I posted a message a few days ago that there was an issue brewing between Google and myself; somewhere between the daily grind and trying to figure out the full scope of the situation it’s taken me until now to actually sit down and explain to you all what’s been going on, so here it goes:
As many of you are aware, I write a regular column about banned books, which was formerly hosted on the World Education Network’s website. I never imagined that the content of those columns would have resulted in a personal battle with one of the world’s most powerful internet properties- Google, Inc. What’s at stake in this battle is the freedom of education, the freedom of speech, and the rights of intellectual property holders.
The immediate issue at hand is over policies regarding Google’s AdSense advertising program. How the program works is that content providers are paid for their writing by having ads displayed on web pages. When a reader clicks on an ad (regardless of any actual sale resulting) the writer of the article on the page that hosts that ad gets a cut of the revenue simply by virtue that a user clicked on the link while on said page. In a nutshell, if no one sees or clicks those ads, then I don’t get paid for my time and my work. It’s just like how the producers of a television show get paid because of the ads that run during the program’s commercial breaks. You don’t have to actually go out and buy the product, you just had to see the ad.
I received an email Tuesday night from Kevin Ryall, the CEO of World Education Network, which shed light on a problem that I wasn’t consciously aware of.
In the message, he explained that I might have noticed that the world.edu website has not been running Google AdSense advertisements since the beginning of the year (I hadn’t). The reason being that, without warning, Google blocked all ads in response to an educational article posted to the website by a University of Cambridge professor on the subject of women’s orgasms.
The article was several months old (even search bots took months to find it), so it was removed from the server with the feeling that it wasn’t worth arguing over. Google replied that they would review the status of the website as a whole.
Then, Tuesday morning, a response came that opened a can of worms.
They started out by thanking Ryall for his patience in the matter and informed him that, upon review of the site, the policy team “…[is] a little concerned about some of the language used on your banned book section.” One of the specific examples they provided was from my most recent column regarding a copy of a 200-year-old sex manual- banned in the United Kingdom from about 1780 until 1961- that has gone up for public auction in Scotland.
Now, let me make it known that, per the AdSense policy, the program is not to be used on any websites that sell or promote “hate against any group, violence, or pornography.”
Read it. Some of the things listed under the Content Guidelines might make you shake your head.
What makes this rather frustrating is that the email demanded that Ryall remove ads from “any pages that include references to sex, sexuality, or the reproductive system.”
As anyone who reads my column on a regular basis knows, one of the main reasons a book has been banned or challenged is because of sexual themes, but I digress…
Okay, I get it; Google doesn’t want its ad program being used on porn sites. Fair enough. But even the United States Supreme Court agrees that pornography is protected by the First Amendment’s Freedom of Expression clause. So right there I have an issue with Google’s policy; but now that extends to academic material about the human body as well??!
Ryall’s feeling is- and I share it- that Google is way over the top on this and the entire situation is ridiculous. As such, they are currently looking into a replacement advertisement provider.
This issue impacts not just myself, but every writer who posts content on a website that utilizes the AdSense program- regardless if it’s on world.edu or elsewhere. Closer to home, the absence of the program means that none of the other writers at world.edu will see revenue generated, and will thus not be paid for their work.
Not only am I pleased to be part of the world.edu family of writers, but I have been happy with my experience overall with them. I also appreciate their decision to stand behind my body of work and in opposition to Google.
To further complicate matters, the reimbursement procedure in place by Google is that a payment is not sent until the total revenue accrued is in excess of $100. I am only at about $20 for this billing cycle, which means that Google is willfully preventing me from reaching the $100 threshold and blocking access to $20 that is, essentially, and as per their own terms, legally mine. Would you let your employer keep your paycheck in their desk drawer and not let you access it? I think not. Sure, it’s only $20, but it’s the principle of the matter.
I’m not the first to take issue with Google over this, nor will I be the last.
In August 2008, Google closed the AdSense account of a site that carried a negative view of Scientology (it closed a similar site 3 months prior). It wasn’t clear if the deletions were concerning any anti-religious content, but the cases did raise questions about Google’s AdSense terms of use.
In May 2011, Google cancelled the AdWord advertisement purchased by a Dublin sex worker rights group named “Turn Off the Blue Light” (TOBL), claiming that it represented an “egregious violation” of the policy by “selling adult sexual services.” The fact is that TOBL is a nonprofit campaign for sex worker rights and is not advertising or selling adult sexual services.
In July, after members protested outside Google’s European headquarters in Dublin and through a write-in campaign, Google relented, reviewed the group’s website, and found that its content advocated a political position, and restored the AdWord status.
In June 2012, Google did the same to an Australian political party’s website; reinstating status over a month later on the eve of an election, doing so only after it was reported in the media that the Party was considering suing Google. In September 13, 2012 the Party submitted formal complaints against Google with the US Department of Justice, accusing Google of “unlawful interference in the conduct of a state election with corrupt intent.”
Other common criticisms include the misuse and manipulation of search results, its blatant use of others’ intellectual property, its compilation of data that may violate privacy, censorship of search results and content, and business practices that amount to antitrust, monopoly, and restraint of trade.
I’m going to focus this next part on the copyright issues, as it pertains to my personal situation. It’s funny that the same policy that I linked to earlier is ignored by Google itself when it’s convenient for their bottom line. Namely, the rule that “AdSense publishers may not display Google ads on webpages with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display that content.”
Well, now, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
So let’s look at Google Books, shall we? Don’t worry, you’ll see how this affects me personally later on.
Google has a plan to scan millions of books that are out of print and make them publically available and freely readable through its search engine. The program is spun by their public relations arm to look educational and as a benefit to the world’s library of knowledge, but in actuality it’s rather ruthless and self serving.
The Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers and the Association of American University Presses have both issued statements strongly opposing Google Print, stating that “Google claims a sweeping right to appropriate the property of others for its own commercial use unless it is told, case by case and instance by instance, not to.”
In 2005, the Authors Guild, a group that represents 8,000 U.S. authors, filed a class action suit in federal court against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of books. Google responded that its use was a fair use because they were only showing “snippets” for books where they did not have permission from a rightsholder and was in compliance with all existing and historical applications of copyright laws regarding books.
I beg to differ with that assessment- Greatly.
Settlement discussions on the matter are continuing.
In a related controversy, a Chinese writer, Mian Mian, filed a lawsuit in December 2009 against the company for scanning her entire novel without notifying her or paying her for copyright permission.
Also, in November of the same year, the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS), which protects Chinese writers’ copyrights, accused Google of scanning 18,000 books by 570 Chinese writers without authorization, for its Google Books library.
Google agreed in that case to provide a list of books it had scanned, but the company refused to admit having “infringed” copyright laws.
So in the aftermath of the initial email that started all of this, while I was sifting through my computer and the internet, removing all association with Google-, which included deleting my YouTube channel- I stumbled on yet another insult by the company. One that would cut even deeper than the censoring of my work.
What really frosts my cookies about the Google Books issue is that, without my knowledge or permission, they scanned and made three of my works free and open to the public at no cost to the reader. Two of those titles are earlier editions of titles that I have since retired from publication due to various reasons. They are not to be printed and sold anywhere for any reason whatsoever- yet, there they are, on Google Books for the world to enjoy. Word for word, page for page- for free. These aren’t the “snippets” mentioned by the company earlier, these were the whole frigging things!
No permission. No compensation. No notification.
They didn’t just steal the money from my wallet- they purposefully and willfully blocked the cash from going in there to begin with. The bastards.
So there you have it. Now you know why I have a personal issue with Google, Inc. and refuse to support their evil empire in any way, shape, or form. They can pucker up and kiss my ass. I won’t even warn them about how hairy it is.
© 2013 R. Wolf Baldassarro/Deep Forest Productions
