Maybe you've noticed that we no longer have Google ads on this site. Last Saturday, the 14th, I received an email from Google Adsense that I reproduce below, saying that this site poses a "significant risk" of financial damage to advertisers. My account was "disabled;" and the Google AdSense Team thanked me in advance for my understanding.
The letter referred me to this page on disabled sites. It seems to suggest that the risk I posed was from fraudulent click activity. Though there are suggestions there that content may also play a role in such decisions.
I appealed the decision a week ago, making it clear that I take this very seriously and want to be a member of the Adsense community. I've heard nothing back. The process seems opaque and arbitrary, with a faintly tyrannical edge. What did I do wrong? Why is there no accountability here? What is Google's responsibility, as the web-boss, to sites like mine with real traffic? Also: Google ads were a source of income for me. Not much, but when you're not getting to write for the MSM, every trickle counts.
Anyone who has any clue what's going on, and how I can fight it, please advise. Thanks, Phil.
The letter:
Hello,
While going through our records recently, we found that your AdSense
account has posed a significant risk to our AdWords advertisers. Since
keeping your account in our publisher network may financially damage our
advertisers in the future, we've decided to disable your account.
Please understand that we consider this a necessary step to protect the
interests of both our advertisers and our other AdSense publishers. We
realize the inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you in advance
for your understanding and cooperation.
If you have any questions about your account or the actions we've taken,
please do not reply to this email. You can find more information by
visiting https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=57153
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
{ 52 comments }
Well, I do have an idea of why you were disabled. But if I tell you, they'll say I'm a conspiracy theorist.
Hint: know anyone in the Chicago area who was denied tenure by a university despite his department's recommendations? Or anyone whose appointment to the National Security Council has been thwarted?
You are not going to hear from them. I don't know what to tell you.
Fuck google's adsense. The bastards. Why don't you ask comapanies to advertise on your site? There are companies that do business only with Palestinians and go to great lengths so make sure that they are not importing settler olive oil, etc. I have a few of them on myfaves. You can send them an email and ask if they want to advertise?
I'd wager the hasbara crew had their hand in this.
This needs an expose' in and of itself. Look at how many people here have complained about being silenced on various blogs. Google is supposed to have Zionist ties. I do not imagine it takes much to get you put on a list of "undesirables." I use http://www.dogpile.com instead of Google so *they* don't get any of my money.
Hey Phil,
I am afraid there is nothing you can do about it. Google is almighty.
What Google Adsense does is that it senses the context of your blog and then shows what it thinks are relevant ads. Since you are writing mostly about Israel, your blog was obviously showing ads concerning Israel. Most Israel-related ads are, as you may have noticed, funded by the same people your blog decries. And they pay Google each time someone clicks their ad. They (=these advertisers) can run a Google report any time which shows them which sites generate how many clicks. And they must have noticed they were generating income for Mondo Weiss, however modest. So ironically, Mondo Weiss temporarily got some of its revenue from Zionist advertisers, maybe even from the Israeli government for all we know.
Now, it is understandable from their point of view that they wanted to stop this immediately. And normal people, would then go on and use the 'Google Site Exclusion Tool' which enables the advertiser to exclude any sites of showing their ads. This takes about 5 seconds. And that would have been the end of it, meaning that Google would simply have stopped showing the ads of certain advertisers on your site while still showing others. (which is very different from being 'banned')
So there are really only 3 possible explanations for this:
1. Someone high ranking within Google doesn't like your blog content, making this a political, random decision.
2. More likely however is that, the advertisers, rather than using the 'Exclusion Tool', simply got together and 'smeared' your blog 'en masse' convincing Google it was engaging in click fraud. Since Google received complaints from a number of advertisers all concerning the same blog(s), it took it seriously. These advertisers are obviously 'related' with each other, something Google doesn't necessarily know as they may all have separate accounts with Google.
3. One or more visitors to your blog know how Google Adsense works, and decided to click frantically on 'support the IDF' ads. Somehow, I doubt that this happened in an organized or repeated way but you never know.
So you could try explaining this to Google but I wouldn't bother since Google doesn't care. Furthermore, since anti-Zionists usually don't have any money, I doubt that even with being banned but with just the pro-Israel ads being withdrawn, there would be any ads left.
Hmmmmmmmm. Coinkidink?
Phil,
I came up with a possible solution. Let's contact companies and ask them to advertise.
Well, not knowing too much, I do understand that Google's founders were Russian Zionist Jews, so there may be something to the conspiracy theories.
Google has 'disabled' my ad revenue. Why?
Because you deliberately encourage antisemitism.
Google would rather do without the revenue created by a racist hate monger such as yourself.
Need any more simple questions answered?
If I understand J Hynde correctly, the advertisers are able to, as it were, vote against the appearance of their own ads on your site, by using the 'Google Site Exclusion Tool'. If enough of them do this, it renders the application of AdSense processing time to your site no longer profitable to Google, so they withdraw it. This is irritating but legitimate, I suppose, and I hope there are other content-linked advertising systems that you can at least try. In principle, the same problem could arise with any of them: your content is hostile to the interests of the advertisers who would be automatically assumed by merely scanning your content key-words to be supportive.
The reason, I think, is crystal clear just by glancing at Hasbara Buster and LanceThruster's comments. There are legitimate arguments to be made that their comments border on hate speech and, as such, they will drag your site down with it.
I think Volokh said it best when he described this blog as follows:
Weiss, whose blog seems to attract commenters on vacation from the Vanguard News Network even though he appears to be quite leftist (dislike of Jews making strange bedfellows), believes that U.S. politics is firmly and absolutely under the control of the dreaded "Israel lobby."
Set aside what you think about him personally, the first part of his comment does resonate with a lot of other notable bloggers and academics (not about your blog's commenters in particular, but about these types of "blame the Zionist for everything" comments in general).
Tinfoil hat comments like theirs are, at best, in very poor taste, and thus the banhammer from Google. There are valid arguments to be made about the influence of the Israeli lobby, but when some of the people on your blog make them, "Zionist" comes off as a euphemism for "Jew," which I hope even Lancethruster and HasbaraBuster would concur is abhorrent. You don't have to agree with my take on this, but neither does Google or anyone else have to agree with yours.
Looks like Phil is making an impact.
Go Phil!
There are valid arguments to be made about the influence of the Israeli lobby, but when some of the people on your blog make them, "Zionist" comes off as a euphemism for "Jew," which I hope even Lancethruster and HasbaraBuster would concur is abhorrent.
Who decides when using the word Zionist "comes off" in an appropriate or inappropriate manner? Is this something that is always obvious to you, Shirazi, and if so, please do us all the favor of letting us know when "Zionist" is and isn't being used correctly.
The Volokh quote is entirely inaccurate (and is written in such a way that it obviously isn't intended to be accurate, rather to inflame). I don't want to put words in Phil's mouth, but it's apparent to anyone who's even somewhat familiar with his writing that he doesn't "believe that U.S. politics is firmly and absolutely under the control of the dreaded 'Israel lobby.'" He, and most of the regulars who post at his site, believe that U.S. Middle East policy is largely controlled by the lobby. This, incidentally, is something the lobby itself boasts about.
Nobody here "blames the Zionists for everything" (another informationally vacuous statement).
The most hateful comments – the comments that are truly abhorrent – overwhelmingly have come from ardent Zionists and supporters of Israel.
We are seeing in miniature exactly the same "squeaking wheel" phenomenon that permits small but well organized Jewish interests to influence the mainstream media.
The self-described 'shirazi sophist' is sounding even less shirazi than usual, now, isn't he? He sounds an awful lot like the interchangeable sort of zionist mercenary troll you would find on, e.g., little green footballs.
Reminds me of the time the Obama campaign was embarrassed because a campaign ad appeared on the Amazon page of The Israel Lobby.
What Phil Weiss is doing wrong here is precisely what he's doing right here. Truth to power, delivered with integrity and personal honesty.
Whether or not Google's founders and managers are active Zionists, something I kind of doubt, they're as vulnerable to behind the scenes coercion as anybody else with something to lose, and it's more than clear that the people this site bothers don't have much in the way of honor or integrity.
It's not unlikely that a campaign was waged to convince advertisers to complain to Google and ask that their ads not run here.
Dershowitz and his legions.
They can't afford to let the truth get wide exposure, and they'll do whatever they can to stop it.
It's one of the benefits of being their own moral center – right and wrong are all and only about what's going to protect them. Gaza has proved that to the world.
Anyone who's spent any time reading the comments here can see the hate speech runs at least as much pro-Zionist as anti. And a lot of the more ignorant anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic nastiness smells like false-flag b.s.
Cowards have more weapons, since they'll justify anything that protects them. Honest contributors like Phil are stuck with pretty much only one thing they can use – the truth as they see it and the honest expression of it. And nothing's more threatening than that, to dishonest cowards.
They won't win in the long run. It's what's wrong with cowardice, it doesn't work except in the short term.
Meanwhile, the struggle continues.
@Dan Kelly: You identified the problem precisely: no one person or committee decides what is meant by the use of "Zionist." It's a grey area, for sure. However, we all know that in this country, all it takes is for a few to be offended by something for it to rise to level of "hate speech" discourse and enter the sphere of public debate. Once that happens, for-profit corporations — especially publicly-traded ones — wish to have nothing to do with it.
It's all a matter of perspective, as I'm sure you know. I don't think a non-Jew can sit in judgment of Jew when the latter finds a pejorative (and let's be clear, the use of 'Zionist" and "Zionism" in this context is just that) to be racially/religiously discriminatory and offensive. That doesn't mean that the Jew is "correct" in his judgment either, of course. But if you're a publicly-traded company, why even enter this fray? All it takes is for a few Jews to bring some of the comments on this site to Google's attention, and there you have it. No different than if we were Hispanic or Black in that regard .
As for Volokh's comments, I do get the impression that there is an overall "blame the Zionists for everything" attitude that is pervasive on this blog (no question I find it in the comments), and a good portion of it comes from Phil. Again, that is a matter of perspective, and you will, of course, disagree. That's fine … "reasonable minds" and all that. If I had more time and motivation, I would run a regression of some sort to demonstrate this using some quantitative value as a point of reference.
To your final remark — that the worst comments come from Zionists — I would invite you to submit what you find to be the most "abhorrent" and we'll match it up with what I find. I'm curious to see how we differ on what is "abhorrent."
Shirazi Sophist – no comment from you on Chris Berels post, but a strong one on a few others.. it appears you are not to be trusted…
Phil,
Sometimes "invalid click activity" is a result of a site hiring people to purposely click on ads to make extra ad income fraudulently. This is called "click fraud", since the advertisers pay per click but receive no sales. Google seems to be indicating that they have detected this pattern of activity.
Unfortunately, it can also mean that an organized group of people has decided to sabotage your site by purposely having its members click on ads they are not otherwise interested in, in order to trigger exactly this kind of detection by Google. In your case, there may be a good chance that this is what is happening.
I seriously doubt it has anything to do with any "Zionist ties" that Google may have. All they care about is making money; they don't care how it is made. Basically, some pattern of ad click activity on your site has triggered their mindless software algorithms to flag "invalid click activity".
Unfortunately, I've heard that talking to an actual human at Google to get this kind of thing resolved is next to impossible. The best you can do is fill out their "Invalid Activity Appeal" form. If you have been sabotaged, I don't know what their policy is on that; it may just be "tough luck, not our problem, you're screwed."
If you can't get it resolved, remember that Google doesn't have a monopoly. There are dozens AdSense competitors. One such list is
Phil,
Sometimes "invalid click activity" is a result of a site hiring people to purposely click on ads to make extra ad income fraudulently. This is called "click fraud", since the advertisers pay per click but receive no sales. Google seems to be indicating that they have detected this pattern of activity.
Unfortunately, it can also mean that an organized group of people has decided to sabotage your site by purposely having its members click on ads they are not otherwise interested in, in order to trigger exactly this kind of detection by Google. In your case, there may be a good chance that this is what is happening.
I seriously doubt it has anything to do with any "Zionist ties" that Google may have. All they care about is making money; they don't care how it is made. Basically, some pattern of ad click activity on your site has triggered their mindless software algorithms to flag "invalid click activity".
Unfortunately, I've heard that talking to an actual human at Google to get this kind of thing resolved is next to impossible. The best you can do is fill out their "Invalid Activity Appeal" form. If you have been sabotaged, I don't know what their policy is on that; it may just be "tough luck, not our problem, you're screwed."
If you can't get it resolved, remember that Google doesn't have a monopoly. There are dozens AdSense competitors. One such list is http://www.tech-faq.com/google-adsense-alternatives.shtml
.Good luck.
.
Good luck.
@ …
What are you referring to? If I missed it, I'll go read it and comment. Anything to gain your trust.
@ …
Okay, now I see it. When I started typing my long-winded response, Berel's comment wasn't visible to me.
I agree with his comment in part . I do think that some of the rhetoric Phil uses, and the overall tone of this blog, encourage anti-Judaism in those who already possess such tendencies. For many, Israel and "Zionism" are a convenient cloak to mask their Jew hate. However, I DO NOT think that this applies to Phil or some of the commenters here. But I could easily cherry pick some comments here and there that are, honestly, very offensive to anyone with even a nominal Jewish identity, regardless of the Israel-Palestine debate. Not every Jew would get offended by these, but some might (and I certainly do). That's all it takes.
But again, let me repeat, I disagree with Berel's characterization of Phil as a "hate monger." The first part of his criticism, however, I feel is with merit.
@Rowan: Dude (and I say that affectionately) you and I will get along at some point, and you'll stop with the ad hominem attacks and puerile rants. Until that time, I understand you feel the need to resort to churlish attempts at dialogue. I will indulge you. Call me whatever you want if it makes you feel better — I'm here to debate, discuss, read, and learn.
@Norm:
I seriously doubt it has anything to do with any "Zionist ties" that Google may have. All they care about is making money; they don't care how it is made.
Are you allowed to say that in here? (I mean, if you're not a Ziopig Hasbara troll?)
Useful info, Norm, thanks for the explanation.
My point though was that any blog which writes hostilely about a business interest of any sort will run into the same contradiction: the automated ad matching program will attach ads from the members of the industry being criticised in the blog, who will then react to prevent their being used to finance the blog which is criticising them. The business interest could be factory farming, cell phones, anything you like; constant detailed discussion of it in the blog will cause this contradiction to arise.
It's all a matter of perspective, as I'm sure you know. I don't think a non-Jew can sit in judgment of Jew when the latter finds a pejorative (and let's be clear, the use of 'Zionist" and "Zionism" in this context is just that) to be racially/religiously discriminatory and offensive. That doesn't mean that the Jew is "correct" in his judgment either, of course.
Fascinating paragraph. You proceed from a position of moral ambiguity ("It's all a matter of perspective") to one of absolute certainty for your position (and let's be clear, the use of 'Zionist" and "Zionism" in this context is just that – pejorative) in less than two sentences. And then back again to a more passive stance: "That doesn't mean that the Jew is "correct" in his judgment either, of course."
Everyone here is free to speak openly about anything pertaining to Zionism and its adherents. That's the whole point of the site. It's a discussion we need to have.
If a person feels that the word "Zionist" is being used contemptuously, then that person should openly say why and in what manner, and it will be addressed. A "non-Jew" is certainly allowed to answer the charges against her or him.
As for Volokh's comments, I do get the impression that there is an overall "blame the Zionists for everything" attitude that is pervasive on this blog (no question I find it in the comments), and a good portion of it comes from Phil.
I disagree. Why do you feel that way? And, in the interest of full disclosure, do you consider yourself a Zionist?
To your final remark — that the worst comments come from Zionists — I would invite you to submit what you find to be the most "abhorrent" and we'll match it up with what I find. I'm curious to see how we differ on what is "abhorrent."
You can do it yourself, Shirazi. Simply go back and read all the comments made by the pro-Israel crowd. You will find that most advocate for violence, and their attitudes toward non-Zionists, particularly Arabs and Muslims, are at best discriminatory, at worst downright dehumanizing.
I agree with his comment in part. I do think that some of the rhetoric Phil uses, and the overall tone of this blog, encourage anti-Judaism in those who already possess such tendencies. For many, Israel and "Zionism" are a convenient cloak to mask their Jew hate.
Phil does not write rhetorically, Shirazi. His writing is very straightforward. His writing is, if anything, anti-rhetorical.
Incidentally, what is "Jew hate"? Are you a believer in the "anti-semitic gene" theory?
Are you as equally concerned with the non-Jew hate, the Arab hate, the Muslim hate, the Palestinian hate, that is so evident of a large majority of Zionists?
@Dan Kelly
I can understand why you think I'm being inconsistent, and perhaps I did not articulate what I meant correctly, but I just don't see how Zionism is anything but a pejorative here. If I'm wrong, then doesn't it just prove what I wrote about everything being relative? In which case, I'm using myself as an example, so to speak.
Perhaps what I'm saying would make more sense if, in the interest of full disclosure — as you say — I did address your question: am I a Zionist? Please give me what you define as a "Zionist," and that will (a) help us to debate the pejorative/non-pejorative issue with greater clarity, and (b) provide some context to my comments for you and others.
If I admit to fitting your definition of a Zionist, does that mean you will no longer engage in discussion with me? If I deny it, am I a liar or " hasbara troll"? In other words, given this crowd, I think I'll "lose" either way I go. I hope I'm wrong.
Regardless, ask away.
If one happens to believe (as I do) that Zionism causes dual-loyalty conflicts in American Jews it's pretty hard to use the word without sounding at the very least distressed about the Zionist impact on America and its government.
I mean, I can totally see his snaky tendrils weaving around, trying to capture his prey and convey it to his ravening maw … ugh
Philip Weiss – Your article about the brave young Jewish kids at Hampshire College was a turning point for me. I just donated something to you my friend. Frankly, this is the most interesting blog I have read, it's like ground zero. We've known for years that the Jews have harmed our country for the benefit of Israel. The question is, how do we forgive them? Americans have a need to forgive. The Jews have so underestimated us.
I have heard of incidents of business competitors and other miscreants doing deliberate harm to bloggers by clicking their Adsense blog ads hundreds or thousands of times. This might be what Google is referring to when they say there could have been "fraudulent activity" going on with your site.
This is something that a hostile reader could easily have done though I have no way of knowing this for sure.
There is a Google Adsense group & I suggest that you post about your problem there and ask others to help you parse the problem:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdSense?hl=en&utm_source=aso&utm_campaign=ww-en-et-u2u_header&utm_medium=link
I would also suggest doing a Google search on the keyword terms of your notice fr. Google. Many people have gone through the same experience & written about it online I am sure.
@ Mountain Goat,
"I just donated something to you my friend. Frankly, this is the most interesting blog I have read, it's like ground zero. We've known for years that the Jews have harmed our country for the benefit of Israel. The question is, how do we forgive them? Americans have a need to forgive. The Jews have so underestimated us."
Are you kidding me!? If I could reach you I'd throw my shoe at you.
Norm explained that trolls can discredit a site by bombarding it with fraudulent clicks, but he didn't mention the google support group. It would be better if there was an externally hosted online victims' group, though.
@ Rowan: You already wrote than in another post, and I addressed it. Try not to repeat yourself verbatim, please? Oh, and what name do you go by on Facebook? I want to send you a friend request.
@ Duscany: I've never heard the term "anti-Semitic gene theory," but I can take an educate guess as to what that is. To answer that question, no, I don't believe in it. Also, note that you continue to refer to it as anti-Semitism whereas I've been very careful to speak about anti-Judaism (or at least I've tried to). There is an important distinction — you may or may not be aware of it. Are you?
Also, I think you and I differ on the definition of "rhetoric." I'm defining it as (per Webster) "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques." I don't see what that has to do about being "straightforward" or obfuscatory. I think Phil can exercise good rhetorical skills while also being straightforward. How are the two mutually exclusive? Nevertheless, I find his particular brand of rhetoric to invite anti-Jewish remarks and sentiments from others , but not wholesale.
As to the non-Jew hate, i.e., hate of Muslims, Arabs, etc … I find it reprehensible and beyond the pale. Are some (or many, but not all) Zionists guilty of that type of rhetoric? Absolutely. It's common on both sides, and it's sickening and obscures the real debate.
Finally, as to your Zionism-as-dual-loyalty remark, I agree with you completely. Zionism does raise issues of dual loyalty, and it will vary from Zionist to Zionist. It's something that all Zionists must grapple with and be honest about. I believe in Israel's right to exist, and that the Jewish people deserve a place in their historical homeland. Does that make me a Zionist by your definition? Fine. However, I also believe I should never, as an American, put Israel's best interest before that of America's. I hope that those interests will never diverge, but we know that that's not the case. Where they do diverge, I side with the U.S. so long as any decision to diverge is based on democratic principles and not on hate or prejudice. I am an American citizen, and I would defend this country until my dying breath if need be. It's done more for me and my family than any other place on earth, including my native Iran.
But … BUT … the Jewish people, given what they have endured but not just for that reason alone, are entitled to and deserving of a place of their own, and that place deserves to have a exclusively Jewish identity so long as its neighbors, as a collective (but not as individuals), are and remain anti-Jewish in faith and in practice. Does this mean that said Jewish land will result in the displacement of others who lived there at one point? Yes, regrettably, but then again, the Jews were also, themselves, displaced prior to that. The native/indigenous basis for this debate is pointless, in my opinion, because it's not about that. If it's just about a patch of land, it is fungible and should be addressed and redressed with a similar patch in another part of the Middle East. If it's about more than that, if it's about faith and holy sites and scripture and so forth — and I believe that it is — then it becomes my-religion-versus-yours (at least if you're observant or have a religious identity), and we know how that story plays out. That is where we are today.
And that is a long answer to your short question about whether I'm a Zionist. Hope that clarifies and invites further discussion. I'm sure there are holes and inconsistencies somewhere in what I wrote and think, but like I said, it's a very, VERY complex and vexing issue, and it's hard to be absolute at times on any one aspect of it and not feel differently a week later (I feel like I'm contradicting myself constantly). And I hope I didn't offend anyone; if I did, please point out where and I will either clarify or apologize if necessary.
Mondoweiss is being indexed by Google.news webcrawlers and it really is beginning to make difference to his traffic. Google has history of dropping the sites from it's news indexes for political reasons:
http://thehollytree.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html
I am convinced that something similar will be attempted with Phil's blog: his rankings have been growing at a phenomenal pace recently.
Quoting "Mountaingoat":
We've known for years that the Jews have harmed our country for the benefit of Israel. The question is, how do we forgive them? Americans have a need to forgive. The Jews have so underestimated us.
Anyone else find this type of language unacceptable? I mean, he doesn't say "Zionist Jews" or "pro-Israel Jews." He just says, straight up, "Jews": the Jews have harmed our country.
Again, something is wrong with your site, Phil, if these are they types of remarks you are eliciting, and that is why you get no Google-love.
Seriously, though — no one else finds Mountaingoat's remarks to be vile?
@Mountaingoat:
We've known for years that the Jews have harmed our country for the benefit of Israel….The Jews have so underestimated us.
I'm sorry, but it really grates me the wrong way when you keep saying "the Jews", as if it generalizes to every Jew.
SS:
"…no one else finds Mountaingoat's remarks to be vile?"
Imprecise, but not vile, and that imprecision is as much the fault of those he's accusing as it is his own.
"Vile" is too often used in this context, like "anti-Semitic", to have any meaning now.
Anyone whose head's exploded from the intrigue and vicious nonsense we're being drenched in is going to have a hard time speaking clearly and carefully about it. In addition there's a clampdown on information and facts, which was the point of the post to begin with, by people who are afraid of the truth.
It's one of the things that makes Phil Weiss' work so important, he's clear and careful. But most important he's honest. Something his critics and those he's exposing are not.
What Israel did in Gaza in December and January was vile.
The intrigue and double-dealing that led to the Iraq invasion and occupation was vile.
Accusing all Jews of being responsible for those vile things is a mistake, and allowed to ferment becomes a real example of anti-Semitic prejudice.
But since the responsible parties are Jews who hide themselves behind the historical suffering of other, innocent Jews, it's an understandable mistake. It starts to look like collateral damage.
The process is essentially dishonest Jews creating anti-Semitic backlash, which harms everyone. Pretending that backlash rises out of nowhere is dishonest, and ultimately very harmful.
Among the many good things Weiss, and Horowitz, and others like them elsewhere, are doing here is demonstrating forcefully that not all Jews are craven and selfishly dishonest. His work, and his courage, refutes the basic tenets of blanket anti-Semitism absolutely. The government of Israel confirms them.
He's getting hit from both sides, and if you can't see that it's because you don't want to see it.
I find it unacceptable.
It's important to make the distinction between Zionist Jews and Jews.
First of all, you're playing into the game of identity politics if you start conflating a part (no matter how substantial) with the whole.
I'd say MOST Jews (80% were in favor of the Gaza massacre, according to the ADL) are Zionists, but that doesn't give anyone the right to conflate ALL Jews as Zionists.
It's a matter of principle.
Furthermore, being a Jew is fine. But let's think about this idea of identity. We assume identities. Sometimes they are imposed on us (religion passed down from our parents/social pressures that coerce us to conform (sexuality for example)/etc.).
There are all sorts of reasons why we do the things we do.
Jewish identity is not a monolith and it's not natural. A Jew doesn't feel Jewish until it's 'taught' to him/her or 'imposed' upon them by outside pressure.
No different from ANY other contrived identity. Be it Muslim or Christian or Pastafarian.
We create these self-fulfilling prophesies.
I think often we're talking about "Jews" as a sociological entity. A political entity. Because Jews do enjoy an enormous amount of political power in our country. They also have an enormous amount of power in our culture.
There are several angles one can take to present this information – be it, the racist antisemetic stereotype OR a nuanced argument presenting statistical analysis among other things and the guiding belief that we TAKE ON (directly/indirectly) these 'identities'.
That we are human before Jews. Or any other contrived identity.
This is a serious (and presumably widespread) occurrence, and it deserves to be investigated by a serious investigative journalist with the clout to get answers from Google. (While of course not being presented in phony 'First Amendment' terms.) That of course will not happen.
A question: how might the term "fraudulent click" be defined, and how would one prove a given clicker to be one?
A related question would replace "fraudulent click" with "troll" and "clicker" with "commenter" in the above.
Can you mention the site where you used Google Adsense? Perhaps it will give us a hint…
If Google Adsense were not an algorhythm driven service, automatic, rather than discretionary, then most of the advertisers that appear would have likely chosen to remove their ads.
I see it as a problem with the model, moreso than a conspiracy against Phil.
He's facing the problems that a publisher faces, of how to get market share, how to get advertising support, rather than simply have a "right".
He has a "right" to publish. He doesn't have a right to subsidy. Anyone in an exchange with him, can similarly choose to sever that, for whatever legal reason.
It's fairly difficult getting a response from google.
It might be easier to switch to another ad service.
http://web.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising_network
or
http://www.text-link-ads.com/
Dear Phil,
Try posting your question to the Google Adsense Forum at:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdSense?hl=en
and see if they can give you any insight. I have found members on the forum can be very helpful in providing advice.
If all else fails try Yahoo ads at:
http://publisher.yahoo.com/
Best Regards,
Hugh Pickens
@Chris Berel
"Because you deliberately encourage antisemitism."
How does Phil do this? Please clarify; give us some examples of Phil's writing that does this. Also, please define what you mean by "antisemitism."
@ Shirazi Sophist
Same questions re "anti-Judaism."
@Mountaingoat:
"We've known for years that the Jews have harmed our country for the benefit of Israel….The Jews have so underestimated us."
This meets my understanding of an anti-Jewish statement. Why? Because it pretends to know the heart,
mind, and named activity of every single Jew in the USA, if not in the entire world. Conversely a philo-Jewish statement would do the same.
Shirazi,
Mountaingoat should be more specific with his post, I agree. Part of the problem, I think, is that the Zionist movement has always had a habit of attempting to speak for all Jews, and often when Zionist, ardently pro-Israel people speak or write THEY use the collective term "Jew."
In fact, you yourself have done it, most recently in your post above: "But … BUT … the Jewish people, given what they have endured but not just for that reason alone, are entitled to and deserving of a place of their own…"
So, you just invoked "the Jewish people" as a collective entity to argue for your ends. Perhaps this tendency on the part of many people of Judaic culture, most particularly those "Zionists" who advocate for Israel, to lump all Jewish people together when making their own arguments, is what lends others to do the same? Something to think about…
But … BUT … the Jewish people, given what they have endured but not just for that reason alone, are entitled to and deserving of a place of their own, and that place deserves to have a exclusively Jewish identity so long as its neighbors, as a collective (but not as individuals), are and remain anti-Jewish in faith and in practice.
This is always an interesting point of debate. Most "Zionists" claim that the area has always had a history of anti-Jewish sentiment. Most historians who are not part of the Zionist camp disagree, and indicate that the various cultures lived in relative peace for many millennia before the Zionist project got underway, and the subsequent formation of Israel. Thus, historically, the anti-Jewish sentiment in the region is a reaction to the Zionist project – a regrettable one, but understandable, I think, given the viciousness with which the Zionist project has been carried out. This is why so many people – Jewish and non-Jewish – didn't want to see the establishment of a Jewish state in an already inhabited land. They correctly foresaw the conflicts to come…
Does this mean that said Jewish land will result in the displacement of others who lived there at one point? Yes, regrettably, but then again, the Jews were also, themselves, displaced prior to that. The native/indigenous basis for this debate is pointless, in my opinion, because it's not about that. If it's just about a patch of land, it is fungible and should be addressed and redressed with a similar patch in another part of the Middle East.
This is an incredibly supremacist argument. The native/indigenous basis for the debate is pointless in your opinion? That may well be, but I can tell you it's not pointless to the native/indigenous inhabitants of the "patch of land" you are so eager to move to a "similar patch" in another part of the Middle East. A "similar patch" that doesn't happen to reside in "Eretz Israel?"
I hope you are able to see how this supremacist attitude – this willingness to make an exception for "the Jewish people" when it comes to actions that they surely would condemn in others – is what leads to strong anti-Zionist feeling. Couple that with the tendency to lump all Jewish people together when making arguments for your ends, and I think you can understand how some people are led into the realm of stereotyping "the Jews." This is not to excuse it, and I don't agree with it, but I think it is well worth investigating in order that we may someday move beyond such tendencies, on the part of all involved.
I believe in Israel's right to exist, and that the Jewish people deserve a place in their historical homeland.
What "Jewish people?" The Ashkenazi Jews who are largely responsible for the Zionist movement have been shown to have no historical ties to the land. In fact, the Palestinians have more Hebrew blood than do the Ashkenazi.
I find it unacceptable.
It's important to make the distinction between Zionist Jews and Jews.
First of all, you're playing into the game of identity politics if you start conflating a part (no matter how substantial) with the whole.
I'd say MOST Jews (80% were in favor of the Gaza massacre, according to the ADL) are Zionists, but that doesn't give anyone the right to conflate ALL Jews as Zionists.
It's a matter of principle.
Furthermore, being a Jew is fine. But let's think about this idea of identity. We assume identities. Sometimes they are imposed on us (religion passed down from our parents/social pressures that coerce us to conform (sexuality for example)/etc.).
There are all sorts of reasons why we do the things we do.
Jewish identity is not a monolith and it's not natural. A Jew doesn't feel Jewish until it's 'taught' to him/her or 'imposed' upon them by outside pressure.
No different from ANY other contrived identity. Be it Muslim or Christian or Pastafarian.
We create these self-fulfilling prophesies.
I think often we're talking about "Jews" as a sociological entity. A political entity. Because Jews do enjoy an enormous amount of political power in our country. They also have an enormous amount of power in our culture.
There are several angles one can take to present this information – be it, the racist antisemetic stereotype OR a nuanced argument presenting statistical analysis among other things and the guiding belief that we TAKE ON (directly/indirectly) these 'identities'.
That we are human before Jews. Or any other contrived identity.
Great post LD. Thank you.
Back to the issue of the site: Recently my browser has been having trouble here. When I try to navigate back from a comments page to the main page, it clicks, the wheels spin, but it stays on comments until I click multiple times. Perhaps something has gone wrong inside Phil's site coding, which is triggering odd click patterns to adSense?
Anyone else having trouble with the site?
Friends, most of you've already said it all:
"What Phil Weiss is doing wrong here is precisely what he's doing right here. Truth to power, delivered with integrity and personal honesty." Roy Belmont
So I'll only add:
Phil, I'm really sorry, and I'll send what I can afford, too.
Too be honest – I'm a bigger fan of Dogpile than Google. They support charitable causes and work with all independent search providers to give a good mix of results. People are too lazy when it comes to search and want it all to be laid out for them in one engine. Problem is, Google, MSN and Yahoo all pick what shows up where. Research is meant to be RESEARCH – so look around for solid results. BTW – Dogpile.com just launched a new site called http://www.DoGreatGood.com – and their donating a portion of there revenue to Petfinder and the ASPCA. Great that theres a way we can help dog adoption programs at no cost.
I'm not accusing you of a thing – but I can tell you, there are a ton of companies that are dedicated to helping people "get away with" click fraud. I could easily pay two, three, four of them a relatively modest fee to have their minions visit your site and click ads. It will show up as additional traffic, and when detected by Google it will get your AdSense cut off. And I don't put any blame for that on Google. What did your logs and statistics show – both your AdSense statistics and your server logs? Did you have any unusual patterns or spikes in AdSense activity or CTR? Any unexpected changes in revenue? Note that a lot of fraudulent clicks never make it into your account – they're screened out before they are included in your AdSense stats. Did you see any unusual patterns of activity from Asia or Latin America? Decisions to terminate AdSense accounts are made with some regularity, based (as the letter says) on protecting the advertiser. You're not the first person to complain about being cut off, or the arbitrariness of the decision. (See, e.g., the many discussions at WebmasterWorld – to the point that they quickly cut off new threads on the subject and direct people to a thread on reinstatement – http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum89/5794.htm .) When Google's advertisers are being defrauded, Google has little interest in whether the cause is you, people trying to "help" you (e.g., friends or family members clicking your ads to generate revenue, with or without your knowledge) or enemies of your website. They can only protect their advertisers by stopping ads. On those indications when they reinstate AdSense accounts, my impression is that they require reasonable assurance that (a) you had nothing to do with the abuse and (b) you've taken adequate measures to prevent its recurrence.
Comments on this entry are closed.