Google Stops Ads For "Cougar" Sites 319
teh31337one writes "Google is refusing to advertise CougarLife, a dating site for mature women looking for younger men. However, they continue to accept sites for mature men seeking young women. According to the New York Times, CougarLife.com had been paying Google $100,000 a month since October. The Mountain View company has now cancelled the contract, saying that the dating site is 'nonfamily safe.'"
Someone who's not lazy... (Score:5, Funny)
Please drill down into TFA and tell me if this is a slashvertisment for CougarLife, an unrelated violation of googles TOS, or really google being evil so I can be outraged accordingly.
Re:Someone who's not lazy... (Score:4, Informative)
hard to call it a slashvertisement since the article is from NY Times. No mention of a TOS violation, basically Google decided that anything using the word 'cougar' is automatically classified as Adult and thus no eligible for GCN. Main issue raised in the article is that 'sugar daddy' has not been similarly classified despite being a common term for the reverse relationship. Not sure I'd necessarily call it 'Google being evil' and I highly doubt sexism is the real reason here, but it's a bit strange, and I think Google definitely needs to give a real explanation here.
Re:Someone who's not lazy... (Score:5, Funny)
Outrageous. Won't someone think of the legitimate websites that sell mountain lions.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, the ones selling mountain lion repellent. Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here, but don't you think we're about due for one?
Re:Someone who's not lazy... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here...
Isn't that a sign that it's quite effective?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be due to my mountain lion repelling rock. I'm willing to sell it for $500 obo.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, the ones selling mountain lion repellent. Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here, but don't you think we're about due for one?
That's not nearly so funny if you're a parent or a child [google.com] living near their habitat...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Raising money for big cats (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If they don't allow mountain lions then at least allow a little pussy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Someone who's not lazy... (Score:5, Funny)
It is none of the above. It is a sneaky coordinated attack on an innocent cat-lover's web site, probably instigated by a vicious cabal of dog people.
Re: (Score:2)
It is none of the above. It is a sneaky coordinated attack on an innocent cat-lover's web site, probably instigated by a vicious cabal of dog people.
So right! What's next--LOL Cats?. It's a conspiracy, I'm telling you. Where's my roll of tin foil, I'm feeling the need for a new hat...
It seems to be google being sexist (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has simply labelled "cougar" to be an adult term, and adult ads are not allowed on its network. Yet other ads with the same or even stronger adult theme are allowed. The same company has a site for older men seeking younger women, and that one is allowed.
So it seems Google is being very sexist about it. Probably not a high level decision, just someone who let his/her own personal views put a word on the banned word list. I don't think Google really wants to ban all the adult themed ads, it is a lot of money they would be throwing away. 100k in advertising for one site only. Even Google is going to feel it if its puritans stance is now going to force it to block all the sites aimed at men as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A large organization has a subjective policy that defines a keyword list on which they base ad acceptance.
You think it's more likely that an inconsistency in that list is based on sexist attitudes, than that it's based on a lack of central quality control?
Don't anthropomorphize bureaucracies. They hate when you do that.
Honestly, I don't care about their motivation (Score:2)
The key issue here isn't what's going on in the collective heads of the bureaucracy of the Google AdWords team. I'm sure they're all very fine people who love their mothers and volunteer for the poor, etc. The issue is that the effects of this policy are sexist.
It's much the same story as for racism. I don't know what people really think about members of minority groups, and I honestly don't particularly care. But I do care about their actions and words. It honestly doesn't make any sense to say to a person
Re:Honestly, I don't care about their motivation (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not about the effects. Terms that imply bias are about intentions. There's a huge difference between giving a cookie to every male, vs. flipping a coin and giving a cookie every time it comes up heads, even if by random chance it happens that I end up giving each male (and no females) a cookie.
Drumming up emotions by using terms that imply deliberate bias to situations where there is none is a disservice to everyone involved, most of all those who advocate against true bias.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bet it boils down to one man who has ego issues about women sleeping with younger men. Perhaps he feels it is "gross" as I've heard some say, perhaps his wife or girlfriend left him for a younger man.
This is a dumb choice. Especially with a TV show called "cougar town".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Cougar Life has run adverts on the radio here in Chicago.
Their tag line is "Wouldn't you like to **** a cougar too?"
As such, it's pretty obvious that they're not going to pass the "No Adult Content" caveat in place with Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why men would want to date an old woman. Pot-bellies, non-firm breasts, hugh jass butts. Maybe it's the aspect of gaining access to lots of money.......... hmmmm......... where do I sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
Those sound remarkably similar to the reasons a young woman might want to date an older man, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, its ad network at least. For now, that is.
Re:It seems to be google being sexist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not sexist. Some posts in this thread are outright lies. "Cougar" is banned for being an adult term. So is Sugar Daddy, contrary to what some claim. Not sexist.
Did you even RTFA [nytimes.com]? (I think we all know I'm not new here.) The same company that runs CougarLife currently has google ads for another site they run — a Sugar Daddy site:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know how much simpler it can get, but Google outright said that the policy related to the concept of cougar dating as a whole, but they continue to run ads for Sugar Daddy sites.
They specifically asked if CougarLife would be open to the option of changing their domain name... whereas the mentioned “sugar daddy” sites were called DateAMillionaire.com and ArrangementSeekers.com.
Google obviously considers the terms “cougar” and “sugar daddy” to be non-family-safe, therefore “CougarLife” is out; the names “DateAMillionaire” and “ArrangementSeekers”, on the other hand, do not contain explicit terms.
The only other th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
**clickity clickity**
(Searches for "Sugar Daddy")
Sponsored links
Free Sugar Daddy Dating
"Best Sugar Daddy Fishing Hole" --
The N.Y. Times. Free for Girls.
SeekingArrangement.com/Join-Now
Meet Rich Sugar Daddies
Gorgeous & Wealthy People for Dates
Get Spoiled Now! Join 100% Free.
MutualArrangements.com
Date a Real Sugar Daddy
Sexy Sugar Dadd
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since I’m at work, can you do the same search for “cougar” and see what comes up?
Searching for an explicit term (with safe search off) likely un-censors the ads.
And now what? (Score:4, Informative)
Never heard of them. Streisand Effect? (Score:2)
Disgraceful, if true! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Disgraceful, if true! (Score:4, Funny)
I'll get right on it!
Re:Disgraceful, if true! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
cougars daddies (Score:3, Funny)
Well, cougar do pose a greater risk to family safety than most daddies.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically improbable!
We do not care :( (Score:5, Funny)
Once again, another story that has NO impact on the readers of /. Neither "hot older women" nor "cute young men" can be found here. Thanks for reminding us you jerk!
If would be a different story however, if google had banned a site for women seeking basement dwelling fat people.
Re:We do not care :( (Score:5, Interesting)
I sometimes can't decide whether comments like this are supposed to be funny (which they admittedly are) or whether they're an honest expression of deep self-loathing.
Re:We do not care :( (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We do not care :( (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't laugh at yourself...
We'll do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depression sucks. You have my sympathy.
Did your depression just drift away or did you find something that helped?
oh wait. have to be on topic.
Did depression just drift away or did you find something that helped like being wrapped in the arms of an older woman?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
basement dwelling fat people.
Aka "trolls" on at least two levels. Maybe three if they're WoW/RPG players.
So, who's gonna register "troll-life.com" or whatever, point it to slashdot.org, and submit some google ads?
Re: (Score:2)
I bet there wasn't a site for that until 5 minutes after your posting.
http://www.wetriffs.com/ [wetriffs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then they banned the appliance section at Sears
It looks just like a Telefunken U47...
Quaker Oats wants the domain (Score:4, Funny)
For their new Cougar Life, the first cereal to stay completely dry in milk.
Re: (Score:2)
why (Score:3, Insightful)
why do we always need to self-censor? Who said the web needs to be "family safe"? Why are companies voluntarily following 1950's morality codes that the FCC imposes on broadcasters?
and what's offensive about women looking for some love'n?
It seems like in this country love is the biggest taboo of all
Golden Rule, Son: It's The Golden Rule (Score:2)
Who said the web needs to be "family safe"?
The Web is just following the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, make the Rules.
And Moms and Dads with small children have more money to spend on ads and media than teens and 20-something hipsters.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. Where would you get an idea like that?
Re:why (Score:5, Insightful)
why do we always need to self-censor? Who said the web needs to be "family safe"? Why are companies voluntarily following 1950's morality codes that the FCC imposes on broadcasters?
Why do many neighborhood grocery stores not stock porn magazines? Who says grocery stores should be "family safe"? Why do the owners voluntarily follow 1950s morality codes?
Because it's their damn store, and they don't want to. They don't like it, they don't want to see it, and they don't want to deal with the people who supply it.
Freedom includes the freedom to sell what you want, not just buy what you want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happens when they're the only store in town, or when all the stores adopt the same policy?
In that case, the only thing standing between freedom and tyranny is a handful of managers personal opinions. And that is exactly what has happened here. These "cougars" have
Re:why (Score:4, Informative)
And what happens when they're the only store in town, or when all the stores adopt the same policy?
Then you open up your own store and cater to the neglected demand.
Simple as that.
No one can force me to sell anything in my store I do not want to sell.
I can't stop you from setting up a store down the street to sell it, but I can keep it off my shelves.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A couple of definitions for Tyranny:
1. Dictatorship: a form of government in which th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, with most of your population infected with religious schizophrenia, and a giant industry exploiting it, it’s no surprise that this is still strong. (You know that the reason sex became a taboo, is that literally every human by definition likes it, and so everybody becomes a “sinner”. Which is very useful, because if you then paint some horror scenarios of how “sinners” will be punished, you got a nice way to command your servants, by telling them how to “free themse
Re:why (Score:4, Insightful)
Love != sex. Sex != love.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Truth VS Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name.
Could not be the opposite for young people? I assume that for a 8 years old child, the name "CougarLife" would seem related to big cats habits.
Re: (Score:2)
The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name.
Could not be the opposite for young people? I assume that for a 8 years old child, the name "CougarLife" would seem related to big cats habits.
I expect this is the bigger issue: advertising adult sites with 'generic' keywords. When you search for cougars or bears, the advertisements should be for animals, not older women dating young men or hairy gay men respectively.
Actually... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell is so evil about money being involved? Aside from an outdated puritanical moral code, sex is (illogically) about the only thing that's legal to give away but not to sell. If you're going to argue about the merits of monogamy and how prostitution can spread STD's then I can assure you - a casual "hookup" site is on just as shakey of ground there compared to outright prostitution. Afterall - it's not the money that causes STD's - it's sex with casual or unfamiliar partners.
on the one hand google jumps ship on china (Score:4, Insightful)
because of the pervasive censorship, and announces a strong anti-censorship stance, even in engaging in a hopeful (although a little hamstrung) effort to show themselves as friends of transparency:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/20/google-google-street-view [guardian.co.uk]
but on the other hand it engages in a strange, fossil pre-'The Graduate' sort of hysterical moral panic that doesn't even exist (as a compelling widely believed opinion) in western countries anymore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate [wikipedia.org]
even if you are so cynical as to say google has no real allegiance to transparency and truly fights censorship, that it's just a pr campaign, the contrast here is so galling as to nullify even the pr campaign on a surface level
therefore, this has to be a case of google losing some coherence in internal corporate guidelines. there's going to be some meetings, some people are going to get a stern email, and this decision will be reversed by higher ups
as to say this decision is hypocritical of google is putting it mildly
Best advertising yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering I had never heard of them before, I'd say that by cancelling the contract Google has done the service the biggest favor yet! I imagine most people out there hadn't heard of it, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonfamily safe (Score:2)
It's probably just me, but the phrase "nonfamily safe" doesn't seem to parse all that well. Personally, I read that as "safe for non-families". So, if I wanted to go to that site with some friends, so long as I am not related to them, it would be acceptable. However, once my wife enters the room, it becomes non-safe.
On second thought, that's probably an accurate interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
However, once my wife enters the room, it becomes non-safe.
On second thought, that's probably an accurate interpretation.
Oh that's awkward alright, but its even worse when Mom walks into the room, given the purpose of the site. Now, that's "nonfamily safe".
Re: (Score:2)
She probably already knows about that site.
Bracketing paradoxes (Score:2, Informative)
This is called a bracketing paradox [wikipedia.org], and it's commonplace in natural languages. The classic textbook example is nuclear physicist, which doesn't mean "a physicist who's nuclear," but rather "an expert on nuclear physics."
Cougar? (Score:2)
Suddenly snow leopard seems a bit suspicious (Score:2)
And what to say of Lycid Lynx? Icanhascheezburger.com?
My god, women looking for sex are EVERYWHERE!
Thank god for slashdot, the one safe sanctuary free of sex! No change of running into a horny woman lusting after my body here.
They have FamilySafe backwards! (Score:4, Interesting)
A coupling of an older man with a younger woman has a greater chance of bearing children than that of an older woman and a younger man.
It seems to me that the Cougar scenario contains more safety from creating a Family than the other
Re: (Score:2)
It's about Apple (Score:5, Funny)
This is just a tactical move in Google's spat with Apple. They're banning the term "Cougar" before Apple can use it as the name of its next OS X release.
Re: (Score:2)
Google should play fair (Score:2)
Actually searching for Cougar still brings up ads for Cougarlife.
It also brought up a Google ad for "cougarfling". I wonder if Cougarlife has done something to annoy Google, or if Google is legitimately trying to be family safe -- if so, they should be refusing to display any ad of this sort.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, Sundays, after 4pm, if it makes us lots of money or if we just cant be bothered with our fake holier than thou image
Wow, you didn't even bother to the summary or even the headline before you gratuitously bashed Google. This is about turning down ad revenue because of some holier than thou impulse, not making more money no matter what.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's evil to use your advertising clout to promote a version of 'family friendliness' which is couched in outmoded and sexist ideas about age differences in relationships.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer bears you insensitive bastard!
Re: (Score:2)
What would one do if a cougar (not the large kitteh, but the type that's referenced in this story) ever came up to him? She'd have to find his cube, dorm, or DM's basement. I'd be more impressed that she'd even know where that is.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars. He may not admit it, but he's there.
And why not? Of that group of friends, the one that 'takes' the cougar is definitely going to get lucky. The others get the thrill of the hunt, sure, but only maybe half of them will successfully hook up.
Bird in the hand, and all that.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Hand in the bush, and all that.
There, fixed for ya.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as guys complain about the drama, they really should look at Cougars. Sure, they have drama, but orders of magnitude less than the young models. They're single, have their own life, and don't need you mucking it up; do your thing and then she doesn't care until next week.
Right about that (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen this again and again. Too many young women are just bad at life. They might be attractive, fit, and successful at their jobs, but outside of that there is isolation and void and fear. And much like their cars and their computers, they want to dump their unhappiness on Mr. Man for him to fix it. I don't mind reinstalling Windows every now and then, but I am not a spiritual healer and if my loving doesn't take away the pain, I don't know what will.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars.
Yes, but he's the one in his late 60s, which rather defeats the object.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
of course they weren't called cougar. They where called horny 30 years old women.
That particular group is still called that. Cougar (to me, and to most of the people I know) is more on the order of 40 to 50. Sometimes even higher. Jane Seymour is 59 now and I still would like to get acquainted with her.
Re: (Score:2)
It's tuesday...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it depends on your definition of "evil". From the point of view of some people, what courgarlife.com advertises is evil, therefore not advertising it is not doing evil. According to others censorship is evil, so by censoring the ads, they ARE doing evil. This is the problem with basing your business model around a nebulous concept like "evil"
Re: (Score:2)
As an young man in my 40's, there is no way I would marry a young woman in her 20's.
It's the recipe for financial AND emotional ruin.
I am for some reason not attracted to them (all but one of my gf's have been a year or two older than I am- the one who was 12 years older was too young and uptight) but if I were, I would use a catch and release approach. Spend a couple years, have some great sex, share travel and dinners and then leave with happy memories while they still love you before they get bored and
Re:"nonfamily safe" (Score:5, Interesting)
In contrast, an older man dating a younger woman is much more likely to end up in a relationship or marriage, and while an older man actively looking for a younger woman is clearly looking to hook up as well, he is also much more likely to be looking for something more substantial, which means he's in a position to do so - meaning, not married and not in a situation where the outcome of the services provided by [his dating site of choice] will be a threat to his family.
I have several friends who are what is euphemistically known as escorts, and who have worked with dating sites of the Sugar Daddy sort. They have met many men who are very willing to engage in the transactions such sites facilitate, and they have all been married. According to one friend, who has made a tidy high-five-figure income doing this for several years as she works her way through college, at least 80% of the men on sugardaddy sites are married and looking for multiple somethings on the side, preferably multiple somethings at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I was going to add was that *I* met my wife in 1985 when I was 22 and she 41. It was just one of those things, and we were very happy and together for 20 years until she died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (just seven weeks after diagnosis). I consider myself very, very lucky to have met her and been able to spend our time together.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)