
Scientology says it's received $5.7M from Google in ad grants - prawn
http://tonyortega.org/2014/09/16/scientology-says-its-received-5-7-million-from-google-in-advertising-grants/
======
kbenson
Hey, if the IRS recognizes them as a religion[1], not doing so in your non-
profit/religion grant system is likely to get you sued by them. In truth,
that's probably how it should be. In this case, a lot of us may dislike it,
but if it was reversed and Google wasn't recognizing the EFF as a nonprofit a
lot of the same people would likely be in arms. It's a lot like freedom of
speech, we uphold it for all not because we believe everything that is said,
but because when we allow individual judgement on the matter we descend into a
morass of argumentation based on peoples differing concepts of what qualifies,
and the ideal is too important to allow that.

1: Yes, I know the IRS was browbeaten into it. That actually supports my
initial point.

~~~
jellicle
I don't believe that getting recognized as a religion by the IRS gives you the
right to receive grants from a private company that are awarded on a
competitive basis.

Google will happily refuse your ad or your business for a very large number of
reasons, many of them quite opaque. Google hasn't refused Scientology, and has
actively encouraged them to spread their message. That's a choice they've
made, not one forced on them by any law. They should accept the praise/blame
for that action - they've earned it.

~~~
kbenson
I'm not interested in Google becoming in arbiter of what is and is not a
religion. I think it's entirely acceptable to fall back on what your national
government has defined as religious and non-profit organizations, for exactly
the reasons I outlined in my original comment. Similarly, I wouldn't want them
making distinctions about political non-profits. I am happy they don't censor
some ostensibly Democratically leaning health organizations, and I'll accept
that they don't censor the NRA at the same time as the price of their
neutrality.

------
istorical
It would be a lot more newsworthy if Google refused to give promotions or sell
advertising to a non-profit based on public perception / the organization's
reputation.

Assuming Google gives similar offers to other potential new customers, this
means nothing.

And anyone who suggests Google should refuse to do business with Scientology
on the basis of their personal feelings is advocating trampling all over
egalitarianism.

~~~
macromancer
The definition of egalitarianism suggests that people, not organizations, are
held equal.

------
rdtsc
Mostly off topic but slightly related:

If you get a chance and want to try something crazy try to visit their
Celebrity Center in LA.

We were bored visiting some friends at Caltech and decided to do it. It was
probably 10-15 years ago. We made up fake names, addresses, history,
background story. When we got there they made us watch their recruitment
video. But then the tour was pretty nice.

Even just seeing the people hanging around there, listen to the absolute
batshit crazy worldview. Yeah the people seemed just a bit off -- spoke just a
bit too slow and seemed a bit too robotic. Enjoyed seeing the architecture of
the building, the explanations about how Ron Hubbard is going to come back
from Saturn (or is it Neptune) and so they his office ready. Saw the saunas
downstairs, where they supposedly "detoxify" people. The one sad thing there
was a little old Korean lady. She didn't seem to speak English well and looked
confused as they were telling her she needed to go back into the sauna. But
then the best part, when night fell we got to go to the top level (or maybe
the roof?) -- it was pretty nice view of the city.

The trick is to of course not give your disbelief away and don't act mean or
condescending. We pretended to be ignorant young people who "heard good
things" and just nodded and smiled. One of us couldn't resist making a
sarcastic commit, we had to signal him to cut if off as he could have gotten
us kicked out too early.

~~~
DalekBaldwin
Funny, as of 5-10 years ago, I heard they refuse to entertain anybody
affiliated with Caltech due to repeated trolling incidents. I guess you didn't
cut him off soon enough.

~~~
rdtsc
Oh wow. Sorry everyone.

We were good nerds, but not very good con artists I suppose. We shouldn't have
told them we were from Caltech (well I wasn't, I was just visiting a friend
there) but the background story was that we all were.

------
mariocesar
> In the Bay Area a representative of Google was introduced to Scientology and
> our 4th dynamic campaigns through the Stevens Creek Ideal Org. This
> representative connected us up with the department responsible for non-
> profit advertisements. And as a result, Google awarded us a $10,000-a-month
> grant for free online advertising.

Scientology is a non-profit? is not founded as a company?

~~~
ivanca
All religion orgs are considered non-profit; the funny thing is that
"religion" is purposefully vaguely defined by the IRS, related: Jhon Oliver
televangelist bit [https://youtu.be/7y1xJAVZxXg](https://youtu.be/7y1xJAVZxXg)

Organized religions including televangelists are one of the best business
around, in a more cynical world I think there would be VCs and accelerators
for creating new of them.

~~~
macromancer
1\. Create religion 2\. ... 3\. Profit!

~~~
sneak
“You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you
start a religion.” —L. Ron Hubbard

------
tokenadult
The same website from which the thread-opening post comes has page about the
reason L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology as a religious organization--to make
money.[1] That page includes an interesting account of knowing Hubbard by
science fiction author Harlan Ellison.

[1] [http://tonyortega.org/2013/02/16/scientology-mythbusting-
wit...](http://tonyortega.org/2013/02/16/scientology-mythbusting-with-jon-
atack-making-a-million/)

------
solidrocketfuel
Youtube shows religious advertisements to children.

Youtube removed "related content" videos section for official Scientology
material. This censors critique videos and breaches the principle that Google
was founded on:

\- To offer a search engine in the academic domain, where ranking is not
decided by advertisers, but by link-weighted popularity.

As a comparison: A mobile phone manufacturer pays Google to remove the
"related videos" for their videos, because one of those related videos talks
about the dangers of driving while using a mobile phone.

Youtube embeds content hosted by Scientology on their Youtube profile page.
This gives the Office of Special Affairs the IP (personal information) in
their visitor logs. Scientology also places a cookie while surfing on the
Youtube site. No confirmation is asked.

Scientology gets around the "all comments vs. no comments at all" by removing
any negative or critical comment, and only allowing positive and astroturfing
comments.

Even though religious advertisements used to be against their policy, they
have since then taken money from religious institutes.

Advertisements are against Adwords TOS, when:

\- Sites with content that incites or promotes hatred against a group or
individuals.

\- Content that encourages others to believe that a group or individual is
inhuman or inferior

Scientology.org has content that promotes hatred against medical
professionals. They vilify doctors for prescribing drugs for ADD. Factual
quality of the content is low, while impact on the life of someone who
believes all information there is high.

There is freedom of speech, and there is suiting advertisers. Google really
needs to refind their balance. And be consistent in enforcing the rules, for
instance their link-farm makes blackhat SEO's pale.

------
stephenitis
so long as it's a non profit religious organization I don't see google
discriminating against it. (please correct me if i'm wrong)

~~~
macromancer
As a point of discussion, the German government doesn't consider it to be a
religion.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany)

~~~
jmspring
The German government is on the right side re: Scientology. That's not to say
Scientology has taken it lying down. It is an insidious organization.

[http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/stat.html](http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/stat.html)

~~~
StudyAnimal
I am not going to get sucked into Scientology or any other organised religion,
but I expect consistency from governments. I find it despicable that
governments get to pick and choose which insidious organizations get their
blessing. Of course it is a religion, more or less as bad as any other. Either
support religious freedom, or don't, but picking your favorites is something
for individuals to do not governments.

------
bougiefever
The place to fight this is with getting the IRS to recognize that this is a
money-making business masquerading as a religion for financial gain.

