Comments on: Google Advertises Busted Triamazon Cancer Cure http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:47:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Paul Berry http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon.html#comment-9955 Paul Berry Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:04:37 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon-cancer-cure.html#comment-9955 No apologies for commenting on an old article. It seems there are two degrees of committing an offence under the Cancer Act 1939, that of doing it knowingly or unknowingly. Given Google Advertising's automated processes I would have thought that they would have accepted the placement of the advert without it passing human eyes. They are running a risk by doing this but they do tend to respond, with a human this time, to any complaints made. They would be foolish to retain a given advert if it's pointed out to them that it is in breach and they do have a procedure for doing this. Either way they would still strictly be in breach if they carried such an ad, but newspaper editors*, for example, have in the past been able to use the defence that not every single ad passed their eyes before publication. Even though they are ultimately responsible for all content they publish, this position has been used in successfully when a prosecution was brought. My point is that automated online advertising is not inherently evil. Only those ads that remain up after a complaint is received are. *http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=29053&sectioncode=1 No apologies for commenting on an old article.

It seems there are two degrees of committing an offence under the Cancer Act 1939, that of doing it knowingly or unknowingly. Given Google Advertising’s automated processes I would have thought that they would have accepted the placement of the advert without it passing human eyes. They are running a risk by doing this but they do tend to respond, with a human this time, to any complaints made. They would be foolish to retain a given advert if it’s pointed out to them that it is in breach and they do have a procedure for doing this.

Either way they would still strictly be in breach if they carried such an ad, but newspaper editors*, for example, have in the past been able to use the defence that not every single ad passed their eyes before publication. Even though they are ultimately responsible for all content they publish, this position has been used in successfully when a prosecution was brought.

My point is that automated online advertising is not inherently evil. Only those ads that remain up after a complaint is received are.

*http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=29053&sectioncode=1

]]> By: DnD http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon.html#comment-5926 DnD Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:08:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon-cancer-cure.html#comment-5926 "Leafing" though your site...<br/>Even whilse it's down it's fab.<br/>I can't believe the people that will do and say anything for Greed.<br/>But I should know better.<br/>Never give an inch.<br/>To quote the B man :<br/>"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." <br/><br/>Buddha “Leafing” though your site…
Even whilse it’s down it’s fab.
I can’t believe the people that will do and say anything for Greed.
But I should know better.
Never give an inch.
To quote the B man :
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

Buddha

]]> By: Kat http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon.html#comment-5873 Kat Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:36:00 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2008/02/google-advertises-busted-triamazon-cancer-cure.html#comment-5873 Ironic, given that your pages can be pulled so easily with just a single complaint from an affronted quack. Somewhat hypocritical of google - but I guess you don't pay them like the advertisers do.<br/><br/>I was also amused by the ad underneath the one show illustrating this post - "positive pain relief - more effective than acupunture". So, not going up against analgesia then? Ironic, given that your pages can be pulled so easily with just a single complaint from an affronted quack. Somewhat hypocritical of google – but I guess you don’t pay them like the advertisers do.

I was also amused by the ad underneath the one show illustrating this post – “positive pain relief – more effective than acupunture”. So, not going up against analgesia then?

]]>