I don't get this. As a webmaster, I know googles rules. I choose not to use google ad sense, because I would be breaking the rules posting about cannabis on my .com, which is considered "drug related". Why is google in the wrong? I don't believe they are. It is their policy, which he broke. He has the choice to go anywhere else, or stop being lazy and look for advertisers himself and make the real cash.
Our program policies don't allow Google ads to be placed on content that contains graphic or gory images such as bloodshed, fight scenes, and gruesome or freak accidents. Publishers are responsible for every page on which their ad code appears and for screening any text, images, videos, or other media which will appear on a page with Google ads.
he did. He posted pictures of prisoners of war, that can be considered gruesome. Whether he was crossing the line with that particular picture is subjective. Knowing that, and knowing that Google has the last say tells with the policy is a tell all. Stupid ass webmaster. Thats it. Please read the policy before you attempt to argue something you most likely have never done before anyway. At least read their policy. jesus
view the rest of the comments →
heuristic ago
I don't get this. As a webmaster, I know googles rules. I choose not to use google ad sense, because I would be breaking the rules posting about cannabis on my .com, which is considered "drug related". Why is google in the wrong? I don't believe they are. It is their policy, which he broke. He has the choice to go anywhere else, or stop being lazy and look for advertisers himself and make the real cash.
Gamerdog6482 ago
He didn't break the rule that Adsense said he broke, though.
heuristic ago
he did. He posted pictures of prisoners of war, that can be considered gruesome. Whether he was crossing the line with that particular picture is subjective. Knowing that, and knowing that Google has the last say tells with the policy is a tell all. Stupid ass webmaster. Thats it. Please read the policy before you attempt to argue something you most likely have never done before anyway. At least read their policy. jesus
Gamerdog6482 ago
What picture violated any of those policies? There were no gory images, bloodshed, fight scenes, and certainly no gruesome/freak accidents.
heuristic ago
lol come on dude. youre either lazy or a complete idiot http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib1.jpg
Gamerdog6482 ago
What, exactly, is gory about that? A couple of soldiers, a dog, and a prisoner just standing around. There isn't even any blood.
heuristic ago
go back to reddit