Josh Marshall, at leftist Talking Points Memo,
[W]e at TPM â€“ and some version of this is the case for the vast majority of publishers â€“ are connected to Google at almost every turn. … Running TPM absent Googleâ€™s various services is almost unthinkable. Like I literally would need to give it a lot of thought how weâ€™d do without all of them. Some of them are critical and I wouldnâ€™t know where to start for replacing them. In many cases, alternatives donâ€™t exist because no business can get a footing with a product Google lets people use for free.
But hereâ€™s where the rubber really meets the road. The publishers use DoubleClick. The big advertisers use DoubleClick. The big global advertising holding companies use Doubleclick. Everybody at every point in the industry is wired into DoubleClick. Hereâ€™s how they all play together. The adserving (Doubleclick) is like the road. (Adexchange) is the biggest car on the road. But only AdExchange gets full visibility into whatâ€™s available. (Thereâ€™s lot of details here and argument about just what Google does and doesnâ€™t know. But trust me on this. They keep the key information to themselves. This isnâ€™t a suspicion. Itâ€™s the model.) So Google owns the road and gets first look at whatâ€™s on the road. So not only does Google own the road and makes the rules for the road, it has special privileges on the road. One of the ways it has special privileges is that it has all the data it gets from search, Google Analytics and Gmail. It also gets to make the first bid on every bit of inventory. Of course thatâ€™s critical. First dibs with more information than anyone else has access to. (Some exceptions to this. But thatâ€™s the big picture.) Itâ€™s good to be the king. Itâ€™s good to be a Google.
Thereâ€™s more Iâ€™ll get to in a moment but the interplay between DoubleClick and Adexchange is so vastly important to the entirety of the web, digital publishing and the entire ad industry that it is almost impossible to overstate. Again. They own the road. They make the rules for the road. They get special privileges on the road with every new iteration of rules.
In recent years, the big new things are various kinds of private deals and private markets you can set up to do business in different ways with advertisers. That uses Google architecture and they take a percentage. How much of a percentage does Google take on what I was referring to above â€“ the so-called open auction? No one knows.
Now Google can say â€“ and they are absolutely right â€“ that every month they send checks for thousands and millions of dollars to countless publishers that make their journalism possible. And in general Google tends to be a relatively benign overlord. But as someone who a) knows the industry inside and out â€“ down to the most nuts and bolts mechanics â€“ b) someone who understands at least the rudiments of anti-trust law and monopoly economics and c) can write for a sizable audience, I can tell you this.: Googleâ€™s monopoly control is almost comically great. Itâ€™s a monopoly at every conceivable turn and consistently uses that market power to deepen its hold and increase its profits. Just the interplay between DoubleClick and Adexchange is textbook anti-competitive practices.
Thereâ€™s one way that Google is better than Facebook. When Facebook is getting a bigger and bigger share of the advertising pie, that money is almost all going to Facebook. There are some small exceptions but thatâ€™s basically the case. When Google is making insane amounts of money on advertising, itâ€™s not really the same since a huge amount of that advertising is running on websites which are getting a cut. Still, the big story is that Google and Facebook now have a dominant position in the entirety of the advertising ecosystem and are using their monopoly power to take more and more of the money for themselves.
Weâ€™re basically too small for Google to care about. So I wouldnâ€™t say weâ€™ve had any bad experiences with Google in the sense of Google trying to injure us or use its power against us. What weâ€™ve experienced is a little different. Google is so big and so powerful that even when itâ€™s trying to do something good, it can be dangerous and frightening.
Hereâ€™s an example.
With the events of recent months and years, Google is apparently now trying to weed out publishers that are using its money streams and architecture to publish hate speech. Certainly youâ€™d probably be unhappy to hear that Stormfront was funded by ads run through Google. Iâ€™m not saying thatâ€™s happening. Iâ€™m just giving you a sense of what they are apparently trying to combat. Over the last several months weâ€™ve gotten a few notifications from Google telling us that certain pages of ours were penalized for â€˜violationsâ€™ of their ban for hate speech. When we looked at the pages they were talking about they were articles about white supremacist incidents. Most were tied to Dylann Roofâ€™s mass murder in Charleston.
Now in practice all this meant was that two or three old stories about Dylann Roof could no longer run ads purchased through Google. Iâ€™d say itâ€™s unlikely that loss to TPM amounted to even a cent a month. Totally meaningless. But hereâ€™s the catch. The way these warnings work and the way these particular warnings were worded, you get penalized enough times and then youâ€™re blacklisted.
Now, certainly youâ€™re figuring we could contact someone at Google and explain that weâ€™re not publishing hate speech and racist violence. Weâ€™re reporting on it. Not really. We tried that. We got back a message from our rep not really understanding the distinction and cheerily telling us to try to operate within the no hate speech rules. And how many warnings until weâ€™re blacklisted? Who knows?
If we were cut off, would that be Adexchange (the ads) or DoubleClick for Publishers (the road) or both? Who knows?
If the first stopped weâ€™d lose a big chunk of money that wouldnâ€™t put us out of business but would likely force us to retrench. If we were kicked off the road more than half of our total revenue would disappear instantly and would stay disappeared until we found a new road â€“ i.e., a new ad serving service or technology. At a minimum that would be a devastating blow that would require us to find a totally different ad serving system, make major technical changes to the site to accommodate the new system and likely not be able to make as much from ads ever again. Thatâ€™s not including some unknown period of time â€“ certainly weeks at least â€“ in which we went with literally no ad revenue.
Needless to say, the impact of this would be cataclysmic and could easily drive us out of business.
Now itâ€™s never happened. And this whole scenario stems from what is at least a well-intentioned effort not to subsidize hate speech and racist groups. Again, it hasnâ€™t happened. So in some sense the cataclysmic scenario Iâ€™m describing is as much a product of my paranoia as something Google could or might do. But when an outside player has that much power, often acts arbitrarily (even when well-intentioned) and is almost impossible to communicate with, a significant amount of paranoia is healthy and inevitable.
I give this example only to illustrate the way that Google is so powerful and so all-encompassing that it can actually do great damage unintentionally.
Hat tip to Karen L. Myers.
NYM is obviously a lot smaller than TPM, and unlike TPM, tries to operate without outside funding. This is undoubtedly severely limiting. I pay for expenses out of pocket, and can’t afford subscriptions to costly research services. I have no interns or assistants. I don’t make anything more than pocket change, and therefore blogging is just a small avocation and minor duty for me. A more serious blog, making a real income, would contain a lot more original writing and research.
Sometime back, I used to make something like $150-200 a couple of times a year from Google Adsense. One day Google’s Ads disappeared. It took me six months or so to notice (sigh!). And when I looked into what had happened, this was roughly four years ago, I found I had been given an ultimatum from Google. I had to remove a posting and beg to be forgiven, and then I might have my ads restored.
I sent the Google Adsense team a foreign language literary reference, “Ich heisse GÃ¶tz von Berlichingen,” inviting them to kiss my ass. I have since done without Google Adsense.
Here’s the posting describing all that.
Josh Marshall is right, I think, to be concerned with the power wielded these days by a handful of corporations which have arrived at positions of control over speech and communications incidentally in the course of the more conventional corporate drive for profit and market control.
Companies like Google are demonstrably not above applying Planetary-sized corporate muscle to enforce standards not only of speech, but of opinion, reflecting the mere prejudices and whims of corporate chieftains applied robotically by lesser imps deep in the depths of their own bureaucracy.
Libertarians like myself would normally be found arguing that Google isn’t really a monopoly, you can use Duck Duck Go or Bing instead, and contending that corporations have a right to make their own terms. Today, however, we have corporations possessed, ephemerally perhaps, of dominant position gate-keeping kinds of power, appointing themselves as universal censors of speech and political opinion they do not like. They are literally able to silence people they look upon unfavorably, and they are therefore, in reality, exercising governmental powers without anybody ever having voted and elected them.
The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 applied an older Common Law doctrine of Public Accommodations being required to serve everyone. There is no reason that the same doctrine shouldn’t be applied to the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Go Daddy.