Posted on 01/13/2024 8:54:58 AM PST by Twotone
Google has established itself as the arbiter of "truth" in the digital age. The company controls the flow of information and can amplify or bury stories on a whim. Its leaders have given themselves god-like powers over shaping human opinion. So when they change their rules over what information they can censor in a "Sensitive Event" scenario, it's worth examining closely.
If you’ve ever advertised with Google, you might have received this email yesterday:
Dear Advertiser,
In February 2024, Google will update the Inappropriate content policy to clarify the definition of Sensitive Events.
A "Sensitive Event" is an unforeseen event or development that creates significant risk to Google's ability to provide high quality, relevant information and ground truth, and reduce insensitive or exploitative content in prominent and monetized features. During a Sensitive Event, we may take a variety of actions to address these risks.
Examples of Sensitive Events include events with significant social, cultural, or political impact, such as civil emergencies, natural disasters, public health emergencies, terrorism and related activities, conflict, or mass acts of violence.
Examples of what we prohibit (non-exhaustive):
•Products or services that exploit, dismiss, or condone the Sensitive Event, including price gouging or artificially inflating prices that prohibits/restricts access to vital supplies; sale of products or services which may be insufficient for the demand during a sensitive event
•Using keywords related to a sensitive event to attempt to drive additional traffic
•Claims that victims of a sensitive event were responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming; claims that victims of a sensitive event are not deserving of remedy or support; claims that victims from certain countries were responsible or deserving of a global public health crisis
What does this mean? Google — quite reasonably — doesn’t want to sell ads about certain things. If you peruse Google’s inappropriate content policy, you’ll see a long list of things advertisers tend to shy away from: animal cruelty, derogatory content, sexually explicit content, and then the oddly specific “hacked political materials.”
Likewise, the Sensitive Event rule is — at least on the surface — quite reasonable, because Google doesn’t want to be seen as profiting from a tragedy.
As far as I can tell, the Sensitive Event policy has not changed appreciably since 2021. In April 2019, it was limited to “Content that may be deemed as capitalizing on or lacking reasonable sensitivity towards a natural disaster, conflict, death, or other tragic event.”
In September 2020, the policy was expanded in response to COVID: “Content that potentially capitalizes on or lacks reasonable sensitivity towards a natural disaster, conflict, death, public health emergency, or other tragic event.”
By October 2021, it had been expanded to two full bullet points:
Ads that potentially profit from or exploit a sensitive event with significant social, cultural, or political impact, such as civil emergencies, natural disasters, public health emergencies, terrorism and related activities, conflict, or mass acts of violence Ads that claim victims of a sensitive event were responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming; ads that claim victims of a sensitive event are not deserving of remedy or support
And that’s the policy that exists today.
So what is actually changing in February? On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be any change, but let’s look closely.
In the current policy, Google doesn’t give a “dictionary definition” of what it considers a Sensitive Event. Instead, it defines a Sensitive Event by what’s specifically prohibited.
Under the new policy, Google is using a much broader interpretation of a Specific Event and even giving itself broad leeway to address those events:
A “Sensitive Event” is an unforeseen event or development that creates significant risk to Google's ability to provide high quality, relevant information and ground truth, and reduce insensitive or exploitative content in prominent and monetized features. During a Sensitive Event, we may take a variety of actions to address these risks.
It then uses the old definitions as examples of what constitutes Sensitive Events:
Examples of Sensitive Events include events with significant social, cultural, or political impact, such as civil emergencies, natural disasters, public health emergencies, terrorism and related activities, conflict, or mass acts of violence.
Do you see the difference? Under the existing rule, an ad capitalizing on a natural disaster is specifically banned. Under the new rule, an ad capitalizing on a natural disaster is merely an example of what is banned, and what is actually banned is left to Google’s own interpretation.
Specifically, "an unforeseen event or development that creates significant risk to Google's ability to provide high quality, relevant information and ground truth …”
In other words, Google is creating a broader policy to “reduce insensitive or exploitative content in prominent and monetized features” for content that doesn’t match Google’s definition of “ground truth.”
What can we take away from this seemingly minor rule change? My read is that Google foresees an unknown event that the company wants to have the ability to restrict the flow of information around.
In plain English, Google doesn’t know what’s coming exactly, but it might be something previously unconsidered by Google’s lawyers, and Google wants to be able to restrict what information is presented about that event.
I believe it reasonable to expect that Google has representatives at Davos, and they do know what is planned.
Plans do not usually work out quite as expected. So, it would be also correct to say that "Google does not know what's coming exactly". They really do not know - exactly.
Sorry, while the Davos set like to think that they have the future well planned. Nobody does. Carl von Clauswitz, a Prussian philosopher of war who witnessed and survived the chaotic 20+ year period of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, noted that international relations, specifically war, are shaped by three interactive forces: rational policy decisions, peoples emotions, and random chance (unpredictable events like weather that are out of the control of nations / individuals).
Plans are attempts to predict events with little to know hard facts, just a boatload of assumptions that planners try to confirm or deny over time.
President Eisenhower said it best:
"I tell this story to illustrate the truth of the statement I heard long ago in the Army: Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of “emergency” is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning."
Outside our Lord, who doesn't share his planning very often, no one is in control.
Google is constantly blocking anything favorable to Trump.
Try this, I didn’t watch Trump’s Fox town hall this week. I’ve been trying to find it online but can’t find the full town hall meeting anywhere using Google.
That is insane. Please prove me wrong and send a link.
Catherine Herridge (CBS, CIA, spook) recently made the claim that there would be a black swan event this year.
Hey, Google, why don’t you just report verifiable information and let us decide what it means or what to believe instead of manipulating reactions?
The Davos set believes they have a well-planned future that is under their control. They are wrong on both counts. But they will not choose to change their beliefs, and they will act on them.
That is the most important point of all.
They are going to do stupid things that do not work, and they will keep doing them until they cannot do them anymore.
Google executives consider themselves part of the inner-circle decision makers. Another mistaken belief. But they are going to conceal the clever plans of the Davos bunch to the extent they are aware of them. And especially when the clever plans fail, they will conceal news of those failures.
The elites are unleashing monsters which they will not be able to control or put back in their cages. Most of all, Google is telling us they will conceal news of any such rampages to the extent that they are able.
Google keeps adding more features purportedly intended to make searching easier, but these “helpers” are increasingly manipulative and seem designed to steer you to Google’s preferred “authorities” and narratives. Sometimes you have to really fight to get to the information you want to see, rather than the information that Google wants you to see.
Yahoo
If you look at the metadata, you’ll see that Google’s policy statement originated in Langley, VA.
You didn't find "THIS article" on a Google search engine result, did you? Google is the internet's biggest filter of conservative information.
Does Google “know”? Unlikely. Loose lips sink ships.
Has Google been told repeatedly, “Don’t sweat it. We’ve got this. It’s Newsom or Haley. Nothing to worry about”.
Never use it. I spent half a day once going through everything on my computer that had Google or Chrome, etc. related to it.
I don’t use google and it’s readily available.
They’re in on it.
They aren’t building dozens of these mega-warehouses around here for no reason.
I think they’re for when they nationalize food production. They’ve already got billions of dollars into the industry, what with EBT, free school lunch, etc.
Thanks but that link doesn’t work if you don’t have cable, which I do not. I have internet only.
Sorry for the late response but I didn't see your post until now. The point isn't whether you can see this thread. You found it because you are a long time member here. The issue is that Google, as the world's dominant search engine, can prevent other people from ever finding it. So, you cursing at the statement “The company controls the flow of information and can amplify or bury stories on a whim” demonstrates that you don't understand how the vast majority of people find information. Their decision to filter information is a threat to our democracy. Your antiquated e-mail chains and isolated discussion forums are all but irrelevant. We have lost elections and will continue to lose elections unless we fix this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.