[simorley]

And of course this would affect all their properties including search. There was a time, long ago, when we expected objectivity from google in search, etc. Those days are long gone as google is a political actor. What's next? Banning ads that deny christ? Are they going to ban ads from politicians who espouse a point of view that google disagrees with? Given google's influence, they can influence who wins elections. Hell they had a significant part in the chaos created during the arab and eastern european "revolutions".

"It's a private company" argument works when private companies are much smaller or influential than governments. When private companies get so large and politically active, we have to break it apart.

The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out.

[rubyn00bie]

> The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out.

Uhhh. I think the people working there don’t want to directly empower harmful lies… even for money. Why would you think it’s some “other” when the obvious choice is simple? Additionally, there have long been bans and regulation on harmful content, it’s nothing more than “safety and soundness.”

I find it peculiar how you immediately bring up unrelated topics like “deny christ” and people who dislike google. It’s like you’re trying to generate outrage of something ordinary and I find it confusing.

[yongjik]

> There was a time, long ago, when we expected objectivity from google in search, etc.

Not sure what kind of "objectivity" you are demanding here. Hypothetically, if someone searched for "who created linux" and if there happened to be a really popular page that started with "Steve Jobs created Linux in the summer of 1978..." at the first spot, everyone working at Google Search would have considered it a failure and asked "How can we fix this?", definitions of objectivity be damned.

Denying climate change is not that different. It's not "wrongthink", it's simply wrong, and hence less useful to users than results that are not wrong.

[adamiscool8]

If some evidence was proffered that Steve Jobs actually did contribute to creating Linux in 1978, as a user, I would much prefer to see that, than to have Google hide it from me because it's against the "current consensus opinion". A policy like this just seems like a recipe for disastrously persistent misinformation.

[foxes]

Okay so just to be clear you along with OP are both climate change deniers?

It’s an anti climate change ad , they are removing blatantly wrong information. It’s not like it’s censoring legitimate research or something, it’s removing garbage ads.

Damm.

[adamiscool8]

That's not what the article says:

>As a result, content that calls into question or denies the scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change will not have Google advertising alongside it. In addition, Google will no longer run any advertising that "contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change."

[brendoelfrendo]

They're ads, my guy. The search results that you ignore because they're not search results. I think it makes sense that the people selling the ad space want to avoid reputational damage of being associated with drivel.

> The real question is who is pressuring google to do this in the first place. But I'd doubt we'll ever find that out.

Well, if you read Google's statements from the article, Google's advertising partners are pressuring them to do this because the non-climate denying people buying Google's ad space, unsurprisingly, do not want their content run alongside drivel.

[michaelmrose]

The difference is of course Consequentialism. If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently. This is fundamentally different from banning ads that deny Christ or espouse a political position that is merely contra to their leaderships position but not disastrous or inherently immoral.

Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race. As to the genesis of such a policy consider its own staff and leadership. They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species. As this decision will only earn them limited good will and will certainly cost them money I would suggest that this course of action is undertaken because they believe it is the right thing to do.

[simorley]

> The difference is of course Consequentialism.

Which is just rationalization to justify something you agree with.

> If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently.

You are talking about a company that helped foster the "revolutions" in the middle east and europe that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of people. I don't think the death of anyone is on their minds. Your logic is also what pro-lifers use. Will google ban planned parenthood ads? Would you support it? You and google are the defenders of future generations right?

> They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly

Such a fine line between educated and indoctrinated.

> believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species

Ah, the same demographics that uses the most energy, creates the most waste, responsible for the destruction of most species, living in cities where most wild life was wiped out. I'm part of the demographics you describe and rather than the false virtues you attributed to the demographics, I'd say the demographics is self-righteous, hypocritical, brainwashed, etc.

> Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race.

If that was the case, wouldn't it be better to shut down google and all industrial activity? But of course, no real scientist believes climate change will be the end of the human race. It's just politically driven people who scare monger with lies. Obviously you don't believe that climate change will wipe out the human race since you are using the internet.

Ignoring the fact that google didn't ban such ads for 25 years, lets say you are right. Lets try a categorical imperative on your logic. Google would have to ban everything from the US government/military, every media organization, every fast food, soda, pharmaceutical, gambling, etc ads.

Funny how ads that will directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people are okay to you, but ads that will lead to the death of hardly anyone is banned.

What's the percentage of anti vs pro climate change ads? 1 to 1000? You see pro-climate change ads everywhere. You hardly see anti-climate change ads. So this has nothing to do with ads but politics. Google is just going to use it to silence politicians.

Honestly, your argument is humanity will become extinct. So lets cheer google banning some ads. I know your ideology/religion is climate change, but does that make any sense to you? So funny to see people defend google - a monstrous corporate entity.

[rbanffy]

You believing or agreeing that climate change is an existential risk to humanity makes no difference to the evidence we have. If we don’t act, a lot of people will die, our supply chains will be severely disrupted (do you think the current chip shortage is serious?) and that could cause a partial collapse of our civilisation.

[abduhl]

All of this sounds like disruption to the status quo, which is a cornerstone of the hacker ethos. I didn’t realize that regulatory capture had occurred in the hacker space. Should google also censor any ads denying security vulnerabilities?

Edit: this may be a bit too snarky but hyperbolic posts appear to have become a norm on this site and it has become all too obvious that these types of posts are more interested in soundbite style shaming than actual discussion.

[rbanffy]

> All of this sounds like disruption to the status quo, which is a cornerstone of the hacker ethos

What part of "millions will die" is difficult to understand? I don't think genocide is part of the hacker ethos.

[simorley]

> You believing or agreeing that climate change is an existential risk to humanity makes no difference to the evidence we have.

It's not me "believing", it's no sane person believes it. What "evidence" are you talking about? If you have evidence, then you should inform the bankers, government officials, business leaders, etc because they aren't planning on the world ending anytime soon.

> If we don’t act

Act? You mean ban 0.00000001% of ads on google?

> a lot of people will die

Not anymore. Google banned 0.00000001% of their ads.

> our supply chains will be severely disrupted (do you think the current chip shortage is serious?)

Honestly, do people bother to think anymore? You are just parroting talking points. Why are you so worried about supply chains if we are all going to be dead?

> and that could cause a partial collapse of our civilisation.

So which is it. The end of humanity

There was a time when I was like you. When I was still in school and watched Al Gore's "documentary".

You went from "existential risk to humanity" to "a lot of people will die" to "supply chains" to "could cause a partial collapse of our civilization". It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about and just parroting nonsense you saw on TV or read on the news.

Climate change happens with or without humans. It will be detrimental to some, beneficial to others. As with all things, it'll have its winners and losers. We will adapt. Whatever the case, life will go on.

Certainly, if we faced existential risk, we wouldn't let google exist and certainly wouldn't allow google's founder to boat around the world and buy up property in new zealand. The world is ending but all the rich people are living the good life. But you have the evidence after all. That's why you jumped from "existential risk" to a possible "partial" collapse of civilization.

[rbanffy]

> There was a time when I was like you.

I seriously doubt it.

[jimmygrapes]

Please keep religious flame wars elsewhere

[spaced-out]

>You are talking about a company that helped foster the "revolutions" in the middle east and europe that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of people.

Google caused revolutions in the Middle East? How exactly?

[jasonlaramburu]

Some would say denying anthropogenic climate change is akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

[Mountain_Skies]

Some would say engaging the such hyperbole is harmful and destroys credibility that's sorely needed.

[lovich]

What credibility is needed? Climate change is a fact and it’s going to disrupt society.

Letting people claim that it’s not real to build “credibility” with the same people who don’t believe in the objective fact does not but build “credibility” for the liars

[jasonlaramburu]

Hyperbole how? Climate change denial contributes to inaction, which causes harm.

[treeman79]

Please separate people who agree that the climate is changing but dispute that mankind is the major driver

There was a 98-0 vote in a senate saying climate change is real. No one denied it.

[thujlife]

Advertizing != search

[meragrin_]

Um, I guess you have not run a search on Google in the past couple of decades?

[tediousdemise]

Google purges search results.

For example, try searching something considered stereotypical or racist. The only results you will get are ones about reparations or empowering minorities - no stereotypical or racist content whatsoever.

[WalterGR]

I just tried it and you are wrong.