Google Product Abuse discussion ban - a slippery slope?

[Ken g6]

As a condition of continuing to use Google ads on our forums, Google is now enforcing their requirement that their ads not be displayed alongside any discussions that involve "Google Product Abuse." This is legalese for the company not wanting their ads being used to fund sites that promote or otherwise offer instructions on downloading YouTube videos.

Are you sure that's all it's legalese for? Does this also mean banning discussion of:

• Ad blockers? They interfere with Google ads after all.
• How to install any kind of plugins in Chrome manually? Or user scripts? That's not the way Chrome was "intended" to be used.
• How to install any kind of apps in Android outside the Google Play store?
• Rooting Android devices?
• Hacking ChromeBooks, ChromeBoxes, or Android devices to run another OS?

Google has a lot of products; I'm sure there are other examples too.

As a result of this situation and the lack of viable alternatives...

I'm starting to see why European regulators think breaking up Google might be a good idea.

 

[Perknose]

Are you sure that's all it's legalese for? Does this also mean banning discussion of:

• Ad blockers? They interfere with Google ads after all.
• How to install any kind of plugins in Chrome manually? Or user scripts? That's not the way Chrome was "intended" to be used.
• How to install any kind of apps in Android outside the Google Play store?
• Rooting Android devices?
• Hacking ChromeBooks, ChromeBoxes, or Android devices to run another OS?

Google has a lot of products; I'm sure there are other examples too.

All I can say is that this is how Ryan Smith, our maximum leader, read it. As it turns out, he was 100% correct. At his patient direction, we scrubbed the forums solely of references to youtube downloaders; Google was satisfied and immediately reinstituted us in their good graces.

So . . . it helps to have someone at the helm who knows the landscape of how these things go. He stayed calm and didn't overreact. He simply directed us to do what was required, and not one bit more. Problem solved!

 

[pyonir]

Problem solved!

I think that's Ken's point; "problem solved"...for now. Is this just the start? If forums give in to this demand will it push Google to make the changes outlined in Ken's post? At least that was my taking away from it.

Glad to hear that removing that one topic corrected the current problem, but it does, IMO, create a slippery slope looking towards the future. I guess we have to wait and see.

 

[dmcowen674]

Smells like Free Speech violation to me.

Just sayin

 

[DigDog]

i'm totally cool with banning those discussions. you know that 99% of the material on YT is copyrighted, right? unless you are downloading a public domain video, you are bound to be breaching *someone*'s copyright.

now, dont go thinking i'm some sort of copyright advocate, but all google has done is to ask AT to not help people break the law. people can still break the law without our help. the tradeoff is that AT will remain in business and we get to have one of the top forums in the world.

AT doesnt allow instructions on how to pirate games either - freedom of speech breach? we don't allow porn either, is that also a breech of the freedom of speech?

 

[DigDog]

Spam-Be-Gone!

 

[ultimatebob]

This really seems silly to me, as you can enter "Youtube downloader" into any search engine (Including Google's!) and find the offending sites in question.

But hey, whatever makes them happy.

 

[olds]

I, for one, welcome our Google Overlords.

 

[Greenman]

Are you sure that's all it's legalese for? Does this also mean banning discussion of:

• Ad blockers? They interfere with Google ads after all.
• How to install any kind of plugins in Chrome manually? Or user scripts? That's not the way Chrome was "intended" to be used.
• How to install any kind of apps in Android outside the Google Play store?
• Rooting Android devices?
• Hacking ChromeBooks, ChromeBoxes, or Android devices to run another OS?

Google has a lot of products; I'm sure there are other examples too.



I'm starting to see why European regulators think breaking up Google might be a good idea.

It's not a slippery slope, it's a wall, as google will dictate whatever terms they want. AT has the ability to say "no thank you". That ends the relationship and revenue stream.
If you really want google out, make Anand a better offer.

 

[Ken g6]

It's not a slippery slope, it's a wall, as google will dictate whatever terms they want. AT has the ability to say "no thank you". That ends the relationship and revenue stream.

That's why I quoted Perknose's comment about the "lack of viable alternatives". Google may not be a monopoly in the online ad market, but they are big, and probably pay better than most. The problem is that they control a lot of other products too and they're leveraging their control of the ad market to regulate what people can say about their other products.

I'd still say Google is one of the less-evil corporations around. So far this just refers to YouTube downloaders and nothing else, while other corporations might have implemented all of the restrictions I listed. The problem is Google keeps lowering the bar for what's "less-evil".

 

[Jimzz]

Yea I wonder what would Google have to say before anandtech said no? You are really blocking ALL talk on youtube downloaders? I did not even think of searching for them before but since this has been posted I am looking now.

 

[michal1980]

Since when is anandtech Google's bitch?

This is a working forum for serious issues, to be discussed in a civil manner. Pseudo street tough talk like yours is unwelcome here, and is not to be repeated. Grow up, or don't post in this thread or this forum again.

Perknose
Forum Director

What other editorial control are you going to give up? No more iPhone reviews? No more taking about MS? Where does it stop?

 

[DigDog]

jesus, you dont get the "illegal" thing, do you?

 

[Tegeril]

Smells like Free Speech violation to me.

Just sayin

Whose speech was being suppressed by the government?

 

[gorcorps]

Smells like Free Speech violation to me.

Just sayin

Then you either don't understand the situation, or you don't understand free speech. Google provides a service that we utilize, and they have certain terms and conditions we need to meet. We can either decide not to use that service, or try and meet their T&C. It's no different than a nice restaurant requiring a dress code... you either meet their dress code or you don't eat there. It's a simple concept, and one that doesn't need the political spin you're trying to put on it.

 

[Blackjack200]

"Free Speech" can refer to two completely seperate things: one of them is the first amendment to the constitution that forbids congress from making laws abridging free speech, the other is the general principal that open dialogue be tolerated as much as possible.

This is a tech website. In my view, conversations about using proxy servers and VPNs to circumvent IP blackouts, streaming downloaders, etc., should be tolerated. I know that view is not shared by the administration here, but just my $.02

 

[Jimzz]

jesus, you dont get the "illegal" thing, do you?

What law or court has said that downloading Google videos is illegal?

 

[IronWing]

While I understand the Anandtech management's concern, given that Google has built an empire on skating out on the thin ice at the edge of copyright law (we're going to scan every book in the library and put them up for free viewing online and we'll remove copyrighted material from youtube only if you tell us about it, meanwhile selling ads with every view), I find that Google's position has a whiff of hypocrisy.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Google's position has a whiff of hypocrisy.

A whiff? That's putting it politely...

 

[Greenman]

Smells like Free Speech violation to me.

Just sayin

You obviously don't know what "free speech" refers to. Read the first amendment of the US constitution.

 

[DigDog]

What law or court has said that downloading Google videos is illegal?

ask kim dotcom

 

[Ryan Smith]

Are you sure that's all it's legalese for?

You can rest assured that we're quite sure.

Obviously there's a bit of back and forth with Google on getting reinstated, and that was the specific issue raised. In their policy rulebook for Ad Sense it's called Google Product Abuse, but it was the YouTube downloaders in particular that were being cited as the issue.

I think that's Ken's point; "problem solved"...for now. Is this just the start? If forums give in to this demand will it push Google to make the changes outlined in Ken's post? At least that was my taking away from it.

Glad to hear that removing that one topic corrected the current problem, but it does, IMO, create a slippery slope looking towards the future. I guess we have to wait and see.

Ad Sense does help pay for the forum, but we do have alternatives in the long run. In the meantime Google's complaint is annoying, but as the announcement notes it's not something I believe to be unreasonable. As dumb as the whole situation is, I can appreciate Google not wanting to have their ads funding discussions on how to rip their content. Of course when you have a hand in so many businesses it seems to me that conflicts of interest such as these are going to be more likely, but that's Google's business and the world we live in right now.

In any case, if Google asked for anything else we would drop Ad Sense. I'll take Android ROM hacking over Ad Sense any day of the week. This is basically the only issue that I can think of where we would agree that the discussion is probably not appropriate for the AT Forums.

-The New Boss

 

[soccerballtux]

All I can say is that this is how Ryan Smith, our maximum leader, read it. As it turns out, he was 100% correct. At his patient direction, we scrubbed the forums solely of references to youtube downloaders; Google was satisfied and immediately reinstituted us in their good graces.

So . . . it helps to have someone at the helm who knows the landscape of how these things go. He stayed calm and didn't overreact. He simply directed us to do what was required, and not one bit more. Problem solved!

this seems fine to me. For now, at least, Google's policy is "don't be evil". They're still holding to that. It's a legal problem to have youtube downloaders now that they have a legal service. They probably weren't concerned about the bandwidth.

If we get feature creep into things like greasemonkey forum scripts or something silly (it won't happen), I can see EU regulation being justified.

Youtube is a for-free service provided, and adwords is a service that anyone is allowed to not choose. Google is free to restrict use of their services; if it's really that important someone could switch to Yahoo. If it's worth it. If Yahoo's ads are worthless and don't bring in any value, then we have our answer. Probably shouldn't penalize google for having something people actually want to use, even if there are caveats (youtube downloading) that people don't like.

 

[soccerballtux]

Smells like Free Speech violation to me.

Just sayin

if you don't like it, don't use the product? nobody put a gun to our heads.

 

[soccerballtux]

This really seems silly to me, as you can enter "Youtube downloader" into any search engine (Including Google's!) and find the offending sites in question.

But hey, whatever makes them happy.

I think they just don't want people publicly discussing them.

It'll be interesting if this extends to

I guess this could make me angry in the future if they took away my ability to.

But, technically, I shouldn't do it