Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Google taking a side in the health care debate?
This appears to be legit, but I guess we'll find out soon. Google apparently has a "Health Advertising Team" which tries to get medical-related companies to advertise on the search engine giant. OK, fair enough. The thing is, though, that their pitch seems to be to tell the companies that they can advertise on Google as a way to blunt the criticism they're going to get as a result of Michael Moore's movie "Sicko."The ethics of "taking sides" in a national debate can themselves be debated, of course, but the relevant question for this site is Is This Real? Google's internal slogan has been "Don't be evil." Is Google being evil here? Is this even really Google's work?
Google Being Evil?
Google Explains
Posted By: Cranky Media Guy | Date: Sun Jul 01, 2007 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 8
Category:
Category:
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 1 pages
If what you are saying is true, then Google is evil. I have seen Sicko, and found it quite thought provoking. Google should sit on the fence.
j
Posted by jonny x in rhinelander, wi on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:05 AM
j
"all we hear is internet google, internet ga ga, internet ca ca, internet it's true, admen still love you". Sorry, Freddy
Posted by Hairy Houdini on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 04:13 AM
You don't have to worry. Google adds is the biggest scam on the planet. Just pick a reasonable conversion percentage and calculate what you have to pay in order to sell something. If it was a honest service we wouldn't need eBay.
So, I say let them quacks scream in top dollar.
hehehehe
Posted by gaby de wilde in NL on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:47 AM
So, I say let them quacks scream in top dollar.
hehehehe
They're just using it to convince health care companies to work with them. It is a legitimate argument. I don't really see it as picking one side over the other.
Posted by Razela in San Diego, CA on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Er...why is this on the site? This isn't a hoax. It's just a news story. Google is a private company. Who cares if they take sides? They can do it if they want.
Posted by Ozymandias on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:33 PM
In retrospect, this may be a hoax. But it seems like CMG barely touched upon that. Museum of Hoaxes I thought was about hoaxes, not poorly thought out political ideas...
Posted by Ozymandias on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:34 PM
uh, oh
Posted by Hairy Houdini on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 05:35 PM
"In retrospect, this may be a hoax. But it seems like CMG barely touched upon that. Museum of Hoaxes I thought was about hoaxes, not poorly thought out political ideas..."
Well, I honestly wasn't trying to be political. It's just that there were some people who questioned whether this was really from Google at all. Also, it seemed to me that some might interpret it as Google violating their "Don't Be Evil" slogan.
Personally, I have some question about the argument made by the woman who wrote both the original blog entry and the rebuttal to the critics that advertising is the "most democratic" form or however she phrases it.
I think the person or organization with the most money is the one that is going to be able to run the most ads. It ain't illegal, it may not be immoral, but I don't know if "democratic" is the word that comes to mind first.
Whatever. The story seemed interesting to me and it's all about discussion, isn't it?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:24 AM
Well, I honestly wasn't trying to be political. It's just that there were some people who questioned whether this was really from Google at all. Also, it seemed to me that some might interpret it as Google violating their "Don't Be Evil" slogan.
Personally, I have some question about the argument made by the woman who wrote both the original blog entry and the rebuttal to the critics that advertising is the "most democratic" form or however she phrases it.
I think the person or organization with the most money is the one that is going to be able to run the most ads. It ain't illegal, it may not be immoral, but I don't know if "democratic" is the word that comes to mind first.
Whatever. The story seemed interesting to me and it's all about discussion, isn't it?
Page 1 of 1 pages