by Aaron Mystery
"As more and more content emerges on the web, users are looking for an easier way to aggregate that content. We think we can create opportunities for advertisers to reach their target audiences while maintaining a high quality user experience." - Actual quote from the FAQs on the FeedBurner site regarding Google's acquisition of the Chicago startup.
You always know when a company has gone to the dark side when it talks like this. Google is basically bragging about monopolizing the web, with cute language like "aggregate" and "opportunities for advertisers". And the "high quality user experience" is code for We choose who will be part of the web, where they'll be ranked, and what is acceptable for all of humanity. First Amendment be dammed, Google doesn't have to worry about that at all. They just want to be squeaky clean and rich off click-throughs. They don't want to break ground other than with new advertising widgets and programs. Who still thinks Google is cool?
One more quote for you, this one from the Content Limitations page here on Blogger.com:
Commercial Pornography: We do not allow content that exists for the primary purpose of monetizing porn content or driving traffic to a monetized pornography site
Okaaaaaaay... Has anyone else noticed that Google and YouTube thinks anything adult oriented is porn? We all now what porn is, and although my site is all cartoons with no simulated sex, I'm fairly certain based on my deleted vids from YouTube that the grandmas and fanatics at Google would hold up my silly little animation site as porn. Municipalities used to have to fight all the way up to the Supreme Court (and often lose) trying to define what pornography is. The basic standard is "no redeeming social value." The truth is, what I'm doing is art. It may be adult-oriented art, but it is not two sweaty people fornicating in front of a lens, it is a dedicated effort by an artist using multiple disciplines to deliver humorous sight gags laced with political and social satire snuggled in a little bit of eroticism. I could argue this if the gov't were trying to censor me, but the argument is worthless against Google, which can simply shrug its limp corporate shoulders and hit the "delete" button.
Unfortunately, as Google clamps down on Free Speech more and more in a legal (but unethical) manner in the name of ad revenue, I don't think Suckermouth is the one that needs "redeeming," but rather the "society" we have come to know as the web.
Now I have to get back to what I was doing: Flagging YouTube vids that show ankles... Oh my gawd! Was that a knee?