• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Addiction? Should Google ban "psychics" from ad programs?

Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game!

Thinker
Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game!
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
145
If Google does not allow advertising for tobacco and gambling, should they also ban ads for "psychic readings" as some have claimed such services to be addictive?
http://www.rhine.org/reviews/addict.htm
http://www.todaystmj4.com/_content/news/special/story_2344.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/f...9214800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.skepticality.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1783&sid=3843989c85571b8949d48c1b9e87cd20
http://www.alternet.org/story/9681/
http://www.psychicjunkie.net/
http://cbs2chicago.com/specialreports/local_story_128154844.html
I know "addiction" may be an overused word these days so I would like to do more research on this. What do the forum members think? Because we already know the providers of such services are either unethical or deluded, would addiction be grounds to petition Google to ban such services from their advertising programs?
 
It's annoying that scam artists make money off the ignorance and hope of others. Having said that, should I have a lot of sympathy for people who put their faith in online psychics? As for the addictive properties of this phenomenon, shopping is addictive, food is addictive, hell, according to some the internet itself is addictive. The fact that it's a scam should preclude the advertising of internet psychic services, but the fact that it's addictive should not.
 
I've noticed the quote from Rand in your signature so your reply is quite fitting:D
Should Google then permit ads for gambling, something quite legal in the state in which I'm located.
The casinos, at least, are more honest than the self styled "psychics"
The scam factor should be sufficient but for Google (remember "Don't be evil") it doesn't seem so.
 
I'm pretty much with Katana on this issue: addiction alone is insufficient grounds for a ban; to educate is preferable. Such services are a scam only insofar as the "psychic" professes to speak sooth. If the service is offered as entertainment only, and Google requires a suitably visible banner proclaiming thus (much like the health warnings on tobacco products), I see no reason for any further encumbrances. Please note also that the ultimate efficacy of such disclaimers is a separate topic.

As a general comment, it is my considered opinion that any and all advertising claims should be held up to more rigorous standards of truth and substantiation. Why? Because advertising has over the years on the whole morphed from a sincere endeavour of informing potential customers about facts to a squalid enterprise predicated on the idea that the truth of any claim inheres in the flashiness of the terms it is couched in.

Of course, such control would run afoul of freedom-of-expression and/or restraint-of-trade issues, so we can't have that, now can we?

'Luthon64
 
What you are saying has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If it is true and you can point to good evidence to back it up then you should be allowed to say it. That is freedom of speech. If it is rubbish and it is in an advertisement then you have committed a crime, at least in Australia. See the trade practices act.
 
rjh01 said:
What you are saying has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If it is true and you can point to good evidence to back it up then you should be allowed to say it. That is freedom of speech. If it is rubbish and it is in an advertisement then you have committed a crime, at least in Australia. See the trade practices act.
Click to expand...

Well, in the US the law is that it can't simply be "rubbish," it has to be demonstrably false. It's actually pretty hard to meet or prove this criteria. Take, for example, the following claim:

"Madam Cleo can predict your future!"

Of course it's "rubbish," but it's not demonstrably false, as someone could argue in defense that they don't say she'll predict accurately or that the predictions will be non-trivial ("You will breathe tomorrow.") They might even say she can, she just chose not to in that instance. This is why people get away with this stuff, way too many loopholes. We'd need to reform the laws on false advertising first, but for some reason I don't see that happening.
 
"Psychic Junkie"

I've recently come across this book entitled "Psychic Junkie" written by someone recovering from her addiction.

The authors website http://www.psychicjunkie.net/html/nytimesarticle.html
includes a NY Times article

"If psychic addiction is a budding epidemic, Ms. Lassez is well out in front of the scientific curve in exploring it, said John W. Welte, a psychologist and senior research scientist at the Research Institute on Addictions at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Welte said he had never heard of any research on the subject or of the subject itself.
Still, he did not discount the possibility that one could develop the same patterns of emotional dependence on the supernatural as others develop with behavioral addictions like gambling: overpowering urges to chase a brief but powerful high, followed by increasing tolerance, thus the need for the subject to increase the dose continually to get the same effect.
"I'm generally skeptical of weird addictions," Dr. Welte said, but "if someone is pressing on, even though they suffer from severe negative consequences, that is clearly addictive behavior."

There's more to be found by Googling "psychics" "addiction" or similar terms.
If there are conclusive findings concerning psychic addiction, could this mean trouble for this type of industry? Would governments place more restrictions on it?
 
Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game! said:
Some educators have created a petition against google ads which promote academic fraud and plagiarism
http://www.petitiononline.com/googterm/petition.html
I'm thinking such an action might be feasible against the online psychic scams.
Click to expand...
Your name is so fitting to the thread! Coincidence?:)
Google screens all of its ads for acceptability and they already choose to NOT accept ads that promote alcohol, tobacco, weapons and other things ranging from miracle cures to license plate covers. Google has therefore chosen to accept advertising dollars from companies whose sole purpose is to promote academic dishonesty.
Click to expand...
I found this statement interesting. Seems like there might be parallels between miracle cures and psychic services. Then again, if you're that gullible...well, you know how I feel.

Do sites similar to Google like Ask.com police themselves?

Anyone know why ads for license plate covers are banned?
 
Katana said:
Anyone know why ads for license plate covers are banned?
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing here, but is it perhaps not a licence plate FRAME, but a device that allows you to cover your license plate to avoid things like tickets from traffic light cameras? I can see why google might not want to advertise such a device.
 
PreciousD said:
I'm just guessing here, but is it perhaps not a licence plate FRAME, but a device that allows you to cover your license plate to avoid things like tickets from traffic light cameras? I can see why google might not want to advertise such a device.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about the license plates.
On a somewhat unrelated matter, I've experimented with Google to look up words pertaining to cable theft and software piracy. Doing a search on "cable descrambler" turns up no ads. However a search using the word "bootleg" or the word "warez" turns up a number of ads for file sharing programs and networks which of course warn the user about using these services for copyright violations. It's quite telling though, that these services are bidding on words such as "warez" and "bootleg" which of course imply illegal activities and the headlines for such ads are slogans such as "Bootleg Entire Movies!":D
 
Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game! said:
Katana said:
Your name is so fitting to the thread! Coincidence?:) quote]
The inspiration for my user name was derived from articles such as these:
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Tarot
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernvill/tarot.htm

I've been involved in a campaign to de-woo the Tarot and give it back to gamers
Click to expand...
A worthy endeavor. Good luck.

PreciousD said:
I'm just guessing here, but is it perhaps not a licence plate FRAME, but a device that allows you to cover your license plate to avoid things like tickets from traffic light cameras? I can see why google might not want to advertise such a device.
Click to expand...
Ah. You're probably right. I was thinking that they meant frames.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom