• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think there’s anything normal or acceptable about a private entity acting as a gatekeepr to the internet and deciding what content people can see based on their own opaque reasons.

    • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      No one needs to pay to put ads next to content they don’t agree with. Google is informing them that advertisers don’t want their ads on these pages. They don’t have to remove the pages, thereby not being censored, they’d just suffer the consequence of not getting ad revenue.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Google has become the main way people find content online, and if content doesn’t show up in search results then it’s effectively censored. The consequence here is that advertisers decide what content is acceptable. Again, this is very clearly a big problem for society.

        • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This has nothing to do with search. Just advertising. They’ll remain in search results as long as they don’t take the page down and remain otherwise complaint with search policies.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            Google’s search algorithm is equally opaque and almost certainly driven by advertisers as well. This is a well known problem.