Still More Advertisers Pull Google Ads Over YouTube Hate Videos (morningstar.com) 301
"A week after Google apologized for running customers' advertisements alongside objectionable videos, triggering a change in policy, its YouTube site is still rife with examples that are angering more big advertisers and causing some to cut spending with the tech giant," reports the Dow Jones Newswire. Reporters from the Wall Street Journal spotted ads from Microsoft, Amazon, and Procter & Gamble appearing on hate videos -- and thus indirectly funding them. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
Asked about the Journal's finding that their ads were still appearing with such content on YouTube as of Thursday night, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dish Network Corp. said Friday they were suspending spending on all Google advertising except targeted search ads. Starbucks Corp. and General Motors Co. said they were pulling their ads from YouTube. FX Networks, part of 21st Century Fox Inc., said it was suspending all advertising spending on Google, including search ads and YouTube. Wal-Mart said: "The content with which we are being associated is appalling and completely against our company values."
An executive at one of the affected companies complained that Google "had assured us over the past few days that our brands were safe from this type of content. Despite their assurances, it's clear they couldn't give assurance."
An executive at one of the affected companies complained that Google "had assured us over the past few days that our brands were safe from this type of content. Despite their assurances, it's clear they couldn't give assurance."
Alternative media. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
But Dissent is Now HATE (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
A popular tranny just had two of her YT videos demonitized, one that criticized Islam, and another that criticized feminism:
https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWh... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.
Don't get me wrong, YouTube has fucked up royally here, but your claims are laughable because I can still go to YouTube right this second and watch neo-Nazis spouting off, or Carl of Swindon ranting about feminazis, or The Golden One living out his liberal murder fantasies in video games, and all still monetized.
It's obvious to anyone with a level head that YouTube is just incompetent. You can't attribute any political or philosophical or moral motivation
Re:But Dissent is Now HATE (Score:5, Insightful)
And refusing to give you a platform is now genocide.
Who is claiming that? Oh, you, in typical strawman fashion.
Don't get me wrong, YouTube has fucked up royally here, but your claims are laughable because I can still go to YouTube right this second and watch neo-Nazis spouting off, or Carl of Swindon ranting about feminazis, or The Golden One living out his liberal murder fantasies in video games, and all still monetized.
How does that refute what is desired by the leftist agitators versus what YouTube is actually doing? The boycott came about because YouTube didn't sufficiently turn itself into a "safe space".
It's obvious to anyone with a level head that YouTube is just incompetent. You can't attribute any political or philosophical or moral motivation to their actions, because they are too inconsistent to be rational.
It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no bug push from "leftist agitators" to censor YouTube
Bullshit. It's the leftist mainstream media that lumps together Islamic terrorists with "far-right" groups, yet never talk about "far-left" groups. It's also the left that's been hell bent on "deplatforming" the right the past several years.
On top of that, there has been a huge amount of criticism on social media from the left because what Youtube has done is indiscriminate and affects many non-controversial videos (unless you consider make-up tips for trans women to be a problem)
Yes, they are only concerned when they get caught up in the net. That doesn't mean they aren't for the net. Just so long as it only applies to "hateful" channels, that is, those on the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?
Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no? That is what Trump just did to republiacans. He threatened their jobs, he threatened their families if they didn't do what he told them to do.
Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful? It isn't that Lettie terrorists don't exist but it is significantly smaller than rightie terrorists.
Also remember every single Isl
Re:But Dissent is Now HATE (Score:4)
Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?
Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?
Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no?
What does that have to do with free speech on gigantic platforms like YouTube?
Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful?
Let's see, who is committing the violence [rollingstone.com] and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.
Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?
Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading [breitbart.com] women marches?
The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.
Re: (Score:3)
On News Corp platforms, Breitbart, twitter, 4chan, all sorts of places?
I don't see the right trying to get BLM kicked off YouTube, or preventing them from giving speeches at colleges, etc.
Also, case in point, here, by a user named Raenex. Who will never look at the right's actions.
I looked. I condemn violence. However, Muslims are like 1% of the American population, but their attacks our roughly on par with American militias, according to your source (counting, of course, after 9/11): "In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead."
But l
Saudi Arabia (Score:3)
Everything quoted is true with one exception.
But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud. It is still actively promoted by them and they want it to be the default sect of Islam. Wahhabism teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that praying five times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty. That would be the reason why 15/19 o
Re: (Score:3)
So I'm supposed to care that you pretend you don't see it?
You can cite it or shut it. It's not my job to back up your claims. But if all you're talking about is criticism, and not trying to remove them from YouTube or prevent them from speaking at places like colleges, it ain't the same, because that's the topic under discussion.
Notice how you don't say you condemn right-wing violence. You won't even condemn right-wing deceits and frauds.
You're a real idiot. I condemn left-wing and right-wing violence. I was responding to the articles which you posted about right-wing violence, so I didn't specify right-wing, because it was obvious.
Do you want to hear about them before 9/11?
Still wouldn't come close to the body cou
Re: (Score:2)
It's the leftist mainstream media that lumps together Islamic terrorists with "far-right" groups, ye
No you numpty, this is all about mega corps not wanting their adverts to appear alongside (and give money to) groups/videos that they think are sufficiently misaligned with their brand. You know what? Neither Islamic terrorism nor neo Nazism is aligned with coca-coal's carefully curated corporate image.
But sure blame teh leftist libruhls.
Oh and also the British government. You know that bunch of rampant left
Re: (Score:2)
I'm never sure whether the advocates of Neo-Nazis getting money from Youtube are just very anal individuals who have bought into the notion that First Amendment protections ought to apply to communications on private platforms, or are Neo-Nazis themselves. I think for the most part we're dealing with Aspies and similar types who have incredibly rigid world views and are cognitively incapable of seeing that a company like Google ultimately has to serve its customers (the advertisers) in the way that they wan
Re: (Score:2)
Calling everybody who disagrees with "progressive" positions a neo-Nazi is not an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I call everyone who disagrees with Progressive positions a Neo-nazi?
Re: (Score:2)
By claiming I'm advocating neo-Nazis getting money from YouTube, when I said at the very beginning, "It's obvious to anybody who's been paying attention that the left has been hysterically ramping up their cries about "hate speech" and leveling it at anybody who opposes their ideological positions."
Re: (Score:2)
No you numpty, this is all about mega corps not wanting their adverts to appear alongside (and give money to) groups/videos that they think are sufficiently misaligned with their brand.
Because the leftist press is making a point to smear the political right by lumping them in with Islamic terrorists, and then try to hang it on corporations, "numpty".
Re: But Dissent is Now HATE (Score:2)
This all started when the British government pulled adverts from YouTube because they where appearing alongside videos that where in support of proscribed groups (that has a very specific meaning within UK law Google it if you don't understand). The British government can in no way be described as lefty anything. Then British companies pulled adverts for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because those two groups have similar goals and use similar methods in pursuit of the "pure" society of like-minded psychopaths that they masturbate furiously to in the privacy of their basements.
Critiquing Islam can get you labeled "far-right" and "neo-Nazi", while the left has Sharia apologizers leading women's marchers and thugs trying to shut down free speech, while embracing Islamic immigration.
Or are Dylan Roof and Timothy McVeigh just a couple of courageous "freedom fighters" in your twisted little world?
I'm not defending anybody of that ilk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. Sure, there are whackos of every stripe and type getting their 2 minutes of fame and air time, but 99.99999 percent of the left is NOT supporting sharia in any way, shape, or form. If you really believe they are, stop watching FOX News for a few minutes and let your head clear.
Can you explain this [breitbart.com], then? Funny how they made sure to exclude women who were pro-life, but at the front and center included a Sharia-loving, Islam apologizing, hijab-wearing woman.
Time to open your eyes. The left is filled with useful idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the words that are being targetted, it's the philosophies.
Acceptance of abuse is not tolerance. It's just being abused.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.
Just imagine the cost of doing this. Imagine how problematic this is. The people forced/choosing to do this are subjecting themselves to abuse, at some point or continuously.
And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?
Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.
The way I would handle it is to tell a
Re: (Score:3)
Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.
If your argument is that Google cannot afford to hire 150-200 additional employees, it's a pretty lousy argument.
And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?
Your failure is of imagination. No, no you don't. You let the community flag your misses. Just getting the vast majority of them would do the job.
Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.
That's because you're being disingenuous. Or dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you need to watch or listen to 150 hours of new content?
A dozen unpaid interns can adequately police all videos for advertisers.
1: A video doesn't have ads on it for the first 50,000 views. Adjust to the 98th or whatever percentile Google feels is worth losing ad revenue over vs. not hiring more people. (Even unpaid interns cost money.)
2: Once a video crawls out of the sewer and hits 50,000 views, or whatever magic number you have decided upon, toss it into a reviewer queue.
3: An unpaid inter
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt people who sit and spout racist shit into a camera are doing it for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt people who sit and spout racist shit into a camera are doing it for profit.
A lot aren't, but some want to spout racist shit full-time, (and likely have a hard time holding down a job anyway), and there are many others who are less ideological than greedy, and have discovered how remunerative clickbait can be, and what an easy target the Right is. Advertising dollars make this possible. That's how we ended up with all this fake news.
I get why many advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with this dreck but, and you can ask Anonymous Coward, racist assholes buy stuff, too. Luckil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fun things: He never fabricated any posts from her. He posted what he found online(which is why you always verify the source). He never encouraged his "legions of adolescent cranks" to attack her. She did however encourage her followers to attack him and other people in the past. She did and has posted racist material, directed at whites numerous times in the past. What's the difference though? Well she's black, and she's female. That seems to be the only difference. When someone posted her racist ga
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed...reputable sources only, please]
Re: (Score:2)
Please list 3 pieces of bullshit he has spouted off.
I don't know who this guy is beyond somebody that the left really, really hates. That makes me think he tells the truth and people cry about it because facts make them uncomfortable.
YouTube in an EVIL nutshell (Score:3)
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
The basis of the "insightful" moderation is eluding me. Par for today's Slashdot, though I remain more discouraged by the lack of actually "funny" comments. Or perhaps I should say dismayed by both?
Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube. For a lot of the user-generated content the adjective execrable is just too kind. Not sure about "dissenting opinions", but the only ones I remember noticing were on the wrong side of execrable.
These is some legit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube.
Advertisers' goal is typically to connect with stupid people who will buy shit they don't need. And what a coincidence: people too dumb to block ads on Youtube are spectacularly stupid, thus ideal for typically sophomoric marketing tactics designed to make people feel bad enough about themselves to buy some garbage.
Re:Alternative media. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an interesting article: http://www.freepresshouston.co... [freepresshouston.com]
'Free speech' has become a mantra for bullying the people whose opinion is that there are things they don't like and don't want to see; but that in itself becomes a kind of censorship. Not by the government, but by other groups - and it is extremely easy to bombard websites with updates that drown out opinions that you as a person or group don't like.
Ideally, if all people were honest and genuinely played by the rules of good citizenship etc, free speech would be truly free, but it only takes a small minority of bullies to take that away. Governments in democratic countries don't actually want to limit people's freedom of speech, because when people feel they can let off steam, they are less likely to want to upset things too much. It is the different bullying groups, the extremists, religious or otherwise, who talk the loudest about "freedom" and constitutional right, and they are also the ones who are working the hardest to take that away from the general public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt they would shut it down, it's just too valuable.
I think it's most likely that they'd change their policies (up to and including implementing a censorship policy that extends beyond its current one that only bans illegal and pornographic content) and if that fails, they'd sell it. But outright shutting it down just wouldn't make any sense.
Would be a shame if they went as far as increasing censorship policies though. I remember around the time of Benghazi when Hillary (rather blatantly) lied about tha
Re: Alternative media. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them. That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more, but the videos are not being censored or removed.
This has actually been happening for ages due to copyright issues. For example, a lot of Mario players on Twitch also post clips to YouTube, but they can't be monetized because Nintendo won't allow it and will file copyright claims if you try to. So they make their money from Twitch and Patreon and merchandise, rather than YouTube ads.
Sucks but you can't really force advertisers to give you money.
Re: (Score:3)
That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more
Unlikely. Some companies care about their "family" image, and will not want their ads associated with offensive content. Other advertisers don't care so much. So the obvious solution for Google is to offer a more expensive premium ad platform that excludes offensive videos, while offering a lower priced platform for companies that are more tolerant, and an even cheaper platform for those that actually want to target that audience.
The market will fix this. Disney will pay slightly more for ads, while Bre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some actual evidence for this, because on the face of it, it looks like a conspiracy theory.
Facts discount your opinion (Score:2)
I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them. That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more, but the videos are not being censored or removed.
This has actually been happening for ages due to copyright issues. For example, a lot of Mario players on Twitch also post clips to YouTube, but they can't be monetized because Nintendo won't allow it and will file copyright claims if you try to. So they make their money from Twitch and Patreon and merchandise, rather than YouTube ads.
Sucks but you can't really force advertisers to give you money.
While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them. You can be the best bread maker in the world, but if nobody pays you to make bread you are out of business and working for someone else as a shoe maker.
It's also a selective process. A person like Blaire White who happens to be a transgender women with the wrong political view is demonetized, but a person who does nothing but copy CNN videos and label them with extremist anti-Trump titles makes 100-2
Re: (Score:2)
While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them.
So if no-one wants to give you money to make videos, you should be entitled to it anyway? Advertisers should be forced to give them money?
Anyone who has support can set up a Patreon and take money directly. Yes, there is a gap between that level of support and starting out with zero, but there is no good solution to that. At least it's now cheaper and easier than ever to make and publish videos online, with a cost approaching zero.
Re: (Score:2)
The advertisers have a right to not have their ads associated with hate videos
This is so funny. Advertisers think people actually watch their ads. Let alone care.
Re: (Score:2)
There's ads on youtube?
Re: Alternative media. (Score:2, Funny)
violation of the first? the constitution is law that governs corporations? you don't know what the constitution or the bill of rights is, do ya frenchy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Removing racist opinions is a violation of the first amendment.
You fail.
The First Amendment applies to the government restricting or suppressing free speech.
A private entity like Google/Youtube has no such obligation whatsoever. They're free to disallow comments or content for whatever reason(s) they want.
Get a copy of the constitution and read it. Or have someone read it to you, you dipshit.
What videos exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've yet to see a single link to one of these "hate videos" that supposedly has these companies so pissed. While I've no doubt that there are hateful videos on Youtube (there are pretty much ALL KINDS of video on Youtube), are they actually citing specific videos here, or just reacting to vague reports that that OMG! there may be some assholes on Youtube (clutch the pearls!!)?
Re:What videos exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or an excuse to pull out of a failing venture?
The few online ads that make it through to me are usually totally irrelevant - except those that come with Google's search results as those are based on my location and current interest, i.e. what I happen to search for. The rest is mostly adblocked to begin with.
Also I have seen relevant ads on other sites - where the site itself sold the ads, to advertisers directly related to the topic at hand (a recycling site posting banner ads of recycling companies).Those were not adblocked, in part for not being part of an ad network so they fell off the radar. Not intrusive and relevant ads, that's totally fine with me.
So it sounds like Internet advertising has to go back to basics. Sites themselves selling ads to advertisers instead of pulling in random ads. Advertisers themselves looking for relevant places to show their ads, instead of having their ads plastered over random sites. At the same time those failing ad networks can stop their invasive tracking and profiling, as it's quite obvious that doesn't work either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The few online ads that make it through to me are usually totally irrelevant
So, slightly better than most other forms of advertising then... Like TV and billboards which are usually totally irrelevant. Also remember that AdBlock makes the tracking/profiling less effective so you are probably not getting typical results. People without ad blocking find ads creepily following them around the web and stuff like that.
All they really care about is that their ads don't appear next to overtly racist content, stuff that uses the n-word and is thus easy for journalists to find.
Re:What videos exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
For starters, here's an entire channel called Dindu Nuffins [youtube.com] with nothing but racist videos.
There are video series like Chimpout! episode 2 [youtube.com] (and 1, 3, 4, etc.) which encourage such insightful dialogue as:
"IF ANY MARSHAL WANTS TO COME DIE FOR A JEW, THEN COMEOVER AND TELL ME TO GO TO YOUR COURT OR SOMETHING EQUALLY AS STUPID. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS RHESUS MONKEY BLOOD RITUAL. THE NEGRO GRAVEN IMAGE AND THE ALBINO JEW GRAVEN IMAGE NEGRO CAN TAKE THEIR BLOOD DRINKING ELSE WHERRE."
There are thousands of apparent one-off videos like You stupid fucking n-ggers! [youtube.com]
Hatred is all over YouTube, just as it's all over the internet in general. I imagine the advertisers are responding to the phenomenon at large, and not to specific videos or artists, otherwise they could just request to have their ads pulled from those specific channels. (I have no idea whether or not there were ever ads running on the links above, I don't see YouTube ads thanks to uBlock.)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that's why they're also demonetizing anti-racism videos too right? Their definition of "not advertiser friendly" seems to be: "We're gonna jam our face into the politics of the day, because someone here feels uncomfortable with the subject matter."
Re: (Score:2)
There are thousands of apparent one-off videos like You stupid fucking n-ggers! [youtube.com]
I don't think that particular one is a good example of being "hate" (where hate means racism.) Sure, it treads on thin ice, and probably isn't something you'd want to place any ads on, but it sits more on the side of discourse. I suppose you could call it uncivil discourse.
And then there's this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:What videos exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
The advertisers don't want to police it themselves, checking individual channels for suitability. They want it to be like TV, where they say "we want X minutes/day, and only during family-friendly programming" and the network does the rest. That's kind of the whole point about how YouTube advertising works - Google has massive analytics and targeting capability which obviously they don't want to share with anyone, so you just get to select your parameters and they do the rest.
Re:What videos exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates? It's unlikely that these advertisers will stay away for long. But why not pull out of a deal temporarily and see if things look more favorable for the next contract?
I don't think there's a lot of love for the dominant position Google has in internet advertising, so of course other companies will take any opportunity they can get to stick it too them just a bit. This just seems like an excuse to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps also an effort to encourage Google to come back and offer these advertisers some discounted rates?
Chances are Google won't need to. I would bet that other companies will continue to buy those ad slots, regardless of what Walmart may do, now it may be true that the winning bids for those ads will be lower as a result of less competition from Walmart, etc, But this is all at Walmart's loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, not sure I agree. Walmart is a retail store, and won't really care whether they're advertising on YouTube or not. There are plenty of other advertisement avenues for them.
However, Google's billions are made almost *entirely* from online advertising. I'm not saying they'll necessarily take a significant hit from this, but you can bet that this is *much* more concerning to them, as it's affecting the reputation of their most important service, financially speaking. I'd bet we'll see some sort of proa
Re: (Score:2)
Even in situations where everything is pretty banal; advertisers generally want some targeting of the impressions they are paying for to the audience they are trying to reach. If Google can't demonstrate an ability to avoid certain contexts on request, why w
Re:What videos exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)
The first article cites these examples
Ads for Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Toyota, Dish Network, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Geico unit and Google's own YouTube Red subscription service appeared on racist videos with the slur "n-----" in the title as of Thursday night. Those ads ran before two videos that dub a racist song over videos of former first lady Michelle Obama or Chicago rapper Chief Keef. The videos, posted by the same account, have been viewed more than 425,000 times and 260,000 times, respectively.
Another video titled "Black people in their natural habitat," with a racial slur in the description, played monkey noises over footage of black men in prison and images of black civil-rights leaders Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Google showed ads for Amazon, Microsoft and GM's Chevrolet unit before or during that video.
If it is really true that uploaders have used the "n" word and other racial slurs either in the video title or in the video description, then Google could easily prevent ads from playing over those videos.
Re:What videos exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is just adapting to make what they publish generally more suitable for ads. The relevant model here seems to be Edward Herman's 'Propaganda Model' ,
which is generally considered to be about news and claims that news media are mainly following business logic: they adapt to get along with their advertizers, with government sources, with powerful players that could harm them. The result is that media are very compliant with the dominant powers and that journalists are selected for how well they fit int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads for Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Toyota, Dish Network, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Geico unit and Google's own YouTube Red subscription service appeared on racist videos with the slur "n-----" in the title as of Thursday night.
Another video titled "Black people in their natural habitat," with a racial slur in the description, played monkey noises over footage of black men in prison and images of black civil-rights leaders Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Google showed ads for Amazon, Microsoft and GM's Chevrolet unit before or during that video.
Google showed ads for PepsiCo's Quaker Foods unit, Microsoft's Minecraft videogame and FX Networks' "Fargo" on a 15-minute video titled "EXPOSING THE JEWISH LIES." The video showed a sermon from Steven Anderson, the founder of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed a hate group for promoting views that the Holocaust was a hoax and gay people should be killed.
Part of the reason the companies are pulling support could be because they want to negotiate a better deal on advertising costs. Incidentally I couldn't post this until I starred out the n-word in my post, apparently Slashdot censors that.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a vested interested in traditional media conglomerates? If they get the eyeballs, why shouldn't they get their share of the revenue? Funding these people keeps them producing videos which gets them millions of eyeballs which gets advertisers business.
This is how censorship works in America. (Score:2, Informative)
Because of that pesky first amendment, the actual government can't create Ministries of Truth to arbitrate reality like some European countries are trying to do [nytimes.com] (not to mention that the people everyone wants to censor currently control all branches of government). Luckily though, the wonders of unchecked free market capitalism have created an environment where the most notorious thoughcriminals rely on advertising revenue to survive financially, and two private companies with no legal responsibilities towa
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship: n. Where someone gives you a free platform to promote your views but won't actually pay you.
Crikey you're thin skinned if you think someone not paying you to put up videos is censorship. That's all that's happening here: YouTube is stopping them being paid advertising revenue.
Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, though it is antithetical ti Google's business model, they could actually hire human reviewers.
If that becomes the case, I'm sure Google will be in front of congress again - pleading for more H1-Bs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year - ignoring the human costs, that's a very large turn-over if you need to hire and train 20.000 new people yearly.
Re: (Score:3)
Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year
There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.
Let them all leave... (Score:2)
It's "too hard to fix" (Score:2)
Until it starts costing them money, at least. Once that starts happening, then I'm sure Google will suddenly start finding ways to keep advertisers' ads off of certain videos / channels.
Facebook did more or less the same thing, as I recall. A fix is always unfeasible until not having that fix starts costing them dollars...
Why do they not match ads to intended audience? (Score:2)
Goog;le already know a lot about the people viewing videos, and presumably each advertiser has a desired demographic for the ad. So why do Google not match the two? Put adverts against the videos which are being viewed by the particular target audience of the advert. This should satisfy both the advertiser, whose ads are being seen by the target demographic, and viewers who will be seeing a greater proportion of relevant ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Good! Now they know how it feels!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope it hurts, I hope it really hurts!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should apologise to Drew Curtis (www.fark.com) and send him the advertising revenue they withheld for "inappropriate content".
http://www.fark.com/comments/b... [fark.com]
Care to buy ad time on a platform based on random (Score:5, Insightful)
YT: Care to buy ad time on a platform based on random people uploading videos based on whatever randomness they're into?
Companies: Yes!
YT: OK, thanks!
Companies: Hey! How come these random videos we're advertising over contain all manner of random stuff?!
YT: Um, duh?
Re: (Score:2)
Duh is not the right reaction when dealing with a company that specialises itself in automated analytics and TARGETED advertising.
Re: Care to buy ad time on a platform based on ran (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's already been pointed out elsewhere (Score:2)
Hate videos == PewDiePie (Score:3, Insightful)
What is ridiculous is that these holier than thou multinationals call PewDiePie videos "hate videos".
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm boycotting Amazon because Pewdiepie pointed at something!"
Said two people ever.
Battlestar Galactica Quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone on here once pointed out a relevant quote from Commander William Adama:
I think this is the place where diplomats warn that 'there is a risk of us moving in that direction' when they mean to describe the current situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Woops, that belongs in the terrifying anti riot vehicle thread.
Re: (Score:2)
My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army. Your quote doesn't. My quote is directly relevant for the subject of militarization of the police.
There's this dilemma where either someone appears smart by saying something that sounds clever, or make a simple and clear statement but not be taken seriously. I tried to make this as mundane and clear as possible. And I like the quote.
Re: (Score:2)
My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.
Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.
The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.
Re: (Score:2)
You're criticizing my quote for not saying something else as well?
In any case you're underestimating the reach of that quote. When the police militarizes, in attitude and in gear, it does not only cause a change in relationship, it is also a symptom. It's a very bad sign.
If the (US ) police behave just like the military , it's because the situation has deteriorated too far . I'm not talking about bad cops that are protected by those in command. You can see that in the rules of engagement.A US cop can and do
Hurt Google in the wallet. (Score:2)
This is where you hurt Google, in the wallet, because reporting hate videos does nothing, as long as they get views (and ad revenue).
Was nice while it lasted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're all virtue signaling because that's what their idiotic marketers/officers who graduated from sjw.edu think they must do. All they really need to do is say "we like people who like our products" and leave it at that. The moment they take a position on contentious issues they lose market share because they're going to alienate some group of people who were perhaps buying their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media wants to use SJW cover to transform into traditional media online with having a ban/report policy.
The SJW "users" are making the sites safe for TV like media, series, movies globally.
Re: (Score:2)
The coca cola company is an SJW now? Seriously what the fuck even is an NEW in your mind?
Re: (Score:2)
Armies of clever snowflakes finding a way to cut funding to fascists.
Simple solution: The snowflakes should become unemployed.
Result: No more funds for fascist snowflakes who prefer to riot to shut down speech they don't like!
See? Easy-peasy!
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
They don't care about SJWs, they just don't want their squeaky clean brands "tainted" by anything that may even remotely sound like something wrong.
Prove em that the so called SJW thing is also hateful and hurting their brand (not that hard really), and you will see they get rid of em just as quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
The real racists are anyone that think and divide the population by the race instead of personal merits and views.
And there's no color or specific gender required to do that, just a lack of deeper thought and a general willingness to let some stupid group think for you.
But if i would give the SJW a color, i would say that most are actually white, due how they can easily fall for the "shame of being born white".
Re: (Score:3)
According to Wikipedia, The Times AND Wall Street Journal are both owned by News Corp. Coincidence they both did Youtube hit pieces in a short timeframe? Is Rupert Murdoch above such things?
Re:Hit Job on Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, News Corp has been doing this for years. The reason is Murdoch thinks Google and Google News specifically is killing the news industry, and that the iPad will save it (or at least he thought that a few years ago). It's pure inter-corporate warfare being played out through manipulation of public opinion. The WSJ in particular are experts at it.
Re:Hit Job on Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just over a month ago, the WSJ did a hitjob on Pewdiepie, one of Youtube's most-subscribed personalities, causing his ad funding and Youtube Red channel to get cancelled.
Just over a month ago, PewDiePie did something stupid that could easily convince a moron that he is an anti-semite. Because it was so stupid, and he made no attempt to actually be clever and was instead only incendiary as per usual, he lost his ad funding and youtube red channel, and will have to find his own soapbox. If he had anything worth saying, he would have been able to find someone else to pick him up, but he doesn't so he didn't. That's the whole story.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's just that Pewdiepie's gimmick is making really "edgey" videos that are not what these companies want to advertise on, and they are upset about it.
Nay, conspiracy theory makes more sense.