Monday, September 17, 2018

And Yet Another One

I just got dinged for a post that did nothing but embedded this video:

I have removed the post but this is the second video from the guy that has been dinged in less than a week.

Dear Publisher,

This Google Publisher Policy Report gives you an overview of recent activity related to violations found on specific pages of your websites. As enforcement statuses may change over time, please refer to the "Page-level enforcements" section of the AdSense Policy Center for the current list of active violations.

Please note this report doesn’t cover violations that may happen on an overall site or account level. You may be notified by a separate email if site or account level violations are found. Ads will continue to serve where no policy violations have been found, either at the page- or site-level.

In the last 24 hours:

  • New violations were detected. As a result, ad serving has been restricted or disabled on pages where these violations of the AdSense Program Policies were found. To resolve the issues, you can either remove the violating content and request a review, or remove the ad code from the violating pages.

Further details on enforcements can be found in the AdSense Help Center. To learn more about our program policies, please view the AdSense Program Policies.

Kind regards,
Google Publisher Policy


  1. Any web site that does not adhere to the narative of the Borg is in potential violation.

  2. Are you sure this is not someone forging fake Google warnings to get you to remove content?

  3. Live by the Google, die by the Google?

  4. Sounds like Google doesn't like your message. Oh well, they're private property and non aggression and stuff. It will be even funnier when you're not allowed to use banks, get an electricity provider or shop for food. Libertarianism for the win!

    1. Paul, this might be worth a read:

      Nevermind these labels such as "libertarianism". The question is, what does anyone *owe* anyone else?

      There is a difference, a big one, between a person not giving you something because he/she doesn't want to, and a person being forced by a government to not give you something. There is a difference between a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay person, and a baker being forced by the government to not bake cakes for gay people.

      If Bob is not allowed to use banks, get an electricity provider, or shop for food, because the people owning those decide to not help out Bob, that is not a problem and he would agree. He can (and will!) easily get help from other people. But if he's not allowed to get those things because he's blacklisted by the government, then that says more about statism and governments, not libertarianism.

    2. Since the time of FDR the state regulates and subsidizes such that only a few large players may exist. Then the private property excuse is used to block whomever the companies or the state wants blocked.

      Of course the response to this issue isn't to restore freedom but for the government to use force to decide who gets service and who doesn't.

      If there were a free market then there would be other players to turn to. Google and the rest then would be less likely to play these games because they would suffer economically for doing so. It would send people to the competition. But with government giving them an advantage its unlikely any significant competition will ever arise. As a result effective censorship and service denials are achievable.

      So passing laws to prevent google from doing this doesn't solve the problem. It's the next government interference.