That'd be a more direct relationship, but again Google didn't approach the blogger about it, the blogger signed up for it. Google doesn't have any contact with the blogger (other than to send them their checks), doesn't make payment contingent on the site taking any particular position on anything (you can bash or praise Google all day, and as long as you don't put up anything that'd violate AdSense's TOS it won't affect what you get paid either way), and mostly doesn't even pay attention to what's on sites unless/until they get a complaint or one of their automated checks flags the site for terms-of-service issues.

It's akin to a newspaper saying "We check and handle direct buying of political ads. But, a lot of people buy regular non-political advertising in our paper, and some of them almost certainly also say things on their own about political candidates that could fall under the heading of political advertising. We don't pay attention to them because we don't care about it as long as they pay for their advertising space, and we don't charge any different rates based on what they say elsewhere. And frankly it's going to be a huge job to start keeping track of everything everyone who buys advertising space with us says in every other venue. So should we begin keeping track and reporting their advertising purchases as potential political spending based on the candidates/issues they support and oppose, or are the two simply not related absent some indication we're basing our decisions about who to sell space to and what rates to charge on those positions?"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]