[IP] Re: Google "disapproves" net neutrality ad

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
Date: October 24, 2009 6:08:54 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>, sergeybrin@google.com, larrypage@google.com 
, vint@google.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Google "disapproves" net neutrality ad

I'm an ardent supporter of net neutrality, as is Google.

But I've also known Brett (below) for decades, and trust that he's  
tellin' the truth.

If this IS true, then Google is ABUSING its massive power over the  
net, and precisely illustrating why we DO need robust protection for  
FAIR access to net services and content.

Google's espoused First Principle is - First, do no harm.

If Brett's [documented, believable] Google-censorship claim, below, is  
true, then they are violating that principle.  I'm hoping that  
Google's leaders don't know about it.  Either way, we should appeal  
this to those leaders:
Google cofounders
Serge Brin <sergeybrin@google.com> & Larry Page <larrypage@google.com>
Internet co-inventor Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>

--jim; open-govt & tech-civlib advocate & sometime columnist
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Warren
 justjim36 on twitter  |  Jim Warren on Facebook


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Brett Glass <<mailto:brett@lariat.net>brett@lariat.net>
> > Date: October 24, 2009 16:23:04 EDT
> > ...
> > Several months ago, I noticed that when one typed the phrase  
> > "network neutrality" into Google's search engine, the top listed  
> > results all advocated Google's regulatory agenda. In fact, Google  
> > was contributing free advertising to groups which advocated  
> > "network neutrality" regulation (see <http://www.google.com/grants/ 
> > >http://www.google.com/grants/). This gave them an unfair  
> > advantage. They could place very high "bids" but not be charged for  
> > them, so their ads were guaranteed to show up on Google's result  
> > pages whereas paid ads might not.
> >
> > I therefore created a simple advertisement, using Google's  
> > "AdWords" facility, which pointed to a white paper I had written on  
> > the issue. This white paper advocated regulation only in instances  
> > of anticompetitive practices or market failure, and recommended  
> > that content and application providers (including Google) who could  
> > serve as gatekeepers be scrutinized for anti-consumer practices as  
> > well as ISPs. (You can see the paper at
> >
> > <http://www.brettglass.com/principles.pdf>http://www.brettglass.com/ 
> > principles.pdf
> >
> > on my Web site.)
> >
> > Then, on the morning of the FCC's vote on a Notice of Proposed Rule  
> > Making on "network neutrality" regulation, I received the following  
> > notice from Google:
> >
> > > Subject: Your Google AdWords Approval Status
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > Thank you for advertising with Google AdWords. After reviewing your
> > > account, we've found that one or more of your ads or keywords  
> > > doesn't
> > > meet our guidelines.
> >
> > I entered Google's Web interface, and discovered that -- during the  
> > days before today's FCC meeting -- the ad had received large  
> > numbers of clickthroughs. This number dropped to zero, of course,  
> > when Google blocked the ad.

... <EXTENSIVE DETAILS SNIPPED> ...
[Brett's full posting is in Farber's IP archives at http://bit.ly/ 
dNizI ]




-------------------------------------------