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

321–330 of 341 posts

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#321

Post by smsm42 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #217
smsm42 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>> They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. I, personally, cancelled my account with them the next day and would never buy from them anymore. I am completely certain them and th…

>Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. That's something else entirely. There is an argument to be made that doing things like that could actually be good for the shareholders, if you assume that a majority of customers are pro- gun control and doing that could get you accolades from them instead of boycotts. Maybe the oppo…

>>>> There is no huge anti-knife lobby to pander to.

Apparently, Google disagrees - otherwise why would they have restrictions on it? It is as political as the gun case.

>>>> If the mortgage crisis has taught us anything it's that big companies can get a pass for things that smaller companies wouldn't.

Bailing out a failing bank because it is (supposedly) better for the economy is not exactly the same as suspending advertisement rules or any other trade regulations.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#322

Post by smsm42 »

meisterbrendan wrote: post #300
smsm42 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>> They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. I, personally, cancelled my account with them the next day and would never buy from them anymore. I am completely certain them and th…

I think what makes this Google case different from the Groupon case is that Groupon applied its rule UNIFORMLY whereas Google in this instance behaved inexcusably: applying one policy to one retailer, and a different policy to everybody else.

I know, I'm just saying turning away customers for political reasons is not as uncommon as the comment above claims.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#323

Post by sesqu »

quanticle wrote: post #299
duncan_bayne wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's semi-auto only, it's not an assault rifle. Litmus test: would military personnel use it to assault a target?

Actually? Probably yes. Every member of the military I've spoken with emphasizes that their training explicitly discourages the use of fully automatic fire. Real life isn't like Call of Duty. Special Forces operators don't go in flinging grenades left and right, blazing away with full auto fire from the hip. Doing so is both a waste of ammunition and a danger to one's allies. That said, though, I find the distinction…

While you're right in that the person doing the shooting is far more important than the weapon, it's pretty clear that some weapons, like fully-automatic shotguns, are designed for specific use cases. You wouldn't use a .50 Barret to hunt deer, and you wouldn't take a micro Uzi to the practical range.

Drawing a line between civilian and military use suitability is difficult, but that doesn't mean there is no difference. That's why there is no assault rifle law in the US, but rather some features of weapons have been banned from private use.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#324

Post by greyboy »

corresation wrote: post #309
Zak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree; the policy is unclear. It mentions several categories of knives that are legally restricted in many jurisdictions. It then goes on to say that the promotion of swords and kitchen knives is allowed. Based on the OP's claims, it appears that utility pocket knives are allowed as long as they don't have assisted opening. It's also not clear from this page that Google has a problem with the use of adwords to s…

The policy is completely clear: Knives that could best be described as weapons are not allowed. People do buy knives as weapons, but it's pretty rare for people to buy swords as weapons (instead they're decorative), so that difference is completely explainable.

I'm sure that a certain subset of people do buy knives as weapons, but I'd be surprised if it was even on the radar of total knife ownership reasons. Most buy knives for display or utility (dive, general utility, bolo/machete, etc.).

Every one of them could be used to kill someone, just like a crowbar.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#325

Post by greyboy »

jetti wrote: post #243
ckb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should paring and chef's knives be illegal then? They don't require opening at all, can be quite sharp, and are widely distributed. Baseball bats, tire irons, icicles: almost anything can become an untraceable weapon.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with the logic, I'm just stating I can see some logic behind the statement. However, to answer your question, it is much harder to conceal any of those items. If you carry a chefs knife and intend to use it as a weapon, you would have to be careful in how you carried the knife to and from the location of the crime so that you don't cut yourself. On top of that, a chef's knife is quite…

I think switchblades fall prey to a particular stereotype, hence their "bad" nature. But, ask any diver/hunter/tactical knife wearer - they are strapped to the lower leg/calf in a holster, easily concealed under a pant leg.

And what respectable criminal wears shorts?!

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#326

Post by Zak »

polyfractal wrote: post #308
Zak wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To provide a rather different perspective, I was born and raised in Alaska where pretty much everybody has several guns. Granted, many of those guns are designed more for killing bears and moose than people, but they'll do the job, and most people have a combat-oriented pistol or two. I got a rifle for my fifth birthday. I'm shocked that people litteraly sell knives designed to hurt people on the internet, and that p…

> A large minority of the civilian population would have a much easier time deposing the government and instituting a new one than a foreign state (or group of US states attempting to secede) would. [...] A large minority of the population rising up against the government would likely gain the support of some of the military and could blend in with the rest of the population when not fighting. I think this is pretty…

A "large minority" would have to be several hundred thousand people, perhaps a few million.

You'll get no dispute from me on that point. I don't even think that it matters much whether a group of the appropriate size starts out armed; the benefit to such a group from having an armed population has more to do with knowing how to use weapons that having stockpiles of them.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#327

Post by Zak »

corresation wrote: post #309
Zak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree; the policy is unclear. It mentions several categories of knives that are legally restricted in many jurisdictions. It then goes on to say that the promotion of swords and kitchen knives is allowed. Based on the OP's claims, it appears that utility pocket knives are allowed as long as they don't have assisted opening. It's also not clear from this page that Google has a problem with the use of adwords to s…

The policy is completely clear: Knives that could best be described as weapons are not allowed. People do buy knives as weapons, but it's pretty rare for people to buy swords as weapons (instead they're decorative), so that difference is completely explainable.

Knives that could best be described as weapons are not allowed.

This is completely ambiguous. There are knives marketed as having been designed with input from various figures in the martial arts world or using terms like "tactical"; it's probably reasonably to say that those are designed, or at least marketed as weapons. Kitchen knives obviously aren't intended as weapons. Every other non-decorative knife on the market falls somewhere between those two points.

Google has evidently decided that assisted opening == weapon, but does not say so on its policy page. This decision is not consistent with the marketing of most assisted opening knives, nor with the opinions of knife enthusiasts. Of course, there are probably very few objective criteria one could use to determine if a pocket-size folding knife is intended to be a weapon.

I also reiterate that it is not clear from the page that selling an item banned from advertising (an assisted opening knife) on the same website as an item advertised on adwords that is allowed to be advertised on adwords (some other kind of knife that Google doesn't consider a weapon) is against the rules. Indeed, the main point of the complaint appears to be that larger adwords customers like Amazon and Walmart are doing exactly that.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#329

Post by hamax »

radtad wrote: post #63

Search 'assisted opening knives' and you won't see any ads about such knives EXCEPT for Amazon. You will also see "Shop for Assisted Opening Knives on Google" which, if you follow the link, will show you a nice assortment of about 14k assisted opening knives. This feels like an abuse of monopoly power.

I'm seeing adds for cabelas.com but not for amazon.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#330

Post by shpxnvz »

quanticle wrote: post #299
duncan_bayne wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's semi-auto only, it's not an assault rifle. Litmus test: would military personnel use it to assault a target?

Actually? Probably yes. Every member of the military I've spoken with emphasizes that their training explicitly discourages the use of fully automatic fire. Real life isn't like Call of Duty. Special Forces operators don't go in flinging grenades left and right, blazing away with full auto fire from the hip. Doing so is both a waste of ammunition and a danger to one's allies. That said, though, I find the distinction…

That's not right, or at least not nearly the whole story. Of course use of automatic fire is discouraged for situations where it's not effective, such as engaging point targets with aimed accurate fire. For other tasks, the most obvious being suppression, automatic fire can be very effective. Capability of automatic fire was and always has been a requirement driven by the military. For a recent example, look at the U.S. Army requirements for the individual carbine program - selective fire is a requirement for submitted designs.

Anyways, none of this impacts the fact that the term "assault rifle", as introduced with the German Sturmgewehrs and now subverted by the U.S. media to mean "scary looking gun", has a specific military meaning that distinguishes it from other small arms like the battle rifle. Let's use Wikipedia's definition: An assault rifle is a selective fire ... rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The distinguishing features of the assault rifle, compared to the contemporary battle rifles at the time it was popularized (like the M1 Garand), is that it is chambered for a lower powered non-pistol cartridge (which translates into lighter weight), has a detachable magazine and is capable of burst or fully automatic fire.

I'm not aware of any military or paramilitary organization that uses a definition substantially different from this, or anything like the one you've suggested.

Post reply on HN