Crumbly parents charged as accessories in Michigan shootings: Good!

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (88 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 11 months ago

    A little background..


    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … ?gnt-cfr=1

    This should not be so rare, as I would prefer it to occur far more than it does. This needs to happen every time a minor obtains a weapon from an adult who did not consider the circumstances regarding the personality of the children nor properly secure the weapon to prevent unauthorized access.

    It is one of those things that just sticks in my craw. Parents or legal guardians not taking responsibility for the actions of their minor charges.

    While I will always have issue with conservatives values and culture giving the ok to giving a 5 year old a .22 rifle as a birthday present, I do insist that when a minor abuses a weapon that is in the possession of adults, the adults should be held liable for any damages or loss of life. This thing that happened in Michigan, if were not so tragic, would be considered incredibly dumb.

    I recall a recent story about a young man who had his computer laptop sitting on his front porch. A neighbor kid went into this fellows yard and broke his computer. The man went to the boy's father demanding restitution for the damage. The boy's father told the man that he should not have left the laptop unattended in the first place, and denied the young man's request. It may well have to be settled in claims court. What sort of attitude is that?

    Parents seem to want to give their kids a wide berth oblivious that society has rules for decorum and behavior. I got vexed with a former workmate who told me that adults were to blame if they could not accept and accommodate the boisterous nature of kids in general and hers, specifically. She let her kids RUN around the store, unsupervised. I asked her did it occur to you that either your children or store patrons may be injured or something might be broken that she would have to pay for? None of this supersedes her kids' right to "self expression".

    Admonishing a nephew, I told him that Rights come with responsibilities and responsibility comes with rights. When you are old enough to be solely responsible for your actions, then you can do what you like, until then, you do as you are told by mom and dad.

    Any thoughts?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Implicit in your complaint is that all parents can always control their children.  That simply is not true.  Even some pre-teens cannot be controlled by even the best intentioned parents, let alone "kids" that are 15, 16, 17 years old.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Understood Wilderness, but in this case common sense would have told any sentient human being in the role of a parent that introducing a firearm to this obviously troubled kid goes well beyond the concept of irresponsible.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Again, the assumption is that the parents "introduced" the gun to the kid.  I haven't seen anything on that matter; with the information I have he could have broken into a safe and stolen it from the parents.  Or they could have loaded it and  handed it to him as you assume.  Or anything in between.

          The only information I've seen is that they are charged with involuntary manslaughter.  Not even an indication on whether it was intentional, unintentional, accidental, the degree of carelessness or anything else.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            McDonald said the 15-year-old was present Nov. 26 when his father purchased the 9mm Sig Sauer SP 2022 handgun used during the shooting as a Christmas gift. The suspect also posted images of the firearm online, calling it his "new beauty," she added.

            His mother posted online about "testing out" the gift, too, she said. When the suspect was caught in class researching ammunition online, his mother texted him, "LOL I'm not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught," McDonald said.

          2. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Well, Wilderness, here is a bit more. It going to be hard to,
            say that the parent were unaware of what they doing regarding the minor.

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … ?gnt-cfr=1

            What is your answer to this?

    2. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      It’s one debate that would be pointless for me to get involved with because we don’t have a gun culture in Britain; not even the police or criminals carry guns. 

      But when I read your sentence “….conservatives values and culture giving the ok to giving a 5 year old a .22 rifle as a birthday present” I was shocked and amazed that it’s legal for children to own guns, even in America. 

      Although (on a lighter note) in reading that (with respect to your reference of a 5 year old) it did make me wonder what Americans think of our drinking laws in Britain e.g. not only is it legal in the UK for 16 year olds to drink alcohol in public if it’s with a meal at a table, and provided someone over the age of 18 buys the drinks; but also, in the privacy of your own home in Britain it is legal for children from the age of 5 to drink alcohol.

      I guess, different cultures, different values!

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I am still in awe that your law enforcement officers are not armed, while "Dirty Harry" is in vogue here.

        While minors, in theory, cannot buy weapons (firearms), they can be bought by an adult and given to kids as a gift. We are way out in "right field" compared to you folks, so don't be surprised.

        Generally your situation in Britain is true here, somewhat. It is illegal to serve alcoholic beverages to those under 21 and it is a quick way for an establishment to lose its liquor license. In the privacy of your own home, nobody is making a scene about kids being served alcoholic beverages. Just don't get caught hosting a party at your house where minors are being served.

        I have fought for many years during the period between my 18th and 21st birthdays to have the legal drinking age lowered to 18. I am still of the generation that believes that if one is old enough to fight in military service, then you are old enough to drink.

        Eighteen should be the line of demarcation as at this age you are legally held solely responsible for your actions. It is at the height of arrogance where older people want to hold a class of adults liable without the commensurate rights and privileges.

        Great question, Arthur, thanks for your imput.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Oh Credence, that really dates you.  We all know 18 year old's brain has not developed to the point they can logically decide not to do something they very much want to do.

          But if you're dated, so am I.  I you can give your life for your country you can give your liver for a good party (or 20 of them).

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, indeed!!

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Wondering if charges will be brought for the school administration that let this boy continue his day when the
              The  morning of the shooting, Ethan Crumbley’s teacher came upon a note on his  desk containing the following: a drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointed at the words, ‘The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.’ In another section of the note was a drawing of a bullet with the following words above that bullet: ‘Blood everywhere.’
              The teacher brought this to school administration who as mandated reporters dropped the ball completely. This child should have been in an ambulance on the way to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and help.  As a former educator in  an age of shooter lockdown  drills/protocol this is incomprehensible.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Probably not, no one can be held responsible for making the correlation between disturbing drawings and actual gun violence.

                The parents were the ones that should have been in the know regarding a broad area of concerns that I could not expect the school administrators to be aware of.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  School administration and I would assume that a psychologist was brought on board also were In possession of a picture that clearly indicated that this student was a danger to others. They have a responsibility, to report. They are actually mandated. The psychologist/counselor/social worker at minimum are mandated reporters. We have mandated reporting to take the situation to qualified professionals to determine someone's state of mind when they have shown in words or otherwise that they intend to harm others or themselves.

          2. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, the UN recognises 18 as the general guide for when one ceases to be a child, and I know from previous debates on these forums many Americans view even 18 too young and think 21 is the more appropriate age. 

            In contrast, Britain encourages its young to be ‘young adults’ e.g. the ‘Youth Parliament’ which was formed in 1998, and was given permission by the Labour Government (Socialist) Prime Minister in 2007 to sit in the House of Commons for one day, to debate and vote on issues; a tradition that every UK Government has honoured ever since.

            The Youth Parliament is made of up children between the age of 11 and 18, elected by their peers in annual elections to represent the views of children and lobby Parliament; one of their long standing campaigns being to lower the voting age from 18 to 16.

            Alex McDermott MYP: Votes at 16 UKYP House of Commons Debate Speech:  https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZs

            •    In 2015 the Scottish Parliament lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 in Scotland, and
            •    In 2020 the Welsh Parliament lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 in Wales.

        2. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yes it is great to be out on the streets and see the police unarmed, and knowing that no one else (not even criminals) are carrying guns.  I think this video of an attempted robbery of a Jewellery store in London, England sums it up quite well:-  https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg

          In the UK the maximum fine for selling alcohol to any under the age of 18 is £5,000 ($6,600) for a first offence, rising to £20,000 ($26,000) for subsequent offences, and you can have your licence to sell alcohol suspended or forfeited but that is exceptional.

          But of course it’s legal for anyone over 18 to buy an alcoholic drink for someone over 16 (provided it’s with a meal at a table) because it allows family with older teenagers to go out for a family meal and have a good time.

          The reason that it’s legal for children over 5 to drink at home in Britain stems from two origins:-

          •    Firstly from medieval time to early Victorian, before proper sanitation of water, drinking water in Britain often carries deadly disease like typhoid and cholera so it was a lot safer to drink beer and wine than water; so much so that from the early part of the Industrial Revolution through to late Victorian times, it was a common practice in Britain for employers to supply their workers with ample beer and bread as a safe sustenance to keep them going through the working day.

          •    Secondly, it’s always been traditional across Europe for children to be given wine at the table, at home, during periods of celebration e.g. Christmas and Easter etc.

          As regards illegal drinking:  In my day (a long time ago) it was normal for kids to start drinking in pubs and nightclubs from the age of 16; I started drinking at 16, and my wife was corrupted by me at the age of 17, when we were first introduced in a pub by Gail (a mutual friend), who herself was only 16.

          Albeit on our first date, I took my wife to be for a meal, and bought wine for the two us, which although she was only 17 was legal because I was 18 and we had the wine with our meal at a table.

          Of course, things are a little different these days, because the authorities have since cracked down on underage drinking so a teenager can only buy an alcohol drink if they can prove (when challenged) that they’re over 18 with ID.

          Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped the binge drinking among the young (teenagers over 18 and people in their 20s) which plagues British Society.  One remedy the Government did try was to change the licencing laws so that pubs (bars) can stay open 24 hours a day instead of having to close at 10:30pm as they had to do in my day.  The theory being that people would stagger their drinking over a longer period and not binge drink – but whether that strategy has worked is questionable.

          Our son got a taste for vodka when he was about 12, at a friend’s BBQ party we attended; private party in a private home, so perfectly legal for children over 5 to drink alcohol.  The mother (host) laced the children’s jellies with vodka, and very soon we had a lot of giggly children running around.  The parents, instead of being shocked, found it amusing; – So I’m not quite sure what that says about British Society?

          Teenage Binge-Drinking in Britain:  https://youtu.be/LkiwMjxXHcw

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            "Yes it is great to be out on the streets and see the police unarmed, and knowing that no one else (not even criminals) are carrying guns."

            Why is it a good feeling?  Are you assuming, first that no one else is carrying guns and therefore police do not need that level of force and second that if you are not shot it means you won't be knifed, bludgeoned, gassed, poisoned, exploded, run over or in any other way killed by a murderer?

            I understand that the level of violence in the UK is far below that of the US, but your assumptions are not backed up with facts.

            1. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              People in the streets of the UK are not unarmed.  This place has far more stabbings than here in the US.  Maybe they should try knife control. But then the responsible knife users may get upset.   At least they don't have to worry about guns.

              "Knife crime: Fatal stabbings at highest level since records began in 1946"

              There were 285 killings by a knife or sharp instrument in the 12 months ending March 2018, Office for National Statistics analysis shows.

              The ONS says one in four (71) of all victims (285) were men aged 18-24.

              The figures also show 25% of victims were black - the highest proportion since data was first collected in 1997.

              https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47156957

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, of course different weapons are used when guns are not so prevalent.  That's the whole point - that disarming the public does NOT stop the murders no matter how many times our politicians and others claim it will.

                But the fact remains that the UK has a much lower violence rate than the US.  Why?  It isn't about guns, so what IS the reason?  Because they drink like fish, at least compared to Americans?

              2. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I wouldn’t have disagreed with you; it wouldn’t surprise me if knife crime is higher in the UK than the USA, because in the UK we don’t have the guns.

                However, out of interest, I did ‘fact-check’ form several sources and found the following data, which is interesting:-

                •    In 2018 there were 285 fatal stabbings in England and Wales, and 34 in Scotland, giving a combined British rate of 0.48 per 100,000 of population.

                •    In the USA the number was, 1,591, giving a USA rate of 0.49 per 100.000 of population.

                It corresponds with the ONS data that you cited e.g. 285 fatal stabbings in England and Wales, and interestingly it would suggest that the level of knife crimes in the USA and UK (when population adjusted) isn’t that much different.

                Yeah, and as we don’t have guns in the UK knife crime is a big thing to us, every major stabbing hits the news headlines, and…..

                …..based on you opening comments, it may surprise you to know that the UK Government does have strict ‘knife control’ laws, that are heavily enforced by the police.

                In the UK it is a criminal offence to be in possession of a knife in public, even if it’s concealed at the bottom of your handbag, shoulder bag or rucksack etc.  The maximum penalty for being in possession of a knife in public in the UK is 7 years prison sentence.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  When you buy a new set of kitchen knives, how do you get them home? lol

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I would never make it in the UK.  I have a conceal carry permit and always have a knife with me. 

                    7 years in jail for having a knife in public...that's crazy.

                  2. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Good question. 

                    Firstly, in order to buy knives in the UK you have to be over 18, and if there is any doubt you will be asked to provide ID to prove your age.

                    Secondly, when you buy a new set of kitchen knives they will be in their wrapper and you will have a receipt of purchase; so that it’s obvious to the police that you’ve just bought them and in the process of taking them home.

            2. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              "Why is it a good feeling?  Are you assuming, first that no one else is carrying guns and therefore police do not need that level of force and second that if you are not shot it means you won't be knifed, bludgeoned, gassed, poisoned, exploded, run over or in any other way killed by a murderer?"
              -------
              It is not an assumption, it is a fact that firearms are simply more difficult to obtain in Britain. You just can't pick one up at your local Walmart.

              "You can fact check me on this one, Arthur"

              The overall homicide rates between the two nations, regardless of means and manner are starkly different. It was you, yourself, that questioned why Americans are so violent

              If I lived in a country with 1/5 th the homicide rate of my present domicile, I would think that is cause for a "good feeling".

              WHY do you think that the level of violence in the U.K. is far below that found in America?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You missed the entire point.  The question was why it is a good feeling to see police unequipped to deal with violence at the level of gunfire, not why it was a good feeling to have a low violence rate.  Yes, the UK citizenry is not armed like the US people; that was never questioned.

                Yes, the homicide rates are very different - the question was, and is, "why is it different?".  The answer is not that there are fewer guns (there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates); then what IS the answer?

                We don't seem to care - our entire effort is to disarm the public rather than find and address why we are so violent.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  It is a good feeling because the police do not need generally to be armed because the threats that are routine in America are far and removed there.

                  You, yourself, said that the fact that America is armed does not explain the higher homicide rates, as people can be killed with knives, skillets, sterling silver pickle forks and the like? So, NOW, the fact that America is so heavily armed explains the difference between the levels of violence within the two societies? So, did I actually catch you with your britches down, this time?

                  You have made your point about the prevalence of guns not being a factor.

                  I think conservatives would cease to have a reason to exist if they could not continually push the idea that the Left wants to disarm everyone. But what is true is that I will come down like a ton of bricks on abuse of the 2nd Amendment Right.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, considering that there were over 10,000 gun related crimes in the UK in 2000 I'd have to say that unarmed cops could be a rather severe disadvantage.

                    But I do get your point - in a quiet society, without the violence we see here, it would be a good feeling.  Although, just as a side, I have seen where the bobbies are beginning to have guns available and some even carry them - it isn't as quiet as all that.

                    No - there is no correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates anywhere in the world.  Being armed does not explain the difference in the violence we see here vs the UK. 

                    I guess it depends on just how the 2nd amendment is "abused".  How do you "abuse" an amendment guaranteeing the right to be armed?  Shooting someone is a different abuse, after all - the right to be armed is not the right to kill, so killing by gun is not abusing the amendment.  I guess is you have a suitcase nuke under your bed it could be considered abuse.

              2. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                This is how unharmed police in the UK deal with someone wielding a knife:-

                •    UK Police vs Knife:  https://youtu.be/3jjKSqZE4iM

                •    This is the terrifying moment man swings at police with huge knife: https://youtu.be/tOTLP9rDiN4

                •    UK Cops Disarm Man Wielding a Machete: https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  What the man said in the video with the machete is correct.  If he did this in the United States, he would have been shot.  You are right.  We have two different cultures.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep, two different cultures; good and bad in both.

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the videos, the first one reminded me of the "Benny Hill" show.

                  And yes, in America, while I think that resourceful cops could deal with a man with bladed weapon in a non-lethal fashion, they would just probably just simply shoot him as an offensive threat.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, the first video was very reminiscence of Benny Hill; but as least those in the videos wielding the knives, after they'd done their time in prison for carrying an offensive weapon, have a 2nd chance of life!

            3. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Well actually yes wilderness, we do have good reason to feel safe on our streets in the UK, and it is borne out by the facts e.g. in the UK you are far more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a stabbing.

              In 2018 there were 1,770 reported road deaths in Britain (23% pedestrians), compared to 319 fatal stabbing over the same period. 

              •    1,770 fatal road accidents in a year is an average of less than 5 fatal road accidents a day.

              •    319 fatal stabbings in a year is on average less than one fatal stabbing a day.

              So yes, with such low odds, we do feel safe to walk our streets in Britain.

          2. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks, for the videos, Arthur, it is about the decorum of the society. A little old lady like that would be shot if she got in the way if such a bold robbery had occurred in America.

            You folks have some interesting problems, binge drinking among girls?
            Sometimes an entire ocean's separation can make a difference, I can't think of anything comparable going on here right now.

            1. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks, yes, we all have our own unique problems.  And on the positive side, there's always good to be found to.

    3. tsmog profile image78
      tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, with rights/privileges come responsibilities. At least that is how I was raised. As far as should parents be held responsible for their child/minor I believe regarding liability for property damage and injury/death they should be. But peeking about it is a tangled web of laws. The key words are willful and negligence.

      I see it akin to can an employer be held liable for an employee causing property damage or injury/death. Seems, they can under the right circumstances. Again the tangled web of law.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Good point, TSmog. This particular case is egregious because the negligence exhibited by the parents is shown to be so stark that it cannot be ignored.

        I can see circumstances where the employer could avoid that liability if the employee was acting outside of the purview of his job. It is like the rogue cops, you don't get the benefit of "blue line" protections if your actions were not within the procedures prescribed under rules of conduct.

    4. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I knew a crumbly parent once. Her husband had to sweep up all the bits after an argument.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        A rather scruffy looking pair in the photos, reminds me of a middle aged Bonnie and Clyde.

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I had to come back to this one. I just saw their mug shots. Damnnnnn . . . I think you are right. It's the Crumbly gang.

          GA

    5. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Agree 100%... With all, you have shared. your sentiments are on the money. However, sometimes the most responsible parents can't control what their children might do.

      Teaching children about rights start at home.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        "However, sometimes the most responsible parents can't control what their children might do."

        You're right, but knowing that would discourage me from introducing an element into the mix that could prove dangerous and lethal if it would fall out from my direct control.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Once again agree...

  2. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 11 months ago

    Cred,

    You and I agree on this one.

    The parents should receive the maximum punishment possible by law.

    They are a stain upon all responsible gun owners. 

    I know many people on the left don't like the NRA, but, if you have any questions about how to store your gun, the laws of your state, where to get gun safes and trigger locks, the NRA can provide the information.

    There is no excuse for what these parents did with their firearm. 

    Like we all know, with rights comes responsibilities.  I know many people who let their children shoot firearms of all kinds.  Many take them hunting.  These are people who teach their children how to properly respect a firearm and what it can do.  They also teach them how to be responsible with firearms.  Their children are closely supervised at ALL Times.

    Many kids do have fun at a shooting range.  It is a controlled environment that is closely monitored and supervised.  Many of them also enjoy hunting.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, Mike,  I have problems with the NRA. But, like the Electoral College, the 2nd Amendment is enshrined in US law. That is the reality and we live with it.  But, we are certainly going to come down hard on abuse and irresponsibility regarding possession and the unauthorized use of firearms.

      I am certain that is is as you say, most gun owners are responsible. Unfortunately, each tragic and preventable massacre tends to bring these issues from the back to the forefront.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image78
    Kathleen Cochranposted 11 months ago

    Why are homicides/suicides so much higher in US? We have too many guns. Period.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image73
      Castlepalomaposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      It will take time to put a period on it.

      The fear of Tyranny from the Government is the greatest fear from gun owners. When Government/ military get rid of their gun, so will the public. Suicides and killing people that ones knows is also very important reason to stop it.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      What kind of evidence can you offer that indicates guns as being the cause of our high homicide rate?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)