Is Google really "Bubblegumming" the entire internet?

[notazombie]

I know we've had the filter here since before I was around. This was posted by admin a couple days ago on a car forum I used to frequent. (TLDR is at the end)

"So, let me just preface this by saying I'm not really hot on this. I don't really want to do it but I don't think I have a choice.

I've actually already done this for "guest" users, but logged in users have been able to see "all the words" if you know what I mean. But it looks like I'm going to have to enable the profanity filter site-wide for everyone.

Why? Bc Google and other ad providers are really starting to let me know about it. They don't want to put ads on pages that aren't "family friendly. " I see their point, and I also would like to keep things "family friendly" .... but at the same time its just people shooting the YKW and I'm basically OK with that. Its becoming more and more and more of an issue lately and unfortunately I have to go along with it.

I know site policy has been I really don't care as long as its not directed at anyone, or you're going full-on drunken sailor, but this is just how it has to be I suppose.

So, if you see certains words either completely or partially **** out, then that's what's going on. I'll change that, let it go for a while, and see if anything changes.

I'm really PO'd bc one of my ad servers is telling me that a certain word is literally ALL OVER the board and it just isn't at all. ***

It's not really up for debate, so I'm closing this thread for comments, but just know that personally IDGAF and if I'm able to turn it back off I will do so.



*** so it turns out a certain word made it into a new username yesterday, and every single page that user would load had "the word" in it, ... that one tiny detail cut my revenue IN HALF yesterday. So yeah, that's the rub."


TLDR paraphrase; 'Google won't gimme my ad moniez if you guys say a swear'
He later opened the thread for further comment and explained that this is happening to forums everywhere.

Is this really happening to all forums everywhere like he says?

Is there really no alternative because Google is too big and even the competitors have the same terms?

Is this just more internet censorship that we're supposed to just quietly accept?

Granted, having ********* in place of bubblegum won't change my life one bit. But I have to admit, the general principle of having the admin there roll over and accept it just to maintain some ad revenue kinda stings.

For the record, that site was extremely tame in the "7 words" department already. It also doesn't need to be family friendly because the average member age is probably 50 and 99.9% male.


Any insight from any of you guys who run forums of any kind?

Read More

 

[CamoDeafie]

It is no surprise there. Consider this.
Who owns these ad companies?
Where are these ad companies based in?
Google is not the only major company putting these restrictions.
Yahoo and Microsoft are the other big ones.
How much of the ad revenues goes to companies owned under Time Warner, Disney, Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft?
Remember AOL-Time Warner?
Honestly, ever since it was found possible to generate revenue through clicks, even clicks to close ads; its been shaping up to the point that to maintain ad revenue, sites have to follow the ad providers' guidelines... (see YT for demonetizing several subject channels, and see Verizon/Yahoo for censoring Tumblr, and Imgur among others)

 

[CamoDeafie]

What would be interesting is to see message boards and image hosting sites going to a subscription fee system, basically say, $0.99 a year (or month if small membership?) For basic access to ad free versions of forums and image hosting sites; where the rules can be as loose as legally possible... and still have revenue coming in.. say a free message board with ads, but a low priced subscription service to remove ads, and tier the membership fees for more features/loosened rules; doesn't have to apply to NWFA as it is pretty much already one of the best forums I've been on....

 

[cigars]

If an EMP hits and the grid goes down and personal electronics fry then Google et al won't be bothering anybody. I'll be on the corner selling toilet paper for ten bucks a square.

 

[Stomper]

If an EMP hits and the grid goes down and personal electronics fry then Google et al won't be bothering anybody. I'll be on the corner selling toilet paper for ten bucks a square.

$10 a square? WTH would you GIVE it away that cheaply?!

 

[arakboss]

If an EMP hits and the grid goes down and personal electronics fry then Google et al won't be bothering anybody. I'll be on the corner selling toilet paper for ten bucks a square.

double ply?

 

[CamoDeafie]

double ply?

Institutional single ply

 

[GWS]

If an EMP hits and the grid goes down and personal electronics fry then Google et al won't be bothering anybody. I'll be on the corner selling toilet paper for ten bucks a square.

$10/sheet?!? I'll use the paper money first!
I'll see you when I start using quarters

 

[cigars]

double ply?

Costco's finest, of course.

 

[Member 5605]

Well, this particular site prefers to be family friendly as a community vs the ad revenue (minor) and is held together by the generous members and contributions.

I would be lying if I didn't say this was coming. Follow the money, it leads to the puppeteer.

 

[nammac]

That's it, I'm going to switch from stocking up on ammo to stocking up on tp...

 

[notazombie]

Well, this particular site prefers to be family friendly as a community vs the ad revenue (minor) and is held together by the generous members and contributions.

I would be lying if I didn't say this was coming. Follow the money, it leads to the puppeteer.

I know it's kind of apples and oranges a little bit. The filter here is voluntary and the atmosphere is aiming to be more family friendly in an effort to attract more new shooters. Plus, there is the member supported angle.
In the other forum none of those things really apply. It was the first I'd heard of demonetization based on a user's choice of words. He said "questionable images" too, like avatars and memes.
The thing that honestly bothers me most is that he made excuses for it and deleted anyone's comments who raised questions or disagreed. Double censorship.

Was just wondering if the guy is simply blowing smoke in the name of "muh revenue" or if this is really the way it's going to be everywhere?

 

[Mikej]

What would be interesting is to see message boards and image hosting sites going to a subscription fee system, basically say, $0.99 a year (or month if small membership?) For basic access to ad free versions of forums and image hosting sites; where the rules can be as loose as legally possible... and still have revenue coming in.. say a free message board with ads, but a low priced subscription service to remove ads, and tier the membership fees for more features/loosened rules; doesn't have to apply to NWFA as it is pretty much already one of the best forums I've been on....

I already consider this site having a subscription fee. And I'm thankful I can afford it. I feel better supporting such a site with good, helpful folks, so it's a pleasure to pony up. It's worth the $$ because it feels like the head Honcho AND staff appreciate the fact the participants here are really what make the site.

 

[Mikej]

So what the OP is saying is "Google" want's to scrub it's internet interests squeaky clean of anything objectionable? Good! Just like real life huh? "GOOGLE"! Making lives clean and pure across the globe!

 

[notazombie]

That's what he said. But then during Q&A discourse got all personal about it and eventually buried the thread in the forum support section (no new post notifications) where no one would see it being challenged by members. It was just kinda weird and I lost a lot of respect for the guy as a result of the way he handled the whole thing. Which is why I posted the thread here. Not sure if he's completely telling the truth or not. He clearly chose profit over principle.

 

[Mikej]

That's what he said. But then during Q&A discourse got all personal about it and eventually buried the thread in the forum support section (no new post notifications) where no one would see it being challenged by members. It was just kinda weird and I lost a lot of respect for the guy as a result of the way he handled the whole thing. Which is why I posted the thread here. Not sure if he's completely telling the truth or not. He clearly chose profit over principle.

It's a crappy place to be in. If your livelihood is threatened? What are you supposed to do? I'm just not a real smart guy, but 30 years ago I was saying, something to the affect of... "Some day the world will be under the control of very few massively large corporations". It's coming to that NOW.

 

[DB is Here]

Its the Truman show and we're Truman...

 

[Mikej]

Its the Truman show and we're Truman...

Reading this thread had me thinking of when we drive up into Wa and running on Mill Plane, etc, out East. There's like four, or more, cameras per block above the road on poles. It 's had me wondering WHY they need that many? "Truman Show". Yeah.

 

[Gbirk]

I am going to propose a possible unpopular opinion, but the owner of that site has a hard decision to make. The internet is a breading ground for the worst of society, and has a tendency to bring out the worst in even nice people.

Beyond the stated fact the he is getting pressure from the advertisers, forum sites (sites where the content is user created) especially have to be careful of the slow downward spiral that the users can create. I have been on many sites that were great, but as they got popular, or as new people not familiar with the group entered they would devolve into cesspools of hate and attack. I have seen great sites just end up closing down because the environment got so hateful that all of the quality contributors just left because they got tired of every post getting attacked.

I think one of the successful ways to slow this is to limit the type of language that can be used. This allows people to continue to state their opinion without resorting to malice as easily. When you are required to reply to a post with socially acceptable language instead of spouting a page of swear words and insults it requires additional thought and that extra thought required will act as a barrier to entry for useless, hateful posts.

I think he may just be fed up with how evil anonymous users can be and attempting to save what is left of the forum. Blaming it on advertisers may just be a way to deflect the backlash onto someone else.

There are many forums I have just stopped visiting because I got tired of every post being berated and filled with useless hate.

 

[Member 5605]

That's what he said. But then during Q&A discourse got all personal about it and eventually buried the thread in the forum support section (no new post notifications) where no one would see it being challenged by members. It was just kinda weird and I lost a lot of respect for the guy as a result of the way he handled the whole thing. Which is why I posted the thread here. Not sure if he's completely telling the truth or not. He clearly chose profit over principle.

If somebody has nothing to hide, they wouldn't have buried it and tried to sidestep.

Sounds like that place is as transparent as Google.