[LINK] Faceless net giants writing own rule books

[David Boxall]

Google and Facebook bear all the hallmarks of dictatorship. Battling a 
dictatorship is futile; they prevail unless the dictator falls. To 
succeed against the company, target the individuals behind it.

The same could be said of every corporation I can think of.

From: 
<http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/business-it/faceless-net-giants-writing-own-rule-books-20111218-1p0ts.html>

December 19, 2011
Julian Lee and Ben Grubb

Australians use them more than any other websites and to many they have 
become essential services, oiling the wheels of life and commerce at the 
click of a mouse.

But when Google or Facebook no longer wants you, it can be all but 
impossible to find out why, as internet entrepreneur Mark Bowyer and 
others have found to their cost.

Earlier this year Google banned ads from his travel website, Rusty 
Compass, because it said the site "poses a risk of generating invalid 
activity".

Almost four months and an appeals process later Bowyer is none the wiser 
as to what that means but is acutely aware of his dependence on an 
"arbitrary, algorithmic, human-free" service.

At every step Bowyer has been forced to communicate with the company 
through its website.

"I feel utterly powerless," says Bowyer, who says he is daunted by how 
much he depends on Google's services for his fledgling business - a 
website that offers independent travel advice to travellers to 
south-east Asia - from powering the search engine, providing analytics 
and directing traffic its way.

He is still unable to fathom what ''invalid activity'' Google is 
referring to, speculating that because a large proportion of his traffic 
comes from Asia - where ''click farms'' are often located - Google 
suspects he might be paying people to click on his ads.

"Of course, Google has the right to decide who it does business with. It 
doesn't have the right to terminate commercial arrangements mid-stream, 
withhold funds due, and run a closed appeal process that provides no 
information to the appellant," says Bowyer, a co-founder of the travel 
firm Travel Indochina.

Google has "redistributed" the $120 he earnt from advertising back to 
advertisers. He has consistently denied click fraud, even posing the 
rhetorical question to Google in his appeal: "Why would I take such a 
risk for such a low return?

"Since Google enjoys such extraordinary market power, it should be 
serious about its internal processes and the transparency and 
credibility of its appeal processes. And, pardon my naivety, but the 
introduction of a human face would be a good start."

Bowyer's dispute is similar to the three-year-long one the founder of 
the Aussie Tech Head podcast and website, Glenn Goodman, has had with 
Google over his Adsense account.

In 2008 Goodman accrued $100 in revenue from Google ads in the first six 
months of his business. But on the eve of getting the first payment he 
was suspended. Since the suspension he has submitted online appeals once 
every 12 months up until this year, when he phoned Google's Sydney 
reception. The receptionist merely advised him of the Adsense appeals 
procedure. ''I have given up,'' he says.

Like Bowyer, he says he's never clicked on his own ads and has no idea 
why he was suspended.

"It is very frustrating and to this day I do not know why my account was 
targeted," he says, adding that it has affected other methods of 
receiving ad revenue through Google such as through the video-sharing 
website YouTube and Feedburner, which inserts ads into RSS feeds.

"I was well aware of fraudulent clicks, and it wasn't due to this. It is 
due to another reason that at this stage is only known to Google.''

Google is not shy about letting users know it may not even get back to 
them, pointing out in emails to Goodman that it might take some time and 
that there is no guarantee his account will ever be reinstated.

They now face being permanently shut out of Google's network of 
publishers - which cover 70 per cent of the world's websites and in 
Australia generates about $700 million in ad revenue a year.

Goodman and Bowyer are joined in their frustration by Corinna Slade, a 
vocal supporter of horse racing and, in particular, jumps racing.

Update: Slade runs a Facebook group for her business Australian 
Thoroughbreds, which sells and syndicates racehorses and has over 2000 
members. On two occasions her personal page has been suspended and she 
has been prevented from using many of Facebook's services after what she 
suspects was animal activists reporting her for breaches of Facebook's 
terms and conditions.

The suspension of her personal account has prevented her from posting 
messages on her business Facebook page as she is the sole administrator.

Slade claims she tried to contact Facebook several times but "there is 
no place on Facebook where you can send an email or appeal the decision 
to lock a profile down''. Upon being told that she had "violated" 
Facebook's policies she was then diverted to a page which told her the 
duration of a block "varies depending on the nature of the offence, 
ranging from a few hours to a few days''. It also states that Facebook 
will ''not lift this block for you until the entire penalty time has 
elapsed'', offering no appeals process.

Slade says Facebook should have a way of being contacted or a proper 
appeals process. ''This contravenes freedom of speech, which I thought 
was a big deal in the USA, where Facebook is based.''

Facebook said it didn't ''comment on specific cases'' and directed 
Fairfax to the same webpage Slade was sent. Asked about its appeals 
process, it provided a link to a contact form for use only by users of 
an account that has been disabled for violating its policies.

But the Freehills emeritus partner Bob Baxt said Google's activity in 
particular might contravene consumer law which has been changed recently 
to strengthen unconscionable conduct - a legal concept that describes 
the harsh treatment by one party, usually a larger, more powerful 
entity, towards another smaller party.

Not knowing the full facts of the case, Baxt says: "If this is true and 
money is also being withheld by a merchant then it could contravene 
Australian consumer law. Taking someone's money, then telling them that 
they can no longer use that service and accusing them of some crime or 
breach but without giving them the reasons why could also contravene the 
act.

"This is the type of scenario that I think would be of interest to the 
ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission]."

Websites can be suspended for a variety of reasons, from posting racist 
or violent material to infringing copyright and tampering with its 
Adsense code. Google would not comment on specific cases - nor would it 
reveal how many sites it suspended - but a spokesman said users who 
posed a "risk to its advertisers" needed to be purged in order to 
"protect the health of its network".

A Google spokesman said that advertisers, publishers and users preferred 
to contact the company via its website but that "trained specialists" 
thoroughly investigated cases.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  Drink no longer water,
                                |  but use a little wine
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  for thy stomach's sake ...
                                |            King James Bible
                                |              1 Timothy 5:23