Google "Supporting" Equality
Jan. 17th, 2009 04:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deirdreMy reaction to this blog post.
* I use the asterisk to include people who don't fit into neat categories or whose letters I've omitted by accident.
Sure, they signed an amicus brief -- despite the fact that some their employees worked on ad tuning that would be used against their own human rights! Let's quote from it for fun, shall we? (Warning, rude language follows)
"In September of last year, Google publicly opposed Proposition 8. Google did so based on the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of Google's employees."
Chilling also because of Google's spammity matching. I saw these ads on finance-related sites that normally have no non-finance advertising. Chilling indeed. I didn't block ads because I didn't want them served to someone else instead -- especially not someone undecided.
I hope it's chilling on your revenue, because I know people who aren't going back to Google.
"Google believes that all of its employees deserve fundamental civil rights, and that when employees are harmed, businesses suffer."
Some of whom are seeking work elsewhere because you failed at exactly that.
Tell me again why you ran those ads, especially the misleading ones that claimed that Obama was in favor of prop 8? Those ads were targeted to California, and who had a better sense of where the ads were going than Google?
Why push those ads to a broader demographic than pushing the anti-8 ads? Yes, I realize there was more money involved on the pro-8 side, but that doesn't explain the demographic difference, nor does it explain why pro-8 got preferential treatment despite Google's stated goal of not permitting advertising on sites that contain "Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization."
If they really thought it was a civil rights issue, as they imply above, then they wouldn't show ads that advocate those subjects, which means they would not display pro-8 ads.
But gays? Nah, they don't matter.
"Google is committed to preserving fundamental rights for every one of the people who work hard to make Google a success."
Spare me.
If you really want me to believe that's what you think, Google, why not publicly fork over what you raised from pro-8 groups (and their kin in other states) to the civil rights groups whose causes you harmed?
There may not even be a Supreme Court case if you fuckwads had had a shred of moral sense.
Talk is cheap.
Consider the following:
1) Google said they opposed prop 8.
2) Google as a company gave no $ to defeat prop 8 (that I know of). The founders did, but saying Google did it is, imho, as intellectually dishonest as saying that Cinemark did because their CEO contributed almost ten grand to pass prop 8.
3) Google accepted a lot of money and placed a lot of ads, including ads on sites that had never had any sort of political advertising before, to pass prop 8. They pushed those ads onto LGBT*-positive sites as well.
4) Sure, Google went and told people how to deactivate those particular ads, but only after a bunch of people actually canceled showing all Google ads and the negative press and firestorm started to cut into their revenue.
Google’s not, by their actions, any friend of LGBT* rights on this issue. The amicus brief is ironic, at best.
* I use the asterisk to include people who don't fit into neat categories or whose letters I've omitted by accident.
Sure, they signed an amicus brief -- despite the fact that some their employees worked on ad tuning that would be used against their own human rights! Let's quote from it for fun, shall we? (Warning, rude language follows)
"In September of last year, Google publicly opposed Proposition 8. Google did so based on the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of Google's employees."
Chilling also because of Google's spammity matching. I saw these ads on finance-related sites that normally have no non-finance advertising. Chilling indeed. I didn't block ads because I didn't want them served to someone else instead -- especially not someone undecided.
I hope it's chilling on your revenue, because I know people who aren't going back to Google.
"Google believes that all of its employees deserve fundamental civil rights, and that when employees are harmed, businesses suffer."
Some of whom are seeking work elsewhere because you failed at exactly that.
Tell me again why you ran those ads, especially the misleading ones that claimed that Obama was in favor of prop 8? Those ads were targeted to California, and who had a better sense of where the ads were going than Google?
Why push those ads to a broader demographic than pushing the anti-8 ads? Yes, I realize there was more money involved on the pro-8 side, but that doesn't explain the demographic difference, nor does it explain why pro-8 got preferential treatment despite Google's stated goal of not permitting advertising on sites that contain "Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization."
If they really thought it was a civil rights issue, as they imply above, then they wouldn't show ads that advocate those subjects, which means they would not display pro-8 ads.
But gays? Nah, they don't matter.
"Google is committed to preserving fundamental rights for every one of the people who work hard to make Google a success."
Spare me.
If you really want me to believe that's what you think, Google, why not publicly fork over what you raised from pro-8 groups (and their kin in other states) to the civil rights groups whose causes you harmed?
There may not even be a Supreme Court case if you fuckwads had had a shred of moral sense.
Talk is cheap.