Liberals steal our Google names
Click and make them pay!!
Issued 10 August 2010
All the names of candidates for the Liberal Democratic Party have been purchased as ad words on Google by the Liberal Party.
Anyone searching for one of our candidates by name will come up with a link to the Liberal Party at the top of the results page.
“While we are flattered when the Liberals pinch our policies, we are not impressed when they knock off our candidates’ names,” said NSW Senate candidate Glenn Druery.
“Not only are we not the Liberal Party, we are genuine liberals while the Liberal Party is merely conservative. We are committed to low taxes, less regulation and personal choice in reality, not just in theory.”
“We regard the Liberal Party’s Google campaign strategy as deceptive and believe it is probably illegal. We also think it will backfire on them – people who are interested in our candidates are not going to be pleased to find themselves directed to the Liberal Party’s website.
“Our advice to anyone who is misled in this way is to click on the Liberal Party site when it comes up. The party will pay for every click, so their deception will end up costing them dearly,” Mr Druery concluded.
hmmm well, I searched for ‘Glenn Druery’ in Google (pages from Australia);
No results on the first page link to Liberal Party web sites, result 3 is page on the Lib-Dems site…
The only sponsored link that came up was for “VegieCars.com.au” (lol?).
So whatever it is you think Liberal’s done, don’t worry too much, cause it ain’t working ;p
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/09/2977671.htm
The Liberal Party apparently did it with all minor party candidates, but since the ABC story they appear to have removed the google ads.
But surely this is simply one more case where the market will efficiently regulate itself? I mean, if you want the names so badly you should arrange a market solution with the Liberal Party. That’d be the consistent and principled approach for the LDP to take, surely?
A press release condemning the action is a market solution. As is forcing the Liberal Party to pay more by mass-clicking the google ads!
Sure, that’s true enough. But pointing out that the strategy is probably illegal certainly seems to be an appeal to regulation. Of course, you’re not advocating zero regulation in every aspect of life, but to invoke it here does seem a little inconsistent.
Which leads me to a more serious question: what’s the LDP position on consumer protection laws?
Or intellectual property?
@Wrongtime Listener: Protection against what exactly?
@Chris: It’s a contentious issue, even among libertarians… My 2c worth is that intellectual property is property like any other, if I can demonstrate that you’ve caused me a pecuniary loss through your treatment of my property – intellectual or otherwise – then I should have the right to seek compensation from you for it.
@GabrielBuckley: consumer protection in the sense it’s usually understood when talking about law – eg Trade Practices Act provisions dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, provisions of state Fair Trading Acts dealing with similar conduct, laws requiring that companies disclose information to potential investors.
That sort of thing.
Righteo… The Liberal Democratic Party certainly expects adults to act like adults and be responsible for a certain amount of diligence with regard to who they hand their money over to. However, misleading or deceptive conduct with regard to a transaction is fraud and should be dealt with as such. We’re minarchists, not anarchists – the law should exist to protect individuals… but not to baby them. A law that punishes me for lying about how many kilometres my car has done or whether it has been involved in an accident when I sell it to you is a just law. A law that punishes me for telling you that buying my car will make you irresistibly attractive is ridiculous.
What’s the LDP’s position on children’s advertising? I ask because I note that you talk about due diligence for adults. What about kids, who – particularly at a very young age – are unable to tell that the toy car won’t actually make them ridiculously popular?
Of course… won’t _somebody_ think of the children.
If you can’t find a stated position on the LDP website or in an LDP press release, then it’s fair to say that the LDP doesn’t have a position. The LDP differs from most political parties in that there are large swathes of human endeavour that it believes are simply “none of the government’s business”.
My opinion on the matter is that most children, especially those “at a very young age”, lack the independent means to be in a position to be defrauded out of anything. As such, arguments against advertising aimed at children aren’t arguments for protecting children, they’re arguments for absolving parents and guardians of their duty to act like responsible adults and say “no” to their kids once in a while.
I’m not one of the “won’t somebody please think of the children” brigade, merely playing devils advocate, and cos I’m interested.
I agree, parents need to take responsibility, but there is some research to suggest that early childhood advertising can have an impact later in life on how children react to advertising, and even break down normal barriers to advertising.
some? i think it was a bit more than ‘some’ reserch that suggested that. mind you, prettymuch everything has impact later in life; but the thing really is, that companies exploit these children!
Sorry Chris… I probably should have added at least a couple of “sarcasm marks”
I agree that early childhood advertising can have an effect on how a person perceives advertising later in life. I don’t believe that absolves either a) the responsibility of parents to govern – to the best of their abilities – what advertising their children are exposed to, or b) the responsibility of people – once all grown up – to make, and accept the consequences of, their own choices in life.