacy when the information was already given up and is now only being spread around a bit more.

You would like to think it's a choice of a person with more skills and charisma, etc, but some skeletons in the closet, versus someone that only has higher moral ground. That is ridiculous, moral people are no less skilled and charismatic, you'd like to choose the worst groups instead of the best person. Let the truth out and maybe the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are, because frankly, I think it's stupid to ignore the choices someone makes in life because they're merely charismatic or skilled.

In essence, you are making up nonsense to suggest that not hiding things from the people must mean a low quality candidate. It's about as backwards as it gets actually. The pawns as you wrote, would be those afraid of getting caught up in bad past decisions, not the ones who do everything openly.

How do voters because less stupid, or really we should say ignorant of the right choice for their vote? Information, not suppression of it. If you think what you hear about a candidate doesn't matter, that what you value more is their skill and charisma, go ahead and vote for that candidate - nobody is stopping you. Is skill and charimsa all there is though, or are past and current situations a candidate may be in, also telling of their values judgement, etc, things that do also have the potential to effect what they actually do once in office, versus what they said in order to get elected? As I already wrote, you can grab anybody off the street and have them say what sounds popular, but their track record speaks more about whether they have the integrity to stand behind those words and integrity is not isolted to one's job, it is something carried everywhere one goes to whatever degree it is present.

Everyone else has the same choice to pick a candidate based on what is important to them. If you value perceived skill and charisma that's your subjective choice, you had to have information to make that judgement and likewise others have their own values and should have any and all information that is publically known available to them to make their own subjective choice.


By robinthakur on 1/28/2008 10:00:52 AM , Rating: 2
Erm...If candidate X wants to dress up in Women's clothing full or part time, that's not illegal is it even if its in secret? If I went for a job interview I wouldn't expect to be asked that or to have the firm peering into my private life to establish my morality. The same should be true for politicians as politics is their job. On the other hand, if say a candidate is vociferously anti-gay rights in their public life, and then carrying on a gay clandestine affair in secret, that is very hypocritical and should be reported on. Its a weird one to gauge. If however they've broken the law then they have a duty of care to make this well known since they will be upholding the law whilst in office. They should just illegalise hypocrisy :)


This won't change much.
By VahnTitrio on 1/25/2008 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the mudslinging I see is of the type:

Candidate X voted for abortion in 2004. blah blah blah until end of commercial... Candidate X, killing fetuses since 2004. Vote for Candidate Y.

From what I can see this would still be allowable. Obviously I'm using an extreme case here but there will still be way too many political attack ads.




RE: This won't change much.
By Surak on 1/26/2008 3:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Idiots.

Abortion is the reason why crime rates have been dropping steadily across the US in the last couple decades.

The average age of convicted criminals across the USA has been going up and up as fewer kids are born into circumstances that lead them into crime.

Before legal abortions, all those impoverished single parents couldn't raise their kids right, creating millions of criminals.

Today there are far fewer unplanned pregnancies, Americans that can't support a child can do the right thing and not give birth to it, not burden society with their mistakes.

... and everyone wins ... except the religious freaks that fight abortion because they need you to breed more christian followers for them to rule over.


Curb those idiots...
By TimberJon on 1/25/2008 3:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
If one can win against others because someone in their "team" had brighter and more devious ideas on how to effectively put the other guy down... that doesnt improve the morals or qualities of the person who wins because of the subtle or open attacks.

This government is awesome..




RE: Curb those idiots...
By Surak on 1/26/2008 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
oh ya, that's right. If ANYONE is known for being subtle, it's Bush.

Dumbass.


Minus TWO.......enage.
By Fnoob on 1/26/2008 10:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
"The undecided voter is the dumbest entity on Earth."

You are right, we should quickly and decisively be able to choose between bad and bad.




RE: Minus TWO.......enage.
By Fnoob on 1/26/2008 10:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
In hindsight, the dumbest entity on Earth is someone who knocks the Fair Tax without reading the book. Dumbester than that, is one who has read it, but still doesn't support it. How could you not?


How about...
By Proteusza on 1/25/2008 3:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Commissioner Gordon and Batman - the real reason the Caped Crusader is still around.




Way to go Google
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/25/2008 3:26:09 PM , Rating: 1
2 thumbs up for them




We should remove term limits....
By Fnoob on 1/26/2008 10:42:33 AM , Rating: 1
Because this country NEEDS Bill back :

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/012508/media.php?m...

That's some funny sh*t right there boss. Should really help Hillary with black voters. ;)




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki