This story is a little old, in terms of Internet news cycles, but it is noteworthy nonetheless.

It seems that Google has been running anti-Prop 8 ads on its affiliate networks, against the tenets of its own published advertising policies. To wit, the policy states:

Don’t promote violence or advocate against a protected group.Ad text advocating against any organization, person, or group of people is not permitted.Advertisements and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group. A protected group is distinguished by their:  Race or ethnic origin, Color, National origin, Religion, Disability,  Sex,  Age, Veteran status, Sexual orientation/Gender identity.

Pretty straightforward (no pun intended), but yet the ads are still there. What gives? Has Google gone evil? Turns out the story is a little but more complicated and capitalistic. A spokesperson for Google, Diana Adair, has stated the company’s position as such: “Google allows ads that advocate for a particular political position regardless of the views that they represent. We currently allow ads advocating both for and against Proposition 8.”

If you are diligent you may wish to read these relevant bits pertaining to Google’s views on Political Advertising. I’ll save you the legwork:

Political advertising is allowed. We permit political advertisements regardless of the political views they represent. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible.However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual’s personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group.

But just what constitutes a protected group, legally? Well, if you click on the link for protected groups you end up back at the Advertising Policies page (see supra), which implies that Google is violating its own policies.

Now, it is easy to take pot shots at the Big G. Everyone loves to see the mighty fall. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, and all that. But what, really, can be made of this interesting little incident? It seems apparent, regardless of your position on Prop 8, that Google has, for the time being, suspended the “Don’t be evil” campaign (and civil rights along with it) to rake in some more ad money. If you’re prone to speculation (and this is Silicon Valley, where we are) you might be looking at the sinking economy and a company’s change of tune as not just a coincidence. Is Google seeking to shore up some funds? We know they cut back on their snacks, is this another sign of the tightening belt?

We won’t speculate on those matters, but it is worth pointing out Google’s direct contravention of its own policy. To which the question follows: What’s the point in having an ad policy that explicitly prohibits advocacy against protected minorities if you permit advocacy against those same minorities, provided the advocacy is vague with regard to overall intentions?

For instance, would Google permit Wal-Mart (let’s say) from running ads that advocated non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act? What if Wal-Mart just ran ads that supported legislature that would promote non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act? If Wal-Mart were to take out such an ad, then that would be advocacy against a protected class, but Google is attempting to defend itself under the guise that the ads are generic since they don’t specify what Prop 8 does.

This is a potentially slippery slope for Google. The really oddball thing is that despite this logic loophole in the advertising policy of the company, Google execs are campaigning for Obama, and they have publicly come out against Prop 8. How can Google come out against a Proposition that Google says isn’t advocating anything bad against gays? It is logically inconsistent, and there are several Greek philosophers spinning in Elysium.

Bookmark It