CD, deceptive content (according to Google)
So I just received an email from Google that they have "rejected" advertising for CD due to deceptive content. (For the record, I've not advertised for CD for many months...)
Therefore, it is clear that Google's policies must have changed, and that they now apply the new policies to old advertising contracts. And CD is not alone. Google and YouTube now seem to reject Christian advertisers pretty consistently.
Here's the exact reason what Google accuses CD of:
- Makes false statements about your identity or qualifications - Uses false claims or claims that entice the user with an improbable result (even if this result is possible) as the likely outcome that a user can expect - Falsely implies affiliation with, or endorsement by, another individual, organization, product, or service
The times are changing, and Silicon Valley and other big tech are clearly not on our side.
Comments
-
Google no longer allows advertising for the following type of sites:
Examples: places of worship, religious guidance, religious education or universities, religious products
Similar rules for political advertising etc.
What a bunch of morons and hypocrites, especially after it has come out that they tampered with search results prior to the last US presidential elections.
-
Oh dear .... and I thought it was THE RUSSIANS and THE PUTIN who are behind it all ... especially the "stolen 2016 US presidential election" ????
_____
4 Aug, 2019
Douglas Adams famously suggested that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. In the world of the political elite, the answer is Russiagate. What has caused the electorate to turn on the political elite, to defeat Hillary and to rush to Brexit? Why, the evil Russians, of course, are behind it all.
It was the Russians who hacked the DNC and published Hillary’s emails, thus causing her to lose the election because… the Russians, dammit, who cares what was in the emails? It was the Russians. It is the Russians who are behind Wikileaks, and Julian Assange is a Putin agent (as is that evil Craig Murray). It was the Russians who swayed the 1,300,000,000 dollar Presidential election campaign result with 100,000 dollars worth of Facebook advertising. It was the evil Russians who once did a dodgy trade deal with Aaron Banks then did something improbable with Cambridge Analytica that hypnotised people en masse via Facebook into supporting Brexit.
All of this is known to be true by every Blairite, every Clintonite, by the BBC, by CNN, by the Guardian, the New York Times and the Washington Post. “The Russians did it” is the article of faith for the political elite who cannot understand why the electorate rejected the triangulated “consensus” the elite constructed and sold to us, where the filthy rich get ever richer and the rest of us have falling incomes, low employment rights and scanty welfare benefits. You don’t like that system? You have been hypnotised and misled by evil Russian trolls and hackers.
Except virtually none of this is true. Mueller’s inability to defend in person his deeply flawed report took a certain amount of steam out of the blame Russia campaign. But what should have killed off “Russiagate” forever is the judgement of Judge John G Koeltl of the Federal District Court of New York.
In a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against Russia and against Wikileaks, and against inter alia Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and Julian Assange, for the first time the claims of collusion between Trump and Russia were subjected to actual scrutiny in a court of law. And Judge Koeltl concluded that, quite simply, the claims made as the basis of Russiagate are insufficient to even warrant a hearing.
The judgement is 81 pages long, but if you want to understand the truth about the entire “Russiagate” spin it is well worth reading it in full. Otherwise let me walk you through it. …
The key finding is this. Even accepting the DNC’s evidence at face value, the judge ruled that it provides no evidence of collusion between Russia, Wikileaks or any of the named parties to hack the DNC’s computers. It is best expressed here in this dismissal of the charge that a property violation was committed, but in fact the same ruling by the judge that no evidence has been presented of any collusion for an illegal purpose, runs through the dismissal of each and every one of the varied charges put forward by the DNC as grounds for their suit.
Judge Koeltl goes further and asserts that Wikileaks, as a news organisation, had every right to obtain and publish the emails in exercise of a fundamental First Amendment right. The judge also specifically notes that no evidence has been put forward by the DNC that shows any relationship between Russia and Wikileaks. Wikileaks, accepting the DNC’s version of events, merely contacted the website that first leaked some of the emails, in order to ask to publish them.
Judge Koeltl also notes firmly that while various contacts are alleged by the DNC between individuals from Trump’s campaign and individuals allegedly linked to the Russian government, no evidence at all has been put forward to show that the content of any of those meetings had anything to do with either Wikileaks or the DNC’s emails.
In short, Koeltl dismissed the case entirely because simply no evidence has been produced of the existence of any collusion between Wikileaks, the Trump campaign and Russia. That does not mean that the evidence has been seen and is judged unconvincing. In a situation where the judge is duty bound to give credence to the plaintiff’s evidence and not judge its probability, there simply was no evidence of collusion to which he could give credence. The entire Russia-Wikileaks-Trump fabrication is a total nonsense. But I don’t suppose that fact will kill it off. …
And in conclusion, I should state emphatically that while Judge Koeltl was obliged to accept for the time being the allegation that the Russians had hacked the DNC as alleged, in fact this never happened. The emails came from a leak not a hack. The Mueller Inquiry’s refusal to take evidence from the actual publisher of the leaks, Julian Assange, in itself discredits his report. Mueller should also have taken crucial evidence from Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, who has explained in detail why an outside hack was technically impossible based on the forensic evidence provided.
The other key point that proves Mueller’s Inquiry was never a serious search for truth is that at no stage was any independent forensic independence taken from the DNC’s servers, instead the word of the DNC’s own security consultants was simply accepted as true. Finally no progress has been made – or is intended to be made – on the question of who killed Seth Rich, while the pretend police investigation has “lost” his laptop.
Though why anybody would believe Robert Mueller about anything is completely beyond me.
So there we have it. Russiagate as a theory is as completely exploded as the appalling Guardian front page lie published by Kath Viner and Luke Harding fabricating the “secret meetings” between Paul Manafort and Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. But the political class and the mainstream media, both in the service of billionaires, have moved on to a stage where truth is irrelevant, and I do not doubt that Russiagate stories will thus persist. They are so useful for the finances of the armaments and security industries, and in keeping the population in fear and jingoist politicians in power.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Oh dear .... and I thought it was THE RUSSIANS and THE PUTIN who are behind it all ... especially the "stolen 2016 US presidential election" ????
Maybe Putin's manipulation was just smarter than Google's.
It's scary how these conspiracy theories turn out to be true.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Oh dear .... and I thought it was THE RUSSIANS and THE PUTIN who are behind it all ... especially the "stolen 2016 US presidential election" ????
I encourage you to read the judge's ruling, Wolfgang, in which he makes clear that "the primary wrongdoer" is the Russian Federation in that it "surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC's computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft." Corrective action for state actions such as the Russian Federation's is not the province of American courts, however, but rather the executive and legislative branches of government.
In his ruling, the judge makes NO judgment about the electoral impact of the Russians' actions. His ruling is about the legal implications of Wikileaks' and the Trump campaign's involvement, if any, in the dissemination of the fruits of the Russians' illegal activity. The judge ruled that the Russian government can't be tried in American courts, and that Wikileaks et al were not shown to have met the legal standards for the actions of which the DNC alleged their involvement.
Bottom line: In his ruling, the judge does NOT clear the Russian government of culpability for its illegal activity in the 2016 campaign, which means "'THE RUSSIANS and THE PUTIN" are in fact still "behind it all."
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
I encourage you to read the judge's ruling, Wolfgang, in which he makes clear that "the primary wrongdoer" is the Russian Federation in that it "surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC's computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft."
if what you put in quotes was the judges ruling, I can only say "Well. of course ....it could not be any different for it must not be any different". 😀
For someone like me, judges are not infallible "know-it-alls" ... actually, quite a number of judges in these and other recent matters in the USA seem to have been on a war path with justice and instead have given the USA justice system the reputation of what supposedly is only found in so-called "banana republics" 😏
PS: It appears as if my position of being "an outsider" (not USA citizen, not USA political party member, not limited to USA main stream media, not limited to English speaking "news", etc) provides me with an advantage of more objectivity over those who are in some way "affiliated" or "sympathetic" leading to prejudice and pre-fixed opinions due to a certain loyalty or patriotism
-
@Wolfgang posted:
if what you put in quotes was the judges ruling, I can only say "Well. of course ....it could not be any different for it must not be any different". 😀
Two notes:
- What I placed in quotation marks WAS from the judge's ruling.
- I remind you that in the article YOU quoted in a previous post, of the judge's decision the author wrote, "The judgement is 81 pages long, but if you want to understand the truth about the entire “Russiagate” spin it is well worth reading it in full." (emphasis added) So the author YOU quoted grounded his article's thesis on the same judge's ruling from which I quoted, the judge whose judgment you seem to question in your fact-free broadside against "quite a number of judges in these and other matters." It seems to me that if you question the judge, then you should also question the author who chose one of that judge's rulings as the basis for an article.
For someone like me, judges are not infallible "know-it-alls" ... actually, quite a number of judges in these and other recent matters in the USA seem to have been on a war path with justice and instead have given the USA justice system the reputation of what supposedly is only found in so-called "banana republics" 😏
This kind of sweeping indictment is MUCH easier to make when, as you have in this case, you choose not to complicate it with evidence that your indictment is valid.
PS: It appears as if my position of being "an outsider" (not USA citizen, not USA political party member, not limited to USA main stream media, not limited to English speaking "news", etc) provides me with an advantage of more objectivity over those who are in some way "affiliated" or "sympathetic" leading to prejudice and pre-fixed opinions due to a certain loyalty or patriotism
With all due respect, Wolfgang, in the content of your CD posts that have offered your analysis of political/governmental matters over the years, I have seen no evidence of the "advantage" that you claim. I think you have proven yourself quite adept at making claims and judgments about systems, events, policies, and political leaders. I have seen little if any evidence of your willingness/ability to support your claims and theories with factual evidence.
-
Jan,
W
Where do we go from here? CM
-
@C_M_ sM:
Where do we go from here? CM
The implications for CD are minimal. I will no longer be able to advertise on Google. I can still advertise on Facebook though, which has been much more effective anyway.
The big implication is for those ministries that have used Google advertising to get seekers onto their evangelistic websites and apps.
At least Google is consistent, and applies the same rules for all world views. On some atheist YouTube channels, there's some ranting going on about similar restrictions.
Muslim ministries have been using Google Ads for dawah purposes, so my guess is they will try to play the islamophobia card on this. Let's hope and pray they're not successful with it.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
