Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
MoveOn backs down
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Wired tells us that under a barrage of criticism, MoveOn.org has backed off its position of asking Google to block ads critical of the organization:
The left-leaning political advocacy group, MoveOn.org, is backing down in a flap over the use of its name in online advertisements, permitting an influential Republican senator to criticize the organization in a reelection ad on Google's search engine.

"We don't want to support a policy that denies people freedom of expression," says Jennifer Lindenauer, MoveOn.org's communications director.

Both MoveOn.org and Google late last week faced a barrage of criticism after an internet strategist for Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine complained that Google had blocked several re-election ads from the search engine's advertising network because the ads contained the trademarked term "MoveOn.org" in the text.
Left leaning? That's like saying Fred Phelps is "slightly homophobic."

Of course I'd amend Jennifer Lindenaur's statement to say:
"After taking tons of criticism and mountains of negative press, we don't want to support a policy that denies people freedom of expression. Of course we'd have done so if there hadn't have been this outcry."
As for Google, it is a private company and it can have any sort of policy it chooses. What can be demanded, though, is that it consistently and fairly apply it. I'm not suggesting it does or doesn't, I'm simply making a point.

As for MoveOn - an organization that spends its time criticizing everything that moves on the right - it richly deserved every bit of criticism and every particle of negative press it received over the matter.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
hmmm. No comments here. I guess you all must think that McQ’s description is spot-on dead accurate.

Or maybe, not so much:
Lindenauer says that the group had initially asked Google to ban third-parties’ use of its name in text advertisements to prevent fraudsters from advertising on the network and collecting contributions in the group’s name. Under Google’s policies, third parties were still able buy the trademarked term as a keyword, so Collins could have arranged for ads to appear whenever someone searches on the phrase "MoveOn.org," providing MoveOn.org’s name didn’t appear in the ad.


Oh look, that quote doesn’t appear in Mcq’S POST. wotta surprise.

It’s pretty clear that Lindenauer is saying that moveon told google many moons ago to block ads directly using its name, for perfectly reasonable reasons. The Collins ad simply automatically fell into that category. When it was gently brought to their attention. moveon realized that their previous policy was having unexpected consequences on the free flow of information and ideas. Devoted as they are to all things American and constitutional and freedom-loving, they decided to change their policy.

See how simple that was?

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Devoted as they are to all things American and constitutional and freedom-loving, they decided to change their policy.
Bwwwwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaaaaaa.... that’s great mario. ROTFLMAO!!!!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
glad you enjoyed it.

While written with tongue in cheek, the fact remains that it was not moveon that was proactively seeking to block the ad. It was google who automatically blocked it pursuant to a longstanding policy. And moveon quickly rectified the problem.

Like any good liberal would.

Unlike McQ, who proactively sought to obfuscate the issue.

Like any conervative would. And does. And does. And will forever do.

Because of reality’s well known liberal slant.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Unlike McQ, who proactively sought to obfuscate the issue.
I’ll let McQ deal with you on that one.
Like any conervative would. And does. And does. And will forever do.

Because of reality’s well known liberal slant.
Do you actually read the posts on here? I mean, for comprehension??? And... my that’s a mighty big brush you paint with.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
let me ask you this,
did you read McQ’s post, and then the Wired post, and then do some additional research to get more info, and then come back to McQ’s post to see his take as a load of crap?

Just asking.

As for my mighty big paint brush (thank you very much), let me say this about that:

I only started reading qando regularly a few days ago, when the Frost flap started. And the wholefrost fiasco was build on lie after lie after lie. I showed them facts, and they didn’t back off, didn’t apologize, just tried to worm their way around it or change the subject.

Conservatives do this all the time. They have to, because they are waging a losing battle against the real world. How could any ideology whose political power is based on getting the racist vote and based on imposing fear not have to lie all the time? Even the poeple who vote for your guys don’t want to admit why they do so right out loud.


I mean, Christ almighty! Who are your biggest spokespeople? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Ann Coulter? Are you kidding me? Michael g***d**m f****g Savage has a radio show!! We’ve got a president who literally "lies" about 90% of the time he speaks to us. (Had to scare quote it, you know, because ever since Bush came in, we’ve to adjust some previously widely accepted definitions for words, like lie, torture, winning, etc.)

See, there you go. You got me all hot and bothered. Now I’m all angsty.


Everytime you use the internet, bow your head and give silent thanks to Al Gore for helping to make it possible. For without him, we’d still be jacking off to airbrushed pictures from Playboy.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Mario,

This one line bothers me a bit:

"we don’t want anyone using our name or logo in a way that could harm our members and mission."

Sounds a bit too wide open to me. My impression of the post from Wired is that they would consider any criticism the same as "harming their members and mission".
Which leads me to believe that they did not want anyone criticizing them at all, period. If you disagree with them, and then name them as the source of that disagreement, isn’t that harming their mission?

Maybe we read it differently, but from what I’ve read, it looks to me like they wanted to stop anyone from mentioning them in a negative way, so I’m not so sure it’s quite so clear and simple.

You mention doing some "additional research".
I’m willing to check it out. Let me know what else you’ve found and I’ll head to it. But again, from what I’ve read, It looks to me like they were trying to make the best out of an slightly embarrassing situation.
 
Written By: autot
URL: http://
You only started reading here a few days ago and you’ve pegged McQ as a mindless rightwing tool? Oh man - stick around mario and get ready for a schooling. But I’m sure like many others, you’ll fade away as your silly rhetoric gets knocked out of the park. I read your posts about SCHIP and if anyone needed to back off or apologize it was you (and Erb... but he’s never apologized or admitted he was wrong - and come to think of it I believe he is past due on a bet with shark but i digress....)

Mayhap you could take a look at the name and tagline of the site (free markets - free people) and read a little of what Jon, Dale, and McQ have written and actually have a CLUE before you start ranting about them being right wing drones. There’s a cool little search function right there at the top if you’d care to delve in. Go ahead. Give it a shot and then get back to us.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I don’t think I’ve pegged McQ as a mindless drone, at least not too much. (SOme commenters - yeaf, definitely, no doubt.) His behaviour on the Frost issue definitely fell into the mindless drone category, plus (what I consider)his knee-jerk reactions to Gore and the Nobel. Off hand I don’t know his position on global warming, another key test for mindless droned-ness.

Free markets? Where? Markets only exist to the extent the government allows them. Which is how it should be. Except for the fact that when governments are bought and paid for by big bidness, the resulting "free market" is more accurately described as a market that favors those who have the biggest wallets.

The more the current free marketeers are allowed to reign, the less free the market becomes.

But please, enlighten me on what you think a free market is supposed to be, how it would work, and whether we’re moving towards that ideal or away from it. (not that I think it’s ideal)

Someone who blares "free markets" on their blog page kind of strikes me as being a bit naive. "Free people" - yeah, well, he might as well put up mom and apple pie up there too. Meaningless and pretensious. But then, it’s just a blog banner, so maybe I shouldn’t read too much into it.

As for my schip posts - what do I need to apologize about? Let me know and I’ll consider it. I have absolutely no problem saying I was wrong about something if it can be shown. Problem is, I haven’t seen any of that.

And if I fade away, it’ll be out of boredom, because I haven’t seen anyone come closing to knocking me out of the park.

Though, one guy came clos yesterday, and I don’t think I ever finished my response to him. I’ll have to see if I can find that post.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
d*mn I need to use a spell checker. I was spelling champ all through elementary school, but now, not so much.

autot,

You raise a good point, but I would argue that that statement is kind of vague. I would imagine that a lot of organizations take advantage of Google trademark protection, and for valid reasons. From what I read, one of Moveon’s concersn was about ads using moveon’s name to phish for donations. That is the "harm" they were referring to - not "harm" that might arise from direct criticism.

Again, though, I grant that it’s vague. But a clarification at this point wouldn’t appease the righties, unless moveon could come up with a notarized affidavit from years ago stating that fact.

The essential fact remains though that moveon did not block the Collins ad - Google did, based on their trademark agreement. And that simple fact is being hidden by most of the right wing stories on the subject.

Perhaps moveon could be faulted for not realizing that Google’s policy would also have free speech effects, but they should certainly be praised for fixing the matter quickly.

I know most of you (not necessarily you autot - don’t know you well enough) wil nhever face the fact that liberal organizations tend towards openness. That’s why I love them so.


Everytime you use the internet, bow your head and give silent thanks to Al Gore for helping to make it possible. For without him, we’d still be jacking off to airbrushed pictures from Playboy. Or standing on a soapbox acting like a crazy man.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
aw gee, autot, this is what p*sses me off about you guys.

You cited a quote from moveon, but failed to include the additional clarification from the next paragraph:
Lindenauer says that the group had initially asked Google to ban third-parties’ use of its name in text advertisements to prevent fraudsters from advertising on the network and collecting contributions in the group’s name.
That kind of changes the meaning of your quote, don’t you think.

Why do you guys do that? Is it deliberate dishonesty?

And here’ what really frustating about dealing with guys like you and a lot of people here: it takes me a helluva lot longer to figure out whether you’re bs’ing that it does for you to bs me.

But I won’t give up.

Everytime you use the internet, bow your head and give silent thanks to Al Gore for helping to make it possible. For without him, we’d still be jacking off to airbrushed pictures from Playboy.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Mario,

Nope, I sure don’t think it kind of changes the meaning of my quote.
Lindenauer may have said he "initially" asked for the ban to protect from fraudsters, but he still said "we don’t want anyone using our name or logo in a way that could harm our members and mission".

You imply (IMO) in the one of the above posts that you could see where the word "harm" could be taken to mean harm to their image, but that’s not what they really meant. You admit to the statement being vague.

You then quote "Lindenauer says that the group had initially asked Google to ban third-parties’ use of its name in text advertisements to prevent fraudsters from advertising on the network and collecting contributions in the group’s name."
as if that is supposed to clarify everything. Of course that still only works if everyone interprets the word "harm" the same way you are interpreting it.


Did Lindenhaur make an innocent mistake by not realizing how the statement could be understood? Maybe. But that doesn’t change the fact that that is how it is being interpreted by some.

He could have left that statement out, and I believe you’d have a rock solid case. But he didn’t. He said it.

Maybe it is a left/right issue, and will not be resolved, but I think that those who don’t care much for MoveOn do have a bit of a legitimate gripe.



Sorry I p*ss you off. I sort of admire your self confidence.

 
Written By: autot
URL: http://
Mario,

One more thing I’d like to mention.

It’s real easy to CYA once you’ve been fronted out.

To me, this is just like the stink raised over Rush’s "phony soldiers" comment, although no where near as intense.

One group hears it and says, "well geez, he’s talking about people like Jesse MacBeth". Another group hears it and says "man, he’s calling all the soldiers who are against the war phony! How dare he!"

Same with this. One group hears Lindenaur’s statements and his explanation and says "well, that explains it, he just didn’t want anyone to misuse the logo for fund raising and such". The other group hears it and says "bull, he’s just trying to cover his rear. He didn’t want anyone to use the logo for any negative reason"

Does everyone have a possible point? I think so.

What you then chose to believe lies in your personal convictions and philosophies.

You think MoveOn is a deceitful organization? Then you might just believe McQ.
You think MoveOn is a honest organization? Then someone just might agree with you.


 
Written By: autot
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider