By Ben Hertz
This is an interesting article considering it has to do with google searches and given that we just had those meetings with the librarian, I think its relevant.
After a lawsuit from a Christian anti-abortion group, Google is allowing religious organizations to take out ads using the keyword “abortion,” a rare case of the search giant admitting it was wrong.
In March, Google rejected an ad from the Christian Institute, a British organization, that read, in part, “UK abortion law: Key news and views on abortion law from The Christian Institute.”
The group, which wanted to advertise because the House of Commons was considering a bill involving abortion issues, filed a lawsuit against Google in April, saying the company was discriminating on religious grounds.
Google has limits on what can and cannot be advertised; it will not allow ads for products derived from endangered species, for example, nor will it allow ads promoting violence. In the past, Google would not sell the “abortion” keyword to religious groups, but did sell it to other groups, including secular groups, doctors offering abortions and resource sites like Our Bodies, Ourselves.
Google’s policies are based on a number of factors. “We build out our policies based upon local customs and business practices and, as any sensible business would do, review them from time to time to make sure they are up to date and current,” said Ben Novick, a London-based Google spokesman.
Google reviewed its policy, and announced last Wednesday it had reached a settlement with the Christian Institute. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but Google immediately began allowing ads linked to abortion from religious groups as long as they were determined to be factual, and not graphic or emotional ads. Google uses a combination of automated and manual processes to detect advertising violations. The change in policy applies worldwide.
“We are pleased with Google’s constructive response to this matter,” the Christian Institute said in a statement. STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
3 Comments
October 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I think that Google had it right the first time, and should not have changed its policy.
corporate ethics are often questionable or completely absent, and before its reconsideration, i think google was doing a good thing by revoking requests by religious groups.
Someone looking for information on abortion should not have to weed through search results that are biased or condescending. Information linked to controversial keywords like abortion should be exclusively scientific and unbiased.
allowing religious organizations to have more power and influence in this situation is not good business ethics, and most likely does not enforce Google’s mission statement.
October 7, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I agree with Melanie, I think that it is absurd that google did something like this. It is not their concern about who wants to search what. Sure, people have different opinions and some things are frowned upon, but that doesn’t take away our right to search for an article online at our own leisure. What if you need to find a source for a paper, or what if you are just curious? No matter the reason, it is not fair to searchers. What if they decided to take down everything with the word birth? I mean obviously this is an extreme, but it is not something that seems plausible because it is something that is searched all the time. Taking something offline is like taking away a right.
December 13, 2008 at 2:02 am
I guess because Google is a business, they have a right to filter what they provide to their audience, however Google is the most popular search engine, so people are going to go to Google first to look stuff up, so I guess at a business stand point, it will hurt Google if they do not include stuff on the search engine. The bottom line is Google has and always will do what is best for the company, not what is best for people. Abortion is a very touchy issue for pretty much everyone and no matter where it is brought up or in what context, there will always be controversy surrounding it.