Email from Google policing this blog and punishing me with the withholding of ads. I get this sort of thing regularly. Here are some blog posts on which Google has recently claimed to "detect" violations of its policy:
1. "The whiteness" — Larry Tribe observed that the audience for Pete Buttigieg is "overwhelmingly white."
2. "And I do think — the Democrats, I think, have come to understand, they somehow got on the wrong side of order" — quoting David Brooks on the topic of law and order and racism.
3. "In a disturbing number of the recent cases of the police being called on black people for doing everyday, mundane things, the calls have been initiated by white women" — quoting NYT columnist Charles Blow.
4. "Welcome to Madison, Sean" — about UW handing out an anti-gun book to new students.
In each case I was accused of having "Dangerous or derogatory content," which Google defines as content that:
• incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization. Examples: Promoting hate groups or hate group paraphernalia, encouraging others to believe that a person or group is inhuman, inferior, or worthy of being hatedI don't usually bother you with this, but I think it should be known that Google is doing some pathetic "detection" of "Dangerous or derogatory content."
• harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals. Examples: Singling out someone for abuse or harassment, suggesting a tragic event did not happen or that victims or their families are actors or complicit in a cover-up of the event
• threatens or advocates for physical or mental harm to oneself or others. Examples: Content advocating suicide, anorexia, or other self-harm; promoting or advocating for harmful health or medical claims or practices; threatening someone with real-life harm or calling for the attack of another person; promoting, glorifying, or condoning violence against others; content made by or in support of terrorist groups or transnational drug trafficking organizations, or content that promotes terrorist acts, including recruitment, or that celebrates attacks by transnational drug trafficking or terrorist organizations
• relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative, scientific consensus.
•exploits others through extortion. Examples: Predatory removals, revenge porn, blackmail
I want Blogger to survive, and that's one reason I keep the Google system of ads ("AdSense"), but I'm insulted to be treated this way. Frankly, I don't like the ads and the income isn't even that good. I'm very close to just canceling the ad service. Yet I think blogging should produce an income — a writer should receive pay — and it's hard to believe that income-producing blogging is going to work other than with ads.
पोस्ट्स
१२४ टिप्पण्या:
What are "predatory removals"?
Google is insane. “We aren’t restricting your first amendments rights. We’re simply eliminating all the ways we don’t want you using it.”
Time to find a new home for the blog?
Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.
Nudge is a concept in behavioral economics, political theory, and behavioral sciences[1] which proposes positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions as ways to influence the behavior and decision making of groups or individuals. Nudging contrasts with other ways to achieve compliance, such as education, legislation or enforcement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
And when the nudge is no longer effective, then what?
If Trump succeeds with the court and is reelected for another term, then what?
The riots are the transition from the nudge. The nudge is pissing us off and it's not working as well any more. When the nudge abjectly fails, then what? That's when the mule gets hit with the 2X4.
We're not dying off quickly enough for them, Althouse. Too many white people, too many old people, too many Christian people. Too many nuclear families. It all has to go.
I would subscribe to an Ann Althouse substack blog. Might even go back to reading the commenters.
If you like people policing your free speech, you can keep people policing your free speech.
I like it better in the original Italian:
"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, niente contro lo Stato." -- Mussolini
No use asking Adsense or Google or any techno-fascist Joseph Goebbels skulking around Silicone Valley in the dark corners where the sun don't shine. They have no idea, they just shove one alarming word against another without thought or reflection, nor do their most loyal content creators even think to ask, they just parrot the phrases with even less consciousness than a loud-ass cockatoo on crack.
Advice: Get a Patreon account. Offer some merch (e.g. a clever "cruel neutrality" tee-shirt). Write a book about your philosophy, call it Cruel Neutrality: Modern Stoicism for the Fed-Up Feminist Who's had Enough Fucking Partisan Bullshit Shoved at Her, Thank You Very Much. Pull the plug on Adsense; they're a bunch on zombie vampires, and no one with a decent product or service to sell would do business with them.
Having near-monopoly powers over the expression of ideas on the free internet, Google, Facebook, etc. use them to suppress the conservative point of view, and even the 'cruel neutrality' of the Althouse point of view.
The notion that we need to be "protected" from content like this (airing the views of Larry Tribe, David Brooks, etc.) is ridiculous. Who are these Google people?
It is way past time for the anti-trust authorities to take action, before the First Amendment ideals of free expression have been lost for good.
Also, I believe patronage might work so long as patrons understand they maintain ZERO editorial control.
I might kick in a few bucks per month.
You beat the hell out of NPR!!
Now about that free coffee mug with a platinum tier pledge...
Happens to the best of 'em...
Did you know: 18 of 20 Facebook fact checkers have ties to George Soros
This type of stuff needs to be fixed in Trump’s second term.
It may be a nuisance but I am glad Google polices ads.
More advice: Get someone clever and skilled (like Quaestor, but not him specifically, someone local to Madison and trustworthy) to build you a website. Move your blog over to it a period of months to the site that you control (or Meade, make him the admin). No only will you have more features than Blogger, for example, you could add a podcast to the site with guests and rad content like Joe Rogan. Tell Google to stick it. Step One: Get hosting. Quaestor recommends Blue Host. Get a good domain name; ann-althouse.org and althouseblog.org are available. I just checked WHOIS.
Making fun of cats is still okay.
There used to be a game called Google Whacking, where you would try to come up with a term that has only one result. “predatory removal” only points to the terms of service of NonSense. That’s amazingly convenient for them that the term remains undefined outside of their little cabal.
It's nothing personal. It's just a print statement in the computer code somewhere sending you that.
That's what's wrong with the Turing test. Anything at all can be produced with a big enough program and a bunch of print statements. The cleverness would be in making the program that does it smaller, not in making it not a program.
They're missing a hate group. Democrats.
Ad sense makes the heart grow fonder.
I’m just wondering if google’s rules will apply to writings and comments about the next supreme court nominee
Predatory removals - a site posts content that you can pay to have taken down. For example, I could have a site that has reviews for businesses and will let the business pay to have the nasty ones removed.
They come for you last.
Of all last straws, this should be the last one.
I know you investigated and rejected substack. Mentioning it again anyway.
I pay for Taibbi; I would certainly pay for you. Well, more than the little bit I send monthly via PayPal already, that is.
I'll go on this sturdy limb and suggest Google has now classified your blog as supporting white supremacist.
Turning over regulation of public speech to people who were hired because they knew how to code.
What could go wrong?
Posting, in quotes, someone else's published words can trigger a violation?
What or who are they protecting? Ad creators? Ad observers? Both? Something/one else?
That's just really weird.
relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative, scientific consensus.
As regards COVID-19, there is no such thing as an “authoritative, scientific consensus,” as witness CDC flipping and flopping around like a dying mackerel.
I write a blog about the movie Dirty Dancing>, and I have been informed that This Blog is Too Sexual for Google.
I figured, though, that my too-sexual posts cost me just pennies in reduced income.
Google, FB and twitter are evil. Leftists inevitably end up there.
Jonathon Haidt and some colleagues have done some interesting work on the moral limitations lefties suffer from. It actually explains a lot more than even they are willing to admit.
The foundation of morality is humility. The humility to admit the possibility of error. The humility to admit that others have values which should be tolerated. The humility to recognize that process matters. Lefties have forgotten, if they ever knew, the importance of staying in your own lane.
This excellent scene in the "Man for All Seasons" is a great summary of the Left in America today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2a2fAEQaGo
People who put in the time and effort to create popular blogs should be rewarded in some way, especially if the opportunity for reward exists. But by stepping outside the norm and using your brain to examine issues carefully, you introduce a complication that bots can't cope with. Not yet, anyway.
This doens't have to be a big deal, but it is anyway because tech companies like Google ignore the shortcomings of their bots by pretending they are better than they really are. There's no human step prior to issuing the flag and, even after, it's more complicated than it should be to clear up the problem. And you can tell they know they're wrong by how long and convoluted their "explanation" is. If the problem were real, it would be simpler to explain.
At an rate, the problem is how do we help you make money from blogging without Google Adsense. We need to focus on that.
I would happily buy a subscription to your blog. It's a first check for me every morning for years now, despite not being very active on the comment section (lurking-I suppose).I suspect most readers would be willing to pay a penny for your thoughts, Ann!
And they used the passive voice to accuse. Next will be a notice that a review garnered several examples of content violations without specifics about which rule or acknowledging that commentary about someone else’s statement is not automatic endorsement of that point of view. Google is asshole.
AdSense is a very complicated system. Every time someone looks at one of your webpages, the ad space on the page is "auctioned" among all the advertisers. In a fraction of a second, an advertiser's bid wins the auction, and so that advertiser's ad is placed on your webpage.
This instantaneous auction cannot be done by human minds; it must be done by computer algorithms. Various advertisers have told Google that they offer less money -- or no money -- for ad space on webpages that include, for example, the phrase "overwhelmingly white".
So, Google is informing you properly that particular webpages on your blog are earning less money because of the content.
You can appeal about a particular webpage, but the effort is not worthwhile. The issue is just a few cents. I figured that on my Dirty Dancing blog my income is reduced perhaps two cents (2¢) a month.
Just by coincidence each of these posts can be looked at as negative to the left.
If you call tails and the guy flipping the coin gets "heads" seventeen times in a row, he is cheating.
Google needs to have their business practices exposed. And who better than you to do it.
Google needs to have their business practices exposed. And who better than you to do it.
Predatory removal means that questioning the position of Larry Tribe, David Brooks, Charles Blow, PBS, NYT is forbidden.
Or maybe it means something else.
The closest definition I could find was about predatory pricing.
Is there a means to get clarification/explanation?
I wonder if it correlates with being crosslinked on Instapundit etc.
Request a review for an AdSense violation you've fixed
Use our Request a review for a violation troubleshooter to respond to a violation notification you've received.
https://support.google.com/adsense/troubleshooter/1208722
Have you considered your own paywall? You might have three levels of support. First is allowed read some, but not all, posts and no commenting. Second level allows commenting (and no refunds if one gets oneself banned). Third allows reading and commenting on political-related posts and commenting on cafe posts. I’d pay $100 for level 3.
Oh my God. I had no idea they were doing this. That is scary stuff!
Another example that shows the Left is mostly running the country, no matter who's in office or what happens in the election.
"I would subscribe to an Ann Althouse substack blog. Might even go back to reading the commenters."
I considered moving recently. I hit the wall. This blog is about what interests me. Technical stuff about computers and money doesn't interest me. I really resent having to spend any time on it. And I don't trust other people, so please don't offer to help.
I know you went through the process of shopping other platforms in the last year. And you stayed with Blogger. They seem pleased with your decision.
They are working hard to censor what they can get away with censoring. All of the media is working this way. Facebook, Twitter, and Google the most prominent, and most dangerous. But NBCCBSABCMSNBCPBSNYTWAPO all do it regularly by not writing about what need to be know, yet consistently turning the news to speak in one voice. Such as 'peaceful protests' (which is still being shouted, even to this day when Kenosha, Minneapolis, Portland, and parts of Seattle are wiped out).
It would be best of we all just stopped using Google products. (and Twitter and Facebook). I have lived long without Facebook and Twitter, but I find it hard to work without Google. They do have some of the best products. Yet, they are the most dangerous of all.
“At any rate, the problem is how do we help you make money from blogging without Google Adsense. We need to focus on that.”
Do like I did a long time ago — hit the Subscribe button.
"If you like people policing your free speech, you can keep people policing your free speech."
Be clear: I never take anything down or rewrite to meet their requirements. I always check what they're flagging and request review before accepting that's a page that won't have ads. They've never threatened to shut down my blog, which would be a huge deal for Blogger, because I mine is one of the most prominent blogs on the site — perhaps the most prominent.
Normally, the review is done and the punishment is lifted. I think one page stayed punished, the one where I quoted from "The Vagina Monologues."
So long ago, I forgot it is called “Donate”.
The remedy for speech someone doesn’t like is more speech, obviously, but these nanny state tech tyrants think they know better than the Founders who made liberty and individual rights a foundational principle of our nation and culture.
We have built something good here and it’s SO tiresome to be policed and lectured by Silicon Valley tech wizards who have zero understanding of it. Half of them were not born here — those that were are useless in any effort to preserve it.
Here’s a hint: it’s not nothing, dipshits.
Suppose that Google did NOT inform bloggers that certain content was reducing the blogs' advertising income. Would that practice be better?
To some extent, these income reductions are driven by the advertisers, who themselves have taken the initiative to tell Google NOT to place their advertisements onto webpages with objectionable content. To that extent, Google is properly providing informative guidance to its bloggers.
To some extent, however, Google itself is concocting these algorithms and then persuading the advertisers to use them. Google itself is trying to suppress "racist" thinking and so is concocting algorithms that find such thinking and then is persuading the advertisers to use those algorithms.
This distinction should be studied.
* To what extent is the suppression of free speech being driven by the advertisers?
* To what extent is the suppression of free speech being driven by Google?
The intellectual justifications for the suppression of speech are being developed at our universities, from where they are being exported to the larger society. So, the study of the above distinction will not be done well by university faculty. The study should be done by non-university researchers.
Teh google says "predatory removal" usually has something to do with fish, such as juvenile green sturgeons.
Ad sense makes the heart grow fonder.
Absinthe makes the fart blow yonder.
I used to blog on Blogger, but left for a number of reasons. Google being morons was among them.
Predatory Removal is when a skunk snatches a chick right out of the nest.
Google is the skunk, the blog is the nest, and your posts are the chicks. You're the momma bird who returns to the nest ready to regurgitate a nice belly full of worms and what not and all of a sudden you're like, "Wait a minute...where's V-Jay? Dang it, Meade! I thought you were going to watch the nest."
And Meade is like, "Oh, sorry. I went to get some sticks. Remember I told you there's kind of weak spot right there? I just wanted to weave a couple little...sorry. My bad."
And you're like, "Shit."
Go after them for violating your first amendment rights. If some mom and pop bakery is a public accommodation, how is Google not?
One woman with courage makes a majority.
But I understand completely not wanting to fight. You are retired and just want to do your thing and be left alone.
Sadly, "Do your own thing", the rallying cry of the left in the 1960's, is now a thought crime.
Readering said It may be a nuisance but I am glad Google polices ads.
Readering doesn't get it. Google is NOT policing ads! They are policing the comment section and threatening to withhold Ads and the revenue it generates.
They don't like the content of some of the posts that Althouse puts up and the especially don't like the comments and the commenters. They are Libtards and will not tolerate any deviation from their approved viewpoints.
Predatory removal? Maybe some of the regular trolls who are being thankfully limited have gone crying to Big Brother?
I want Blogger to survive
Whenever you write on Blogger, you are writing directly into Google computers.
Google would be happy if everything on the Internet were written on Blogger. Then Google would not have to send its search bots all over the Internet, but rather would be able to simply search its own Google computers.
That's why Google is happy to provide its Blogger application for free to anyone who wants to write on the Internet.
However, Google apparently does not care much about improving Blogger. This application now is used mostly by essayists -- by people who like to write, read and comment about essays. That population might be shrinking significantly -- or at least Google thinks so.
This is where I shamefacedly admit I use an adblocker on your page. When I had ads turned on I always got a woman's thonged butt prominently displayed. (Why ffs? None of my interests or buying habits related.) I got tired of seeing the ass.
The top paid subscription on Substack is The Dispatch, Jonah Goldberg's news thing. Slate Star Codex is moving there, too.
Sue the motherfuckers, Althouse. At least raise a bigly stink about what Google is doing.
Big Mike “ As regards COVID-19, there is no such thing as an “authoritative, scientific consensus,” as witness CDC flipping and flopping around like a dying mackerel.”
Correct. Even worse, Google might be referring to the WHO. Twitter enforces WHO Infallibility.
DBQ :” Readering said It may be a nuisance but I am glad Google polices ads.
Readering doesn't get it. Google is NOT policing ads! They are policing the comment section and threatening to withhold Ads and the revenue it generates”
All this is true DBQ, but misses the point. readering wants all speech policed. Pointing out to him his buffoonish error will only cause him to reply “Policing opinions? Even better!”
They'll shut down Althouse eventually. At some point, some post will get enough lefty attention to demand cancellation.
The prominence of Althouse on Blogger makes it more likely to get canceled, not less.
Would love to be wrong about this.
Yesterday, I tried to share a twitter link that discussed AG Barr and Ivanka Trump announcing $100 Million in grants that will be made available to STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING. FB blocked it because they said it violates their community standards.
Dump the ads. Set up a Patreon.
"They've never threatened to shut down my blog, which would be a huge deal for Blogger, because I mine is one of the most prominent blogs on the site — perhaps the most prominent."
Then imagine how much good you could do for the nobodies on Blogger who suffer from the same evils you do by standing up to Google, or at the least by blogging more about Google's evils.
Google controls public information in America and most of the world, routinely skews its availability both for their financial benefit and to suppress views they disagree with (see Allum Bokhari), and, according to Robert Epstein, may very well decide the results of the upcoming presidential election.
There is never much real sympathy for the most successful Good German in the Fatherland. Don't end up being that person unintentionally.
When I had ads turned on I always got a woman's thonged butt prominently displayed.
Remind me to turn off my ad blocker!
Seriously, I used to get ads for things I had already purchased from Amazon. Annoying.
THEN: "Don't be evil"
NOW: "Fuck them. We own them."
Don't know if it's technically feasible with blogger, but one way of raising revenue might be to charge a fee for responsible commenters to comment without moderation.
"Write a book about your philosophy, call it Cruel Neutrality: Modern Stoicism for the Fed-Up Feminist Who's had Enough Fucking Partisan Bullshit Shoved at Her, Thank You Very Much. "
I consider this a good idea but before I "second the motion" I raise the question of how much time creating such a book might take from your normal routine of creating content online. Even if the book is a album of greatest hits from the blog, some time and effort would be required to selected, edit, check for "link rot" or perhaps aim links at The Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) for more permanence. Even if you -- not trusting people generally -- farmed out those tasks to a volunteer, you'd still need time to review the drafts before going to "press".
I think it might be worthwhile to all your readers. I'm not so sure it's worth YOUR while.
As to a "subscription" model -- access to your blog becoming paywalled -- I'm regret to report I don't do anybody's subscription. Not the NYT, not Mark Steyn, not NRO, not HuffPost...
What if it's 1938, Google is the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, and Sundar Pichai is Goebbels? You are all Jews (except you Readering) and you are ALL on the THE LIST (me too). I am proud of Althouse for speaking out, but I am sure Meadehouse is on some Madison Progs campaign map. Be careful up there.
regurgitate a nice belly full of worms
Frank Bruni used to do that. Maybe he still does.
I will be among the first to pledge $5/month if Althouse sets up a Patreon account AND moves her blog off of Blogger to a politically-neutral platform.
Rules are tools crafted to restrain conduct that we fear. Why any one fears Althouse’s mind is a mystery. My guess is that great teaching is always seen as a threat to the Narrative Police. They are big on stopping exposure of false flag school shootings and fake Climate change “Science by authority consensus.” Those are 2 items of power propaganda du jour. But your great teaching is an inherent threat to all future propaganda narratives being prepared for ruling us.
Where is Google's "Approved Speech Dictionary"? Can we get a hard copy?
serious question
with all the absolute control that the democrat media has on our life...
Why aren't They 50 points ahead???
i guess the dogs don't like the dog food???
Break up Google.
This is where I shamefacedly admit I use an adblocker on your page. When I had ads turned on I always got a woman's thonged butt prominently displayed. (Why ffs? None of my interests or buying habits related.) I got tired of seeing the ass.
Dang! Might have to enable ads!
[Actually if you surf with javascript turned off, as I do, you don't see them regardless of having no ad blocker, and the user experience with the comment system is much better. (Except for having to turn it back on to post a comment)].
Readering said...
It may be a nuisance but I am glad Google polices ads.
OK. Now, where do you stand on Google policing content?
Google delenda est.
Kate said...
This is where I shamefacedly admit I use an adblocker on your page. When I had ads turned on I always got a woman's thonged butt prominently displayed. (Why ffs? None of my interests or buying habits related.) I got tired of seeing the ass.
The Ashley Madison ads raised my eyebrows considerably.
"They've never threatened to shut down my blog..."
Except in May of 2011.
I'm surprised they didn't flag you for post Joe Rogan clips.
The timing couldn't be better:
DOJ to Seek Congressional Curbs on Immunity for Internet Companies
Probably behind a pay wall, but the headline tells you what you need to know.
Mary Beth had the correct definition of "predatory removal" earlier. It's when a site lets you pay to remove derogatory content from the site. The clue is in the connection to revenge porn, which is when someone (often an ex-) posts your nudes online without your consent. There are some sites that will let you then pay a fee to remove those nudes from the site, but won't remove them if you don't pay the fee. That's the most common bad behavior.
This Google support page doesn't use the term "predatory removal," but does describe the general concept: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9172218?hl=en
I work in advertising, specifically the digital kind you're complaining about. I've been around you know?
Here's a personal anecdote:
A guy wrote an email to us complaining about an ad he saw on our site. It was some 'No Lives Matter Until Black Lives Matter' campaign, a short video pre-roll. So his email is super-long and ranty and he goes on about how the rioters are assholes and Floyd died of an overdose and all lives matter and blue lives matter and do we want to be associated with terrorists and arsonists?
So because we love our customers this email made it's way up until someone contacted Google about it, to see what can be done. However, and this is important, due to someone's inattention in the email chain the complaint became reversed. Now the subject line read 'Complaint about All Lives Matter ad'.
Google sprang into action! No one read the substance of the complaint down below. Everyone was focused on why is this 'All Lives Matter' ad on our network. Google was very concerned! They couldn't find it, they wanted more info, where was this unauthorized message?
I was cc'd on everything. The support personnel were fixated on the message, how can we allow this? The concern should have been is someone running unauthorized, meaning unpaid or scam ads, did someone swap out a creative, did the user have some plugin or redirect? But the concern was purely the message. "We definitely don't want that kind of messaging on our network". I found the original ad in the dashboard, sent everyone the ID and told them this was the creative he was complaining about, see the very bottom of email thread. After that it was radio silence.
This blog does not allow anonymous comments. Blogger is owned by Google. Hi Sundar, yes I'm shit-talking about your company.
Got me. I read “ new violations were detected” and thought it was a Creepy Uncle Joe story.
I suspect the algorithm is triggered not by your posts, but by our comments. I looked through the comments to the first (Tribe/Buttigieg) post, and I found:
"JOSEPH ANGEL said...
"Uh, you forgot to mention that his attendees were all white fags. So, he needs to appeal to more darky fags."
"Spiros Pappas said...
"Democracy is a European invention. It's in our DNA. It started with my people many centuries ago!! Other people (i.e., brown people) just don't do democracy."
Both comments violate the terms of service.
P.S. I probably just got this post flagged, as well.
Didn't your mother warn you about hanging out with crude, manly men? "They'll only give you a reputation."
Readering said... [hush][hide comment]
It may be a nuisance but I am glad Google polices ads.
Of course you do, even if you don't understand that they are censoring blog content, not ads. The left loves censoring. Especially censoring anything to the right of AOC.
The Dems can say, with a sly smile on their faces, that they aren’t restricting free speech. After all, these are private businesses doing the “policing” of the speech. All the while the Dems are holding hands with these private groups, giving each other the “Google(y) eyes” of lovers in love (pun definitely intended). God help us that these lap dogs (or is it rabid lap dogs???) are doing the dirty work for the Dems/left/Regressives!!! May Karma be a bitch for these thought police, both in the Dems ranks and the media companies, attempting to silence us from true and open discussion.
I am very big on the idea of capitalism and free enterprise, but I've had it.
It's not their fault that they are clearly a monopoly (along with Twitter, Facebook, et al). They built a better mousetrap and people flocked.
But now they are evil. These companies (along with a few, select others) now have the power to sway elections and change the course of history to suit their liking.
I'm not sure what the remedy is. At the extreme would be declaring them utilities and forbidding any kind of censorship unless in extreme (clearly identified) circumstances.
A less extreme measure would be to break them up into their basic components...separate advertising from search. Search from content (YouTube), etc.
But I am getting fed up being 'ruled' my mega-corporations who track and monetize everything I do when connected (and sometimes not connected) to the internet.
Like China, Google "is ASSHOE."
Please exit through the Amazon porthole, many items are on sale for you. This will help keep supporting this radical thought provoking blogart project. Stick it too google buy bezos
Thanks for the explanation on "predatory removal."
I figure Blogger is like life itself. One day there will be death.
@Althouse, you might want to check out locals.com. Dave Rubin started it. I know Scott Adams has joined. FYI.
Thanks for the explanation on "predatory removal."
You're welcome.
FWIW, Althouse is my one "never-miss" daily blog, although I usually read several others. I would subscribe for sure if that was the new format.
IANAL, so I'm wondering, isn't it libel per quod to imply that a person is disreputable because they didn't meet someone's presumably high moral standards, even when they did nothing that society would consider disreputable or wrong?
So, if you make cat food and advertise that it "Contains NO strychnine!" you're libeling your competitors because you are implying that theirs does?
Likewise, if Google claims that content on the Althouse blog is "dangerous and derogatory," isn't Google libeling Ann Althouse?
I suspect that a lot of this is caused by people filing complaints against your blog because they don't like what you're posting. Google doesn't have to the manpower to investigate all of the complaints that it gets, so it just sends out automatic notices of potential violations.
They give you offending pages, but do they indicate precisely what it was that was flagged within them. I just reread all the blog posts you listed- nothing there that matches the claims
"P.S. I probably just got this post flagged, as well"
An experiment has been set up, let Althouse report the result.
Yet I think blogging should produce an income — a writer should receive pay — and it's hard to believe that income-producing blogging is going to work other than with ads.
why should i pay you?
They are doing exactly what they said they would do, back in 2016--making sure such an electin result is never repeated.
If you think that simply quoting something from the NYT protects you, think again. The NYT audience is not a threat. Yours is.
Years ago it was said that a conservative was a liberal who had been mugged. Ann Althouse has been mugged. Ann?
Patreon is Left. They have already censored and screwed over people.
Live by the Left, die by the Left.
Oh, the karmic irony. Diversity (i.e. color judgment), an insidious and forward-looking doctrine of the Progressive Church, not limited to racism, breeds adversity.
"@Althouse, you might want to check out locals.com. Dave Rubin started it. I know Scott Adams has joined. FYI."
I don't know what it is, but I suspect it's a way to be out of view and small and grouped with people with a political slant who are nothing like me. Did I get that right?
"They give you offending pages, but do they indicate precisely what it was that was flagged within them."
No. They just say that the violation was detected and that it was in the category "Dangerous or derogatory content."
When I try to figure it out, I think, if somebody flagged me as "Dangerous or derogatory content," it was probably someone who thought what I quoted was anti-white... so I'm thinking it's right-wingers.
"When I try to figure it out, I think, if somebody flagged me as "Dangerous or derogatory content," it was probably someone who thought what I quoted was anti-white... so I'm thinking it's right-wingers."
I think Google is all-in on anti-white...if they investigated and found your content anti-white they'd push you to the top of the search results...
But I really don't think they have time to investigate anything. They just crawl through your site ('detected'), scrape and analyze the data via some algorithm, and render their judgment.
Althouse, if you don't trust anyone to setup an alternative to Blogger, it's time to tell Meade to "learn to code". He seems trustworthy.
I think Althou.se is still available.
"...so I'm thinking it's right-wingers." In Hawaiian shirts, classic frat boys, amiright? Either that, or Putin.
Hey. At least they told you what the problems were. They simply stole my money and never gave me a clue as to what I allegedly violated on any one of the dozens of sites I owned.
Fuck Google.
Troll them creatively once a week. Google is more important than the New York Times so they deserve your introspection more.
Yes, locals is a rightish site.
The whole point of blogger folks is that it’s open, accessible, findable. It’s not something anyone joins. AA is not a joiner.
"... so I'm thinking it's right-wingers."
Boogaloos strike again!!!!
I also have a blog, not sponsored in any way, so I've lost no ads. However, I do send the same Links and Comments to about 80 people before I post it. Gmail regularly censors and send them all back as
" Message blocked
Your message to xxxxxxxx@.com has been blocked. See technical details below for more information.
LEARN MORE"
I also have an ATT account so I just send that way and have no problems. So far.
I will go a few months with no problems then suddenly all is blocked. This week on three days so far, the only days I've sent them.
You need to think of Google as The Matrix. Continuously searching for those who have taken the red pill and are in need of elimination.
Unfortunately we don't have our NEO yet.
I would also happily pay for a subscription to an Althouse blog, whether Substack or otherwise.
Some years ago I wanted to put ads out for my product using AdSense. I was fumbling with how to do it when Google informed me I violated something. I could not find out what and I was banned from AdSense permanently. Evil.
Of course you have dangerous content. You can think, and thinking is very dangerous to the powers that be and their friends in big tech. Since you've been writing for many years, at various points you'll have touched on topics that while once acceptable have since been deemed unacceptable. It may become an endless gotcha game of Google going back through more and more pages more than a decade old to find something it objects to as a way to demonetize you. Algorithms may be great at catching verboten words, they are not so good at understanding context.
Putting out a tip jar or asking people to voluntarily subscribe might make up for the ad revenue, so long as the payment processor and or bank doesn't get pressured into canceling you.
"... so I'm thinking it's right-wingers."
Right-wingers....at Google?!
I am so confused.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा