I turned off Google AdSense today

...because my blacklist wouldn't kick in fast enough to get the "Yes on prop 8" message of fear and hate off my site.

If you came here today and saw a big ol' ad for "protectmarriage.com," I apologize.

If you live in California, I sincerely hope that you will vote No on prop 8 tomorrow. However you may feel about marriage, a constitution should be about protecting rights, not limiting them.

If you are disappointed to see a "political" post on this blog, here are three things to consider:

• They started it.
• This isn't politics, it's civil rights.
• Freedom is good.

Fun stuff soon, I promise.

UPDATE: Google is doing a poor job of addressing their users' concerns over this issue. On their AdSense blog they posted vague, boilerplate platitudes. Here are some of the responses:

Talen said...

You noticed a spike in readers interested in a certain topic did you?

You've broken trust with your publishers over this prop 8 ad issue and although Google gave 140k to the vote no on prop 8 I'm betting you've taken in millions in ad revenue for the vote yes on prop 8.

It's nice to see we are held to exacting rules as publishers and Google breaks those very rules.

Sites displaying Google ads may not include Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization.

You also need to allow the option to post using name and URL...not all of us use the blogger platform!

November 03, 2008 8:42 PM

johloh said...

seriously. noticed a spike?

way to get on the news by 'donating' money to no on 8...you probably already had the yes on 8 money set up.

you've completely broken my trust, and I (as well as many others) are now shopping for another company to provide advertisements.

terrible move google. fire whoever made that choice.

November 03, 2008 8:46 PM

Humuhumu said...

My filter works better than yours: I've removed Google AdSense from my sites. I'm speechless. I cannot believe that my own sites were used to push that kind of hate. I'm disgusted, and surprised, and disappointed.

November 03, 2008 10:14 PM

Jim and Garret said...

This is pretty appalling. Is there a way in adsense to see what ads have been run on my blog? I'm going to suspend adsense from my site until Google gets their crap together.

November 03, 2008 11:25 PM

jennine said...

How can you run these Yes on Prop 8 ads?

What about all the sites who don't even know what Prop 8 is? All the bloggers who don't live in California or the US? They're unwittingly running these ads FOR discrimination.

http://independentfashionbloggers.org/2008/11/04/an-open-letter-to-google-ads/
(IFB never had ads, though I have other blogs and have taken my ads down..)

Honestly, I don't know what to say... I feel betrayed... that my blog can be used as a vehicle for right-wing religious discrimination. I have always believed in equality for all people, and this really sickens me.

I may not put my ads up again.

November 04, 2008 1:50 AM

Tran Tinh said...

I did use these features but they did not work. All blocked ads still there and even I could not block or see them to filter out. T

November 04, 2008 2:42 AM

peterkirn said...

I'm with the others. I'd like some feedback from Google on two issues here:

* How did ads that weren't relevant to content get through in the first place?

* Can we get a mechanism of blocking that's real-time? (I found one. I shut off Google Ads.)

To me, it was a huge shock that on my music tech site, we were suddenly telling some of our readers that their partnerships threatened kids. Come on.

If this was an abuse by the advertiser, or a violation of Google's policies in some way, I'd sure like to hear more. I'm not going to immediately rail against Google, but I do hope you guys can give us some more feedback, and that you realize timing is critical. We need some explanation from AdSense, and we need tools as publishers that respond in real-time, because that's what online publishing is about.

Peter Kirn
http://createdigitalmusic.com

November 04, 2008 4:24 AM

peterkirn said...

And addendum: the point to me is, the ad wasn't relevant. Geo-targeted but irrelevant content is obviously dangerous; this instance proves it.

November 04, 2008 4:25 AM

johloh said...

cmon PR team...I know youre working on this issue this morning.

how did you not see this coming?

we need a response, and if its not soon, expect people to be gone when you get back to them.

November 04, 2008 6:32 AM

RumDood said...

To be honest, I don't care if the ads showing up are for or against any proposition, candidate, amendment, or other political item. If Google are going to allow political ads, then they need to provide a universal filter for political ads.

I'm not going to go in to my own political views here, and I don't on my blog either. My blog is supposed to be 100% apolitical. Google, by not providing me with the ability to opt out of any and all political advertising, are threatening my readership numbers by potentially offending people.

In short, I will discontinue the use of AdSense until such time as Google provide me with the ability to block any and all politcal ads.

November 04, 2008 7:16 AM

Annie said...

This is appalling! People TRUST Google AdSense to create ads based on the content of the sites - by searching the keywords. We set up AdSense and let it go. So, you create these ads for a hugely divisive and discriminatory issue and don't tell anyone? You let them go out to people's sites who are morally opposed to such hate? Then, when people ask for answers you give them a multi-step process for running additional filters?

You are ridiculous. Clean up your act. Step up and apologize. Your own company has a "No on 8" policy, why would you let this happen?

November 04, 2008 9:41 AM

Jason said...

I agree. I am extremely disappointed and will be taking my business elsewhere.

Google owes its Adsense publishers an apology and should create a filter for political advertising immediately.

November 04, 2008 11:05 AM

Rosemary West said...

How dare you plaster these Prop 8 ads all over my websites! This is a nightmare as visitors will are now turned away from my pages thinking that I support these ads. This is just plain WRONG! There should be a way to automatically block ALL political ads. No matter what my opinion is on a political issue, this is completely inappropriate for my websites.

November 04, 2008 11:24 AM

Stu said...

I, like many above, have removed Google AdSense from my site. It will take more than a vague reminder of filtering options to convince my to switch it back on.

You've broken our trust Google. Not cool.

Comments

[nybe]

Amen brother.

[Mark]

Bravo Stu for having the nuts to stand (write) up what you believe in.

[Ted McNeil]

Good on ya Stu. Taking a stand against intolerance is never off topic.

[Craig]

I thought AdSense only posted ads relevant to your blog.

[Eric Escobar]

right on bro.

[Eric Escobar]

ps: I saw the DV Rebel's Guide Ad Sensed on www.fivethirtyeight.com, which I thought was an subversive, yet entirely appropriate software derived match of keywords no doubt.

[Fulltime casual]

nicely done.

god i wish Australians could vote for your president.

[mike]

Amen. Thank you, Stu.

[M.R. BLUGH]

No disappointment here. Nice to see someone take a little time out from the technobabble to -- how can I put this delicately -- fight ignorance. Thanks for the post. Great blog.

[Alan]

Thanks, Stu.

[The Movie Maker]

"Freedom is good."

Not all freedom is good.

[Jan]

Long time reader, first time poster.

I'm with you. Prop 8 is fearmongering nonsense. I hope it gets the big smackdown tomorrow.

Thanks for the post.

[Stu]

the movie maker, feel free to read http://deliciousdevice.com/2008/11/03/a-letter-to-my-mom-about-ca-proposition-8/" REL="nofollow">this.

[ryanpmack]

Thank you Stu for standing up so diligently to support protecting peoples rights.

I live in NYC but a NY court ruling allows CA gay marriages to be recognized here. My partner of four years and I are engaged and planning a California wedding, providing Prop 8 doesn't pass tomorrow.

A similar measure, Prop 102 is on the ballot in AZ where we recently moved from, although with same-sex marriage already legal in CA, Prop 8 passing and taking it away would be particularly painful. In 2004, 11 similar state constitutional bans passed. That was a rough morning after (on top of the fact that the evangelical vote who helped support the bans helped push Bush into another term).

I GREATLY valued your thoughts and opinions as it was, but my respect for you just managed to step up another few notches.

[jwdenzel]

Totally with you on this, Stu. Thanks for posting.

[Stu]

I'm humbled by these responses guys. Thank you so much. I promise not to abuse your trust.

[Benji]

Stu, I am a huge fan of your book, your work, and your input on this blog, but I disagree with you on this issue. I hope you post this comment at least to show the other sides perspective.

It is misleading to turn Prop 8 into a gay rights issue.

The title of marriage, and the title alone - with no additional rights associated with it - is granted solely to heterosexual couples because historically marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. That being said, California law already grants domestic partners ALL the rights that a state can grant to a married couple.

If domestic partners have the same legal rights as married couples, why do gays demand to change the definition of marriage and why are gays complaining that prop 8 limits their rights? I believe they have a right to their private lives but they do not have the right to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.

Additionally, Prop 8 came about as a result of The Supreme Court over-ruling prop 22. If you let judges, 9 people, overturn laws that were legally passed by the majority of voters in 2000 with prop 22 then you get a break down in the separation of power established in the constitution. This is the limiting of rights that ultimatly surrounds Prop 8, not whether or not homosexual couples get the "marriage" title or not.

Voters rights are what is at stake and gay couples lose no rights by the passing of Prop 8.

[History Is A Weapon]

While I was tempted to respond to Benji's silly response, let me just congratulate you on taking a great stand. No on 8 all the way. Now if you'd only tell me if I should get the hpx-170 or the pmw-ex1....

[Stu]

Benji, I understand that marriage is defined by the state, and that voters get to determine that definition. I want to live in a state that defines marriage as a union between two people.

And the thing is, I think I do—but the Yes on 8 people have resorted to outright lies to frighten voters into legalizing discrimination and overturning that supreme court ruling.

"Historically" voting was for men and land ownership was for whites. Historically this great nation of ours has supported all kinds of discrimination against minorities. But eventually we right those discriminations. That's progress.

It made me very happy to get married and I wish that happiness for my gay friends. If gay marriage is recognized by the state, how does it affect you? Not at all. So why not let people be happy?

[Nathan]

I appreciate the post, Stu.

And way to be discriminatory and bigoted, Benji! Wouldn't want to let people be equal and free. In fact, maybe the next proposition will make it state law that homosexuals drink from different water fountains and go to different schools. Let's put 'em on the back of the bus, too. Sound like a good idea?

[craig]

seems like (almost) everyone is in agreement on 8 here - vote no. not only is it a bad idea, it also opens up the door for more bad ideas to follow.

[Joe]

well said Stu!

Civil rights are everyone's concern.

In a nice bit of synergy, here's some Prop 8 film making for you all to enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE&eurl=http://www.google.com/reader/view/

[GPSchnyder]

Yeah. Vote no on Prop 8.

Same Sex Marriage is allowed her in germany for years now and there is no black hole spitting out demons, so it can't be that bad...

[Bryan]

Bravo Stu!

The advertising in favor of Prop 8 has been frighteningly misleading/outright lies. Every argument for Prop 8 was used years ago against inter-racial marriage. It is simply a ploy to take away rights that individuals have today. I find that disturbing.

Benji: The supreme court ruled that prop 22 went against our constitution and over-turned it. That's what a supreme court does. It is not a break down of the separation of power.

[kitley]

I am neither gay, religious, or Californian. I have only seen one Yes on 8 ad and it was redonkulously stupid. What I don't get is why, if this has nothing to do with rights and only to do with the title 'marriage', would gays want this to pass? If the bible is a club that won't let them in, why would they want to go to that club? I am 100 percent for equal rights for gays, but I am 100 percent undecided about calling it marriage. Not because it taints the name, but because the name taints gay love.

P.S. good for benji posting his thoughts. Don't discriminate against him (nathan), because differing opinions and the right to have them is what makes this country beautiful.

[Kim]

I wish we could post this on every site today; the first thing people would see.

[monkeyboy]

thanks Stu for taking a stand on this important issue. it hurts my heart when i think of the friends i have who are in committed loving relationships but still feel unavoidably second-class. this is intolerable.

and i am just as glad that you allowed dissenting opinions stand in your blog. it speaks to your character and values.

[Benji]

"If the bible is a club that won't let them in, why would they want to go to that club?" Marriage is a religious title that the gay community does not have the right to re-define.

Again, everyone keeps insisting that legal rights are associated with the "marriage" title.

"I want to live in a state that defines marriage as a union between two people." - and 61% of California voters voted on the opposite in 2000, now we have to vote again because the Supreme Court has again decided to pass a law instead of interpret it.

"Yes on 8 people have resorted to outright lies" - Every No on 8 add claims that gays are losing rights by the passing of prop 8 and yet, again, domestic partners have all the rights of married couples.

[David Co.]

Hey guys, lay off Benji. He posted a well thought out comment that was decent and not at all mean or argumentative. Just like Stu he deserves props for having the courage to say what he thinks.

In my personal opinion, the biggest problem with homosexual marriage is that the legal argument against any sort of union will be completely shattered. Stu said that "I want to live in a state that defines marriage as a union between two people." That sounds nice, but then why should men and boys not be allowed to marry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA" REL="nofollow">NAMBLA)?

Also, why not expand the definition to include polygamists? The homosexual argument has been principally about denying rights to couples that simply love each other and aren't harming anyone. If that argument wins, then why is polygamy illegal? If all parties in the relationship agree to it, and love each other, should they not be free to do so?

I think there are a myriad of such problems and, should homosexual marriage become the norm, we'll see a watershed of bizarre cases across the country.

[mumbles]

Stu's blog is Stu's, and he can say what he wants. But I gotta give props to Benji for stating his/her opinion respectfully, without frothing at the mouth. I grew up around a lot of conservatives, and I can see their side, even if I don't agree with it.
I'm against Prop 8. As half of an interracial marriage I feel very strongly about the right to declare one's commitment openly, and I don't like the idea of a proposition-forced change to a constitution.
I think there are lots of things that threaten the safety of families. But nobody can convince me that my marriage is in danger, just because somebody else's marriage merely exists.
Now, has anyone here tried to build their own 35mm lens adapter? There's some cool-looking tips here: http://www.jetsetmodels.info/tutorials.htm

[Helena Handbasket]

Thank you Stu.

We can marry in Canada, and I carry a lingering fear that the right can still be taken away from us. We have to stick together and be vocal about the protection of human rights, especially in countries that are supposedly "free" and "advanced."

[Helena Handbasket]

p.s. If marriage is a religious title, and there is freedom of religion in America, then shouldn't anybody's religion provide for the definition of religion that accords with their PERSONAL beliefs?

In any event, marriage has become a legal status administered by the state. And as such, should be subject to the separation of church and state that is the foundation of all great democracies.

[Matt Moses]

The definition of marriage is wrong... as wrong as voting rights for men only, or white men only. It's ok to be wrong... but not ok to ignore that it is wrong. Thanks Stu... it is NOT politics.... it is about freedom... and progress.

[Casey James Basichis]

Nice post.

I will be voting no on 8.

I hope everyone here has a chance to get out and vote for Obama today.

For the rest of you... may you experience severe chromatic aberration for the rest of your days.

[Sean Wells]

Yo Stu!

Sean from the bunker crew here! It's pretty much infuriating that anyone would vote yes to a proposition that begins with the words "eliminates the right to..." I really hope this doesn't pass... On an even more political note; I did vote for the SF sewage plant to be renamed after George W. Bush. :) Hope all is well at the O!

- Sean

[Bryan Edwards]

The undercurrent of this idea is escaping the discussion and needs an explanation. Marriage is historically a religiously institution, "holy matrimony". The entering into a covenant between a husband and a wife, and of no less importance, God.

The State has no more business defining marriage as a religious institution than it does defining baptism or communion. Where "gay marriage" leads to the slippery slope is the separation of church and state. The state has defined a religious institution. Sure the state can define contracts and partnerships but it can't legislate religious meaning.

The intrusion of the state, into what Roger Williams (not the singer but the guy who Jefferson stole the idea of wall of separation from) called the "hedge" that protects, "the most sweet and fragrant Garden of the Church", is something that our constitution protects against. Simply, the state can't legislate in any area of religious matters.

This notion that the state has defined religious meaning has far wide consequences for the church and the constitution. The state and more importantly the people outside the church have no business defining the church. Political correctness has exactly no place in the church and the church has no place in the public classroom or courts.

People cry out when there's a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom or there's prayer in the school. I think every American should defend the church against the intrusion of the state into its beliefs.

I don't hate gay people. This isn't an emotional debate. The church needs to be defended against constitutional intrusions. This issue rises to the threshold for me.

Peace,
Bryan

[Mr B]

Bryan, if I am reading your comment correctly, you seem to be saying that this proposition is necessary to protect church rights from state rights. I personally think your own argument argues for the opposite. You assume every church has the same exact idea of what marriage is. Churches and religions have differing views themselves, if you ban someone's rights, than you are stepping on the toes of some religion somewhere, it may just not be the one YOU chose.

Marriage has both a civic and religious meaning. Your religion may not accept someone else's marriage. That's between you and your god, but politically all people should be granted the same rights, and it is up to THEIR religion whether it is also religiously viable.

[Benji]

Mr.b, currently all domestic couples have the same rights as married couples. I keep saying this because comments keep insisting that the gay community could lose rights over this proposition. Changing the definition of marriage takes this definition away from the religious intitutions that established it (stepping on their toes) and forces them to comply with a definition they do not agree with -all for a word that has no legal rights associated with it. Since nobody's rights are at stake, This is not the state or government's business.

[Tony]

Thank you, Stu. The importance of this issue cannot be underestimated.

Domestic partners do not have the same rights as married couples. Domestic partners are not entitled to social security benefits, and can't take visitation rights, inheritance, or other such benefits for granted. Acceptance on a state level is only the beginning.

Marriage as a religious institution and as a civil institution need to be disassociated from each other.

Marriage as a civil institution needs to be a right for everyone.

[Stu]

Benji, for me it's pretty simple. Earlier this year, some friends of mine got married. This made them happy. I can't see how it makes your life better to take that happiness away from them.

[Tosh]

Stu, I too am a big fan of your book, your blog, your software, and your film work.

I just want to toss in my two cents.

I am LDS (Mormon) and my church or the members of my church rather are behind Prop 8 big time.

I wish I still lived in South Bay so I could vote against prop 8.

I am just hoping that people in California do the right thing today and vote against Prop 8.

Sadly here in Utah I think Gay Marriage will never be allowed.

I often wonder if gay people would have as high a divorce rate as strait people.

(sigh)

[Eric Escobar]

benji,
Domestic partners do not, in fact, have the same rights as married couples. There are close to 1500 specific rights married couples have that domestic partners don't. Stuff like tax benefits, hospital rights, rights in courts. You're just misinformed on this.

And to the poster that equated Gay Marriage with NAMBLA, I don't know what to say. Conflating a lifetime committment of love between two consenting adults of the same sex with child molestation is such a statement of complete ignorance and homophobia. I really hope you're just ignorant and not hateful.

[Andrew McMillan]

It's kinda sad to see that all you guys see it that way.

let me put in simple terms, with cable there is a male side and there is a female side, they lock together and transmitt a signal, Two male ends or two female ends just can't connect, it not how it works.

All I can say is I have lost a little respect for the filmaking comunity today.

[ShadowMaker SdR]

"I often wonder if gay people would have as high a divorce rate as strait people."

As soon as it becomes as easy for them to marry as it is for straight people, I think the divorce rate will eventually be about the same.

[GPSchnyder]

All I can say is I have lost a little respect for the filmaking comunity today.

And I feel proud to be a part of it.

[Benji]

Stu, I get that you want the best for your friends, who doesn't? The issue is the right to redefine a term. I don't know why it made your friends happy to get the marriage title accept maybe that it gave them the impression that they are that much closer to having their lifestyle accepted by the religious community or more of society in general.
But this wish for acceptance doesnt grant them the right to redefine a term. I don't hate gays, I have friends that are gay, but I do believe their lifestyle is morally wrong and that marriage is what it always has been - between a man and a woman. For the government to step in when no rights are at stake and change that definition because it would make the gay community "happy" is out of line. Again, not the governments business.

[Andrew McMillan]

well said benji

[Mr B]

But the government already has stepped in and made marriage a civic institution. That boat is long past, therefore, we must give all our citizens their civic rights.

[Mr B]

Andrew, you need to upgrade to HD SDI, it rolls both ways.

[Matt Law]

Benji, the redefining of the term marriage only really applies to government proceedings. It would have absolutely no affect on what you and every other religious group chooses to acknowledge as marriage.

The only reason this is even an issue is because the government shouldn't acknowledge marriage (hetero or other) in the first place. Really everyone should have civil union acknowledged by the state and everyone can have their own unique religious traditions.

regardless of how you feel about that you've got to admit that voting for the government to treat people differently IS discrimination. It's the same as a law that would prevent interracial marriage.

If the your argument for why you don't see a problem with treating gay people differently under law is for religious reasons then it shouldn't influence the law in the first place. People can have biased opinions, the government shouldn't.

By the people, for the people...not some of the people.