This month Google terminated its ads on alternative news outlet Antiwar.com. It justified its decision by claiming Antiwar.com had posted violent, disturbing content. Specifically if found fault with a page showing the US abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.
However, the page in question had been online for a full 11 years - ever since the Abu Ghraib revelations of 2004. How come the page did not bother anyone at Google.com for over a decade?
Is it because it is painfully obvious it has nothing do with why the Google's rule against violent or disturbing content was adopted? Antiwar.com isn't a snuff site; it is a site dedicated to top independent journalism and critique of interventionist US foreign policy. Something that, incidentally, it cannot do as effectively if it is precluded from posting photographs detailing the gore accompanying the policies.