Notice Adsense Warning/Update Regarding Ukraine

[Phil]

Google has issued an important notice/update to all AdSense accounts regarding AdSense policy as it relates to the ongoing war in Ukraine.

 

Their update reads as follows:

 

Quote

Due to the war in Ukraine, we will pause monetization of content that exploits, dismisses, or condones the war.

 

Please note, we have already been enforcing on claims related to the war in Ukraine when they violated existing policies (for instance, the Dangerous or Derogatory content policy prohibits monetizing content that incites violence or denies tragic events). This update is meant to clarify, and in some cases expand, our publisher guidance as it relates to this conflict.

 

This pause includes, but is not limited to, claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.

 

This directly impacts/applies to our thread on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and potentially related threads elsewhere in our community. I rely heavily on AdSense revenue to offset the cost of managing this community and as such, will be adopting Google's same positions regarding content posted to that thread, or elsewhere in our community effective immediately.

 

Users who are determined to have violated these policies will be Warned and thread-banned, regardless of whether myself or the Staff determine the violation before Google potentially does. No exceptions.

 

If you have questions on the matter, feel free to ask here.

 

Thanks,

Phil

 

 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Big big yikes

 

 

So exactly how anti-Russian do we have do be to be able to stay on the internet now?

 

Do I have to put a Ukraine flag as my avi?

[Phil]

You don’t have to be anti-Russian at all, or use the Ukrainian flag as an avatar. You just need to not engage in Russian propaganda regarding the war, as was outlined in the OP.

 

Take it up with Google if you want more clarity. I can’t give you that. I’m adopting their policy as best I understand it. The same as I’ve done for sexual content. Because I rely on ad revenue to pay for the site.

[Cr00zng]

On 4/16/2022 at 4:18 AM, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Big big yikes

 

 

So exactly how anti-Russian do we have do be to be able to stay on the internet now?

 

Do I have to put a Ukraine flag as my avi?

 

That GIF is misleading at best, since we are close to the bottom of the slippery slope, where social media companies dictate what's good for you. We live in a world where these companies can ban even the POTUS, regardless, if he deserved it or not.

 

Yeah, the more appropriate would be, that we are down the hill, across the river with no turning back...

 

On 4/16/2022 at 8:42 AM, Phil said:

You don’t have to be anti-Russian at all, or use the Ukrainian flag as an avatar. You just need to not engage in Russian propaganda regarding the war, as was outlined in the OP.

 

Take it up with Google if you want more clarity. I can’t give you that. I’m adopting their policy as best I understand it. The same as I’ve done for sexual content. Because I rely on ad revenue to pay for the site.

 

Let me start by appreciating your and other administrators work and time in managing this forum. I also understand the financial implication to this forum and paying for it via ad revenues, where members of this forum are the products.

 

I am not certain how it'll be received, but here it goes...

 

I'd like to suggest a solution that would make this forum independent from Google and other social media companies polices. Establish forum membership fee to cover the cost for the site. I am not sure what the per member yearly membership would be, but I am game. Maybe we should have a vote on this and take it from there.

 

PS: I grew up in a former Warsa-Pact country, where the main mantra had been, "Everything is good and beautiful, long live Soviet Union." Of course, every dissenting voice had been dealt with one way or another. I hate to see the US is moving into the same direction...

 

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, Cr00zng said:

We live in a world where these companies can ban even the POTUS

I'd also call this misleading.

 

Donald Trump's personal account was banned, not the @POTUS account. 

[Cr00zng]

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'd also call this misleading.

 

Donald Trump's personal account was banned, not the @POTUS account. 

 

Oops, my bad, I stand corrected...

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Cr00zng said:

 

That GIF is misleading at best, since we are close to the bottom of the slippery slope, where social media companies dictate what's good for you. We live in a world where these companies can ban even the POTUS, regardless, if he deserved it or not.

 

Yeah, the more appropriate would be, that we are down the hill, across the river with no turning back...

 

 

Let me start by appreciating your and other administrators work and time in managing this forum. I also understand the financial implication to this forum and paying for it via ad revenues, where members of this forum are the products.

 

I am not certain how it'll be received, but here it goes...

 

I'd like to suggest a solution that would make this forum independent from Google and other social media companies polices. Establish forum membership fee to cover the cost for the site. I am not sure what the per member yearly membership would be, but I am game. Maybe we should have a vote on this and take it from there.

 

PS: I grew up in a former Warsa-Pact country, where the main mantra had been, "Everything is good and beautiful, long live Soviet Union." Of course, every dissenting voice had been dealt with one way or another. I hate to see the US is moving into the same direction...

 

 

I'm not saying no, but this would require a lot of work to determine exactly how to do this from a number of avenues -- cost per month/year, policy on banned users regarding payment, cancellation policy, taxes, platform, and more.

 

I would also need to be comfortable with it's stability/instability. AdSense is incredibly easy to deal with on all these fronts, especially taxes, and monthly stability, so I know that it will cover the yearly costs.

 

Noble as this idea is, I have my doubts it would be nearly as reliable, and it would also be a barrier to entry for new members unless I created a Patreon like structure to reward members with subscriptions, which requires it's own thought process on how to create those so that they're compelling enough for enough people to want to pay every month for.

 

The good thing is that Invision supports this kind of sub/tiering, but this is something that will take a lot of planning to pull off, if it's something I end up agreeing to do, which means it's something I can likely look at over the summer.

 

In the meantime, this policy will not change unless Google's policy changes.

[Cr00zng]

14 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I'm not saying no, but this would require a lot of work to determine exactly how to do this from a number of avenues -- cost per month/year, policy on banned users regarding payment, cancellation policy, taxes, platform, and more.

 

I would also need to be comfortable with it's stability/instability. AdSense is incredibly easy to deal with on all these fronts, especially taxes, and monthly stability, so I know that it will cover the yearly costs. Noble as this idea is, I have my doubts it would be nearly as reliable, and it would also be a barrier to entry for new members unless I created a Patreon like structure to reward members with subs.

 

If you've got ideas on where to start here, I'm all ears. It's something I can likely look at over the summer.

 

In the meantime, this policy will not change unless Google's policy changes.

 

Thanks Phil...

 

I think we should evaluate the viability of the referenced option and that's where having a poll would help. Obviously, the estimated membership fee per month, or year should be included in the poll. There's no reason to go any further, if the current members oppose the idea.

 

If the members agree, the rest of it can be worked out in the membership agreement, that has provision for new members, suspended and/or banned members. Post a draft agreement and have members suggest changes and have them agree to the final version.

 

I don't believe that I had violated any forum policies, nor do I intend to. Just don't mention Google...

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Cr00zng said:

 

Thanks Phil...

 

I think we should evaluate the viability of the referenced option and that's where having a poll would help. Obviously, the estimated membership fee per month, or year should be included in the poll. There's no reason to go any further, if the current members oppose the idea.

 

If the members agree, the rest of it can be worked out in the membership agreement, that has provision for new members, suspended and/or banned members. Post a draft agreement and have members suggest changes and have them agree to the final version.

 

I don't believe that I had violated any forum policies, nor do I intend to. Just don't mention Google...

Google isn't a social company, it's a search/data company.

 

If their policy is that they won't allow ads to be monetized based on what @Phil bolded, I don't see why that's bad or why he should get off AdSense and have us pay.

 

Once you start asking people to pay, you open up a massive can of worms aside from what Phil mentioned in terms of even getting a paywall set up. For one thing, Phil gets money when people browse even when not logged in. That's revenue that's gone when it goes behind the paywall.

 

I don't even care to pay, TBH, but there's just no reason to. If you want to post Russian propaganda and say the war is justified and that schools and hospitals being bombed is a lie, just do it somewhere else. This is a hockey forum, first and foremost. It would be a very bad idea to ask people who don't even post in the politics section to pay because of one Google policy that has literally nothing to do with hockey. 

[SaveByRichter35]

Yeaaaaa, not to come off like an asshole, but, I'd rather not pay for the website just because you don't wanna have to talk about Russia in any which way or the other.  Just don't talk about Russia.  No one is forced to talk about politics.  If it bothers you either way just ignore the section.  I totally get what you're saying.  Its pretty stupid that Google is forcing anyone to talk about a given country one way or another or risk facing fines, etc.  But I don't care enough to want to pay for a message board that is currently paid for via advertisements.  I'll just continue to ignore the politics on the hockey forum and focus on the hockey on the hockey forum...

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

Google isn't a social company, it's a search/data company.

 

If their policy is that they won't allow ads to be monetized based on what @Phil bolded, I don't see why that's bad or why he should get off AdSense and have us pay.

 

Once you start asking people to pay, you open up a massive can of worms aside from what Phil mentioned in terms of even getting a paywall set up. For one thing, Phil gets money when people browse even when not logged in. That's revenue that's gone when it goes behind the paywall.

 

I don't even care to pay, TBH, but there's just no reason to. If you want to post Russian propaganda and say the war is justified and that schools and hospitals being bombed is a lie, just do it somewhere else. This is a hockey forum, first and foremost. It would be a very bad idea to ask people who don't even post in the politics section to pay because of one Google policy that has literally nothing to do with hockey. 

 

Yup. That's literally my primary concern, in fact — that the process effectively backfires despite every effort to get it on the level, and I end up having to pay out of pocket again because the subscription dollars pale in comparison to the ad dollars. That's just not something I have any interest in risking, especially to open the "free speech" channels to deny tragedies, which this would effectively be based on.

 

Regardless, I'll look at it more deeply in the summer, but my gut instinct is that it's not the right solution for us/me.

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Yeaaaaa, not to come off like an asshole, but, I'd rather not pay for the website just because you don't wanna have to talk about Russia in any which way or the other.  Just don't talk about Russia.  No one is forced to talk about politics.  If it bothers you either way just ignore the section.  I totally get what you're saying.  Its pretty stupid that Google is forcing anyone to talk about a given country one way or another or risk facing fines, etc.  But I don't care enough to want to pay for a message board that is currently paid for via advertisements.  I'll just continue to ignore the politics on the hockey forum and focus on the hockey on the hockey forum...

 

They're not, though. They're adopting an active no disinformation/misinformation policy. As I explained earlier, this isn't anti-Russian, or anti-Russia. It's anti-lies. I have no problem with them adopting this moral position. They're not threatening to ban accounts that violate this policy, they're simply refusing to monetize Kremlin propaganda efforts. I applaud them for taking a stand.

 

But the rest of your post is accurate, and speaks to exactly what I am most fearful of. But I still want to look into it, because there may still be reasons to utilize INV's subscription model, possibly to just make the forum an ad-free experience for anyone who wants to pay to remove them?

[siddious]

I think it might be helpful to maybe outline what is and isnt considered russian propaganda because that could be a very fine line.

 

Or am I over thinking this and the rule is just not to post anything the kremlin says?

[Phil]

13 minutes ago, siddious said:

I think it might be helpful to maybe outline what is and isnt considered russian propaganda because that could be a very fine line.

 

Or am I over thinking this and the rule is just not to post anything the kremlin says?

 

I can't. What I quoted in the OP is what Google provided.

 

If you want to read more, you can try to here and here.

[BrooksBurner]

I have to confess. I am Larry Brooks. You may put my posts behind a paywall for revenue generation. This would cover the ad revenue. Just don't tell the Post.

Edited April 20, 2022 by rmc51

[phillyb]

Lol...

I can't believe this is even a discussion. @Phil not that you need any further suggestions, but here's one: 

- When making announcements like this, state it in the OP and lock the thread. 

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, phillyb said:

Lol...

I can't believe this is even a discussion. @Phil not that you need any further suggestions, but here's one: 

- When making announcements like this, state it in the OP and lock the thread. 

 

Might be the best suggestion yet.

[Pete]

59 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Might be the best suggestion yet.

Will I still be able to access the forum if the thread is locked?

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

13 hours ago, phillyb said:

Lol...

I can't believe this is even a discussion. @Phil not that you need any further suggestions, but here's one: 

- When making announcements like this, state it in the OP and lock the thread. 

What's so wrong with discussing it? I don't think anyone really suggests we should start paying just so people can post Russian propaganda, but I don't see the problem with talking about it? There's a "war on misinformation" going on, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is just the beginning in regards to things like these.

 

And the message was so vague. What does this even mean:

On 4/14/2022 at 4:44 PM, Phil said:

This pause includes, but is not limited to, claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.

"But is not limited to"? So where is the limit exactly?

"Claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy" - On an individual basis I totally agree here, but is it not allowed to discuss if Ukraine/NATO have some responsibility for what's happened?

[Pete]

5 hours ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

So where is the limit exactly?

That's not nefarious or diabolical, that's just legalese. They need to be able to stand their ground if somebody tries to skirt the rules, tow the line, or try to exploit some type of technicality. They want to be able to enforce the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. 

[Phil]

Correct. Same as we do. Read the Rule Book I've written for this site and you'll find plenty of wiggle room, too. It's impossible to speak to every possible instance.

[Cash or Czech]

Phil should start an OnlyFans to pay for the server. All the Gen Z are doing it. 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Cash or Czech

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, Cash or Czech said:

Phil should start an OnlyFans to pay for the server. All the Gen Z are doing it. 

 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

  

26 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's not nefarious or diabolical, that's just legalese. They need to be able to stand their ground if somebody tries to skirt the rules, tow the line, or try to exploit some type of technicality. They want to be able to enforce the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. 

You're challenging my vocabulary with that first sentence lol.

 

I understand the reason behind it, I just found it very vague and it's basically not saying anything other than giving them the "power" to demonize the site if they feel we violate a rule they'll define themselves. Maybe I'm just being too cynical.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

  

You're challenging my vocabulary with that first sentence lol.

 

I understand the reason behind it, I just found it very vague and it's basically not saying anything other than giving them the "power" to demonize the site if they feel we violate a rule they'll define themselves. Maybe I'm just being too cynical.

Sorry haha. Like I said, it basically allows them to enforce the spirit of the law even if there is some things that fall through the cracks of the letter of the law. There's no hidden agenda.