Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

knife-depot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 341 posts

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#131

Post by betterunix »

wjy wrote: post #109
analog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it would be better if Google applied the same rules to other vendors selling similar knives. They are entirely free to decide how you can use their service, there's nothing evil about that. Edit: To clarify, I've used knives professionally (diving instructor) and recreationally (kite surfer), but I fail to see the non-weapon use for a knife that is small (and therefore concealable) and also opens quickly…

It's also interesting that there is no effective difference between a switchblade and these "spring assisted" knives. Yes, the mechanism is different. But in both cases, you push a button, and the blade pops out rapidly. The very existence of these knives is clearly to circumvent existing laws regarding switchblades. This is entirely separate from the big-guys vs little-guys argument being made against Google.

"The very existence of these knives is clearly to circumvent existing laws regarding switchblades."

Those laws should be circumvented; they are as stupid as laws prohibiting Bowie knives.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#132

Post by mitchellhislop »

Anechoic wrote: post #33
mindcrime wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knives, nunchucks, brass knuckles, etc. are usually covered by state level laws, from what I've seen, and the legality varies widely. Firearms are a slightly different story, since the 2nd Amendment very specifically protects firearms ownership. So yes, it is possible that somewhere or other, a switch blade knife is illegal while an "assault rifle" is legal. I saw "assault rifle" in quotes, because most people talkin…

since the 2nd Amendment very specifically protects firearms ownership I've seen folks use that rationale, but the 2A doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms" - presumably "knives, nunchucks, brass knuckles, etc" would fall under that, although that's clearly not how it's been interpreted.

I have seen a few knife groups using this exact same reasoning - I think it just gets heard less because the firearm part of the "arms" is the hot national topic, and Congress has made very few laws that limit knives/other arms - most of those are state laws.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#133

Post by dlgeek »

analog wrote: post #81
navyrain wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're just trolling, but I'll bite. The government has regulations in place on dangerous weapons, which you are ostensibly free, through the democratic process, to change if they are not to your liking. Google has decided that legal/illegal is not a sufficient criteria, and made up their own rules about how you can use their service, but then only applied those rules to smaller clients. That is the evil…

I agree that it would be better if Google applied the same rules to other vendors selling similar knives. They are entirely free to decide how you can use their service, there's nothing evil about that. Edit: To clarify, I've used knives professionally (diving instructor) and recreationally (kite surfer), but I fail to see the non-weapon use for a knife that is small (and therefore concealable) and also opens quickly…

I carry a pocket knife every day; some of mine are assisted open, others are not. I have a small preference towards assisted open ones because they are easier to operate one handed, though I can open a simple folder with a really loose hinge almost as fast with a flick of the wrist.

They're just more convenient.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#134

Post by xenophanes »

tjic wrote: post #8
rdl wrote: post #6

I'm in favor of banning porn ads (generally), since those tend to be offensive to a lot of people and also are highly correlated with spammy behavior, but I'd be tempted to boycott a vendor who prohibited weapons ads for any reason other than legal compliance. Amazon is pretty reasonable (knives are fine, firearms accessories are fine, but firearms and ammunition are out due to compliance issues). Google has no excus…

> Amazon is pretty reasonable (knives are fine, firearms accessories are fine, but firearms and ammunition are out As a target shooter, I don't find this any more reasonable than a gay person might find "personal ads are fine, but not gay personal ads". All too often our definition of "reasonable" is "gores HIS ox but not mine".

No, it's different. There's lots of laws about firearms and dealing with them can be painful, so it can be reasonable not to do it.

For another example, the pawnshop on Pawn Stars doesn't deal with modern firearms. Because they don't have a license. Because they decided it wasn't worth the hassle/effort/expense.

Dealing with firearms can be hard/expensive compared to selling other things (like knives and accessories). Dealing with gay personal ads is no more hard or expensive than regular personal ads.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#135

Post by betterunix »

cobrausn wrote: post #26
xutopia wrote: post #12

Is it really illegal to own a switch blade but legal to purchase and own assault rifles?

I've been doing some searching on why switchblades are illegal (your post sparked my curiosity) and can't seem to find a good reason other than 'politicians are scared of whatever hollywood villifies'. It seems all the interest in switchblades faded after they became illegal, so there was no lobby to bring them back into legality. Nunchaku and Nightsticks are also illegal in many places.

Take a look at the history of laws prohibiting Bowie knives. This sort of thing goes back a long way...

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#136

Post by maxcan »

rdl wrote: post #6

I'm in favor of banning porn ads (generally), since those tend to be offensive to a lot of people and also are highly correlated with spammy behavior, but I'd be tempted to boycott a vendor who prohibited weapons ads for any reason other than legal compliance. Amazon is pretty reasonable (knives are fine, firearms accessories are fine, but firearms and ammunition are out due to compliance issues). Google has no excus…

I find weapons ads far more offensive than porn ads. Our natural form vs a device whose sole intent is to obliterate said natural form.

How come your measure of offense is more important than mine?

Also, if you want to play community standards, I'm pretty sure the majority of the people who live around Google HQ (Bay Area + SF) would agree with me.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#137

Post by mgrabowski »

josefresco wrote: post #57
pud wrote: post #36

Whenever I ban a user from one of my sites for an infraction, he invariably points to several other infracting users and says "well why do they get to post porn (or ads for weapons or whatever) and I don't?" The reason is because I didn't catch the other users. Or their infraction isn't as bad. While I feel bad for the knife company, I also know dealing with user-generated content (like these ads) is hard.

"The reason is because I didn't catch the other users. Or their infraction isn't as bad." That's your reason, not Google's. Google knows full well who is bidding on what keyword. Are you suggesting they are under-staffed, under budgeted or overwhelmed in their task of keeping AdWords clean? I'm not buying it. Google has the resources to evenly apply guidelines, they're not a one-man show who's too busy to squash out…

> While I feel bad for the knife company, I also know dealing with user-generated content (like these ads) is hard.

Uh, what? Where does it state that the ads are user generated?

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#138

Post by jroseattle »

As more of these stories happen, Google adwords will simply consist of the big-brand marketers. There is something I trust in this process -- the market.

Companies like knife-depot are specialty, niche, hyper-focused on their particular product: knives. From their post, it's obvious they know those products inside and out. WalMart, Target, Amazon? They don't know squat about those products. If I want a specialty product such as the knife described in the article, I trust a specialty shop much more than the bulk-focused vendors.

As Google runs more of the specialty folks away and caters more to the big brands, I would venture they'll see click-through activity commensurate with that change. And that's called opportunity in that space.

Nice going, Google.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#139

Post by arethuza »

greyboy wrote: post #105
vacri wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has knife crime but not knife murder , despite what the fearmongering press would have you believe. The UK murder rate is a quarter that of the US, and is in line with similar countries.

The UK also has 1/5 the US' population - what does all this mean?

Murder rates are often given per 100,000 inhabitants - so size of country isn't really a factor:

   United States: 4.8
   United Kingdom: 1.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

vacri's statement seems completely accurate.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#140

Post by xenophanes »

analog wrote: post #14
ImprovedSilence wrote: post #4

very slowly, but very, very surly, google is doing a complete 180 on "don't be evil". I think the slow pressure of being a public company is really going to strangle out much of the "good side" of Google. Everything they've done in the past 1.5yrs has been terrible for their users.

Hang on, what? Refusing to advertise knives which are clearly intended to be used as weapons is 'evil' now is it?

Refusing to advertise them for one company, but running the ads for another company, is an evil double standard. Whatever Google's knife rules are, they should be the same for small and big sellers.
Post reply on HN