Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses United Kingdom

Google To Revamp Policies, Hire Staff After UK Ad Scandal (reuters.com) 76

Posted by msmash from the fixing-things dept.
Google vowed on Tuesday to police its websites better by ramping up staff numbers and overhauling its policies after several companies deserted the internet giant for failing to keep their adverts off hate-filled videos. From a report on Reuters: Google has found itself at the center of a British storm in recent days after major companies from supermarkets to banks and consumer groups pulled their adverts from its YouTube site after they appeared alongside videos carrying homophobic and anti-Semitic messages. Alphabet's Google launched a review of the problem on Friday, apologized on Monday and said on Tuesday it had revamped its policies to give advertisers more control.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Revamp Policies, Hire Staff After UK Ad Scandal More

Google To Revamp Policies, Hire Staff After UK Ad Scandal

Comments Filter:
  • To get them to pay some UK taxes, by just using DuckDuckGo or even Google via the DuckDuckGo !g option. It's amazing how quickly they folded when cash was at stake. As Bobbie Dylan said 'Money doesn't talk, it swears'.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      Companies are going to have to be taxed on turnover, they can be rebated any tax on turnover at the amount of tax they do actually pay on profit, no tax paid on profit, no rebate.

  • Why is it a scandal? (Score:3)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @09:59AM (#54081543)
    Surely people know that google inserts ads to videos and can't watch them all? Would it be a scandal if someone wrote racist graffiti on a bill-board? Would the bill-board provider be responsible?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gnick ( 1211984 )

      Would it be a scandal if someone wrote racist graffiti on a bill-board?

      This is more like putting a bill-board up next to racist graffiti because you blindly assumed the graffiti was something your customer wanted to be associated with. If your business model is to advertise next to graffiti, you should have some idea about its nature.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's only a scandal to the people paying for the ads. They expect their brands not to be tarnished by being placed next to controversial material. It's apparently a big thing in online advertising, and allows orgs like the BBC to charge more because all their content is edited and manually checked.

      Unfortunately Youtube seems to have gone too far now, banning ads from things like makeup tips for trans women. It's not clear if it's due to bad keyword filters, user reports or something else.

      • It's apparently a big thing in online advertising, and allows orgs like the BBC to charge more because all their content is edited and manually checked.

        The Beeb don't show ads anywhere. None. They even grumble about showing third-party programmes with product placement in them.

    • "Would the bill-board provider be responsible?"

      Google's claim to fame is matching advertisements to content to which they would be relevant.

    • No they don't
      This is yet another example of the outrage culture. We have seen examples of people being outraged at companies because they saw ad's from the companies in front of videos with content they didn't agree with.
      Don't ever be afraid to think that you have over estimated people ability to think.

  • Much ado about nothing.

    • Apparently not, as several companies yanked their ads. At the end of the day, Google is an advertising business, so if those who pay for the advertising say "Don't put my ads up on hate videos", then that's what Google will do.

  • They are probably complaining because the ads are supposed to be targeted to the user watching the video. So when there is a pairing like the screen shot from here -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk] it looks like Google thinks that Guardian readers are generally interested in Islamic propaganda.

    • You think that's bad? Any time I watch a video of someone ripping apart some Islamist preacher's insanity, I get ads for Muslim dating services...

    • Not seeing a problem here. I'm sure plenty of Muslims pissed off about Cadbury eggs would want to read the Guardian.

    • it looks like Google thinks that Guardian readers are generally interested in Islamic propaganda.

      So, working as intended?

    • I gotta admit, that was my thought, too.

      I don't know how Google works for big customers, but I used Adwords awhile back and the idea was that I put in keywords for things that my customers might be searching or reading about. So my advert for an ICC Profile Editor would appear next to a search for colorimeters or in an article about color management, but wouldn't appear in an Islamic Jihad video.

  • Funny how quickly Schmoogle jump when their only real cash cow is under threat.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @10:31AM (#54081735)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way trying to defend insanity. But I somehow have that hunch that it won't be limited to anti-semitic or homophobic messages. I hope I'm wrong, but I could well foresee that we'll soon see the same happening to anything that a loud and vocal group considers "bad speech".

    Basically the message is, if you want to monetize your videos, make videos of cute cats. Or, wait, is that caninophobic?

    • I could well foresee that we'll soon see the same happening to anything that a loud and vocal group considers "bad speech".

      It's market forces at play here (companies don't want to be associated with hate-filled YouTube rants), not government intervention. I'm not too worried.

      Well, the British government did get involved, [bbc.co.uk] but only in the same capacity as the affected companies: as a paying advertiser.

      • Instead of a government-mandated opinion, you have an industry-mandated opinion. I fail to see the difference.

        • The difference is you can host your unpopular video somewhere else.

          It isn't oppression when a company (or a navy) wants to avoid being associated with a Jew-hating lunatic on the Internet.

          • This exactly doesn't work because if you need money to survive (and who doesn't?), you have to publish where people can see it.

            Your fallacy here is that you can create your own Twitter, your own Facebook, your own YouTube if you're not happy with their conditions. Which you can of course do, but you will not be able to achieve what you actually want. It's trivial to get published. If everything else fails, create your own homepage. Way harder is to be heard.

            For your model to actually work, there would have

            • I agree there's a certain risk here, yes, and it's regrettable that YouTube dominates the way it does.

              An example I'm familiar with is Jim Sterling's 'Jimquisition' series, which constantly faces YouTube-specific bullshit (generally but not always in the form of ungrounded accusations of copyright-infringement). Despite that this nonsense threatens his very career, he sticks with YouTube, not, say, Vimeo.

              I still don't see that there's anything malicious at play here though. It's completely reasonable that ad

              • The question is, does Google ask the advertisers what they want to associate with, or does Google simply decide what's good for them?

                The former, I'm absolutely with you. If it's the latter, though... let's say I don't really understand why I watch a video debunking Islamist bullshit and get to watch ads for Muslim dating sites as an entree.

                • At the same time, it's not unreasonable for Google to decide what sorts of videos they want on YouTube. No-one's too outraged that they don't generally allow 'adult' videos, for instance.

                  • I wasn't informed that porn counts as opinion now.

                    Freedom for boobs! First amendment!

                    • Sure, it's not opinion, but YouTube isn't the government, even if they're the big player. The government has an obligation not to ban videos merely for being offensive, but Google doesn't have a moral obligation to host them.

                      It isn't oppression when Slashdot refuses to publish fashion news, and it wouldn't be oppression for YouTube to ban jihadism advocacy.

                    • True, but citing porn as an example is maybe the worst example you could field.

                      Google has any obligation to host anything, no doubt about that. The question is, though, where this will lead to. It won't affect Jihadists. That's for sure. They'll simply create new accounts, inform their fellows about it and continue to spread their bullshit. It's like spam, you can't stop that by shutting down the mail account that spams you.

                      The much bigger effect will be on channels that offer controversial opinions. How ab

                    • It won't affect Jihadists. That's for sure. They'll simply create new accounts, inform their fellows about it and continue to spread their bullshit.

                      Well, it probably would affect them, it just won't stop them completely. Whack-a-mole isn't ideal, but it's better than ignoring the problem. There's an analogy in computer security.

                      The much bigger effect will be on channels that offer controversial opinions.

                      Indeed, I see a real risk of misguided leftists ('SJWs') wanting YouTube to ban, say, Sam Harris, for saying mean things about Islam.

                    • This is pretty much the point. There is a huge difference between trying to incite people to commit violence against people and stating an opinion. The question is whether that difference will be considered. "Kill all infidels!" must not be on the same level as "I disagree with what you said and here is why I think you're wrong".

                      Judging by the development in other social media I cannot say with good faith that I can trust this to be the case.

  • In Britain, apparently quoting the Bible [telegraph.co.uk] can get you locked up for a hte crime. Even if (like me) you think that the Bible is a bunch of hooey, that's not the way free societies ought to function.

    So, sure, Google needs to conform to British cultural norms if they want to do business there. But a good deal of skepticism is in order whether this actually about "hate-filled videos" or simply bizarre British preferences. That is, US media shouldn't just repeat such statements without qualification because the t

    • In Britain, apparently quoting the Bible [telegraph.co.uk] can get you locked up for a [hate] crime.

      I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible. You should try actually being honest instead of peddling lies.

      • I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.

        RTFA:

        “In court the boy's friend told the truth - that I hadn't assaulted him or called him homophobic names. I had simply answered his question and told him about Adam and Eve and Heaven and Hell. Preaching from the Bible is not a crime.”

        In any case, this is just one of many examples where Britain calls things "hate crimes" that merely amount to speech that o

        • I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.

          RTFA:

          Did you RTFA?

          At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last month, Sheriff Alistair Watson ruled there was no case to answer and acquitted Mr Larmour of threatening or abusive behaviour, aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation. The sheriff also found him not guilty of a second charge of assault aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

          He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault. He may have been accused of those crimes because he was quoting the bible (the story does n

          • He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault.

            Correct. Specifically, his non-violent, spoken response to a question about the Bible was considered "threatening and abusive".

            but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

            Correct. That's because the British increasingly consider some speech to be "assault". That is, blurring the line between free speech that offends someone ("verbal assault") and physical assault is one way in which countries rationalize draconian restricti

  • This is probably a function of the age of corporate executives, i.e., older folks who don't actually browse the web very much. Advertising around unmoderated comment sections is like placing ads in bathroom stalls. It's done, and it can be done successfully, but generally for local businesses and only in certain categories.

  • I'm confused. Are people writing angry letters to these companies because of where their ads appeared?

    It would never occur to me to associate an advertisement(or the company whose product is being advertised) I see on a YouTube video with the content of that video except in a purely market-driven sense. e.g. I'm watching a video of someone driving a sports car and I see sports car ads.

    Do people think that the advertisers pick & choose the specific videos where their ads are going to appear?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      People in the UK have had generations of government approved media both in the public and private sector.
      The freedom of speech or freedom after speech is limited by UK gov policy.
      Funding is collected and approved content is produced for that ability to publish or broadcast.
      Private media in the UK has to publish within gov guidelines or they have to face gov questions about their role as a publisher or broadcaster.
      So content in the UK is SJW safe, approved and regulation can even revoke the ability to

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close