Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on 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.

76 comments

  1. Next thing is... by hughbar · · Score: 1

    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'.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
    1. Re:Next thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe the UK could reduce its tax rate on the population so that it has more money to spend in the economy.

    2. Re:Next thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all in the last sentence of the article:
      "Analysts have said the scandal could benefit traditional media publishers such as newspapers and broadcasters, which can promote their services as a trusted and safe online platform. "

      Traditional British media publishers create another fake outrage storm that just so happens to benefit them financially. Talk about a conflict of interest ...

    3. Re:Next thing is... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:Next thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just start taxing the use of limited natural resources.

  2. Publicity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought "no publicity is bad publicity - just make sure they spell the name correctly!" I wish these manipulat^H advertising people would settle on a consistent position.

    Besides .. Youtube has ads?? Does anyone here on Slashdot view it without a good ad blocker?

    1. Re:Publicity? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      This is more to do with google losing paying customers hand over fist

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  3. Why is it a scandal? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case the analogy goes like this. I ask the advertiser to put up posters for my bakery. The advertiser algorithmically locate some hate-speech billboards and put my posters next to them.

    2. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a scandal because google has been quietly age-gating youtube videos for the last few months in preparation for launching "restricted mode." The YT community has reacted badly to this so Google placed a few phone-calls to choice punters to drum up a bit of controversy as and excuse for they to push through whatever the fuck changes they like and be accountable to no-one.

    3. Re:Why is it a scandal? by gnick · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this "restricted mode" thing? Will it enable tentacle hentai porn on YouTube?

    5. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even worse. The building on which the racist graffiti are attached belongs to the ad agency.

    6. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      I sure hope so, yes.

      > Would the bill-board provider be responsible?

      Ahhh... now *that* would be total bliss.

    7. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a "scandal" because journalists make it one. They've established themselves as the Ministry of Truth and brigade against anything they deem verboten. Reporting is so last century. You have to educate and control.

    8. Re:Why is it a scandal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banishing thin skinned losers like yourself to north korea would be bliss..

    10. Re: Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "BBC to charge more" for what? Certainly not advertisements. Lol

    11. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a faggot

    12. Re:Why is it a scandal? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    13. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kid-safe mode, or rather brand safe mode, as in most advertisers will presumably elect to only advertise on non-restricted videos and those than don't will be able to drive down prices on the remainder.

      Of course the whole thing is the usual combination of automated and crowd sourced, because fuck employing actual people. There are perfectly harmless channels who've had their entire catalog wiped when you enable restricted for no obvious reason.

    14. Re:Why is it a scandal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Try viewing the BBC News website from outside the UK. There are ads.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Why is it a scandal? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Would the bill-board provider be responsible?"

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

    16. Re:Why is it a scandal? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      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.

  4. Wow by whitlocktj · · Score: 2

    Much ado about nothing.

    1. Re:Wow by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the usual case of British people going out of their way to be butthurt about something.

    1. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "homophobic and anti-Semitic videos"

      Sounds to me like queer Jews are being "butthurt" not Britishers.

    2. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure Islamophobia.

    3. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised.

      Butthurt-by-proxy, i.e. being offended because they think that someone else could be offended, is the favorite pastime of some idiots these days.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Queer"
      "Butt hurt"

      Somehow I don't think that's what they call it.

    5. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I said, queers.

    6. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      aka the virtual signal.

    7. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      aka the virtue signal

    8. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, most queers I know find fag jokes funny as fuck.

      Then again, the worst Anti-Semite jokes I ever heard were told by a Jew...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is virtue signaling something they don't like on stormfront?

    10. Re: Looking for a reason to be butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most queers I know find fag jokes funny as fuck.

      Then again, the worst Anti-Semite jokes I ever heard were told by a Jew...

      Most n*gger jokes I know were told to me from a black guy. Turns out, not everyone takes this whole "group identity - you must be offended!" deal seriously, viewing it as accomplishing nothing more than political division. If we learned to be lighthearted and laugh at our differences and stereotypes, maybe then we'd stop fighting about them.

      I'm personally of Mexican heritage. I love the one about the Mexicans not having the Olympics because all the Mexicans who can run, swim, and jump are already in the USA. Yes, I laughed at that. I didn't get upset. Lemme check now ... nope, no harm done. None at all.

    11. Re:Looking for a reason to be butthurt by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The interaction with the US idea of freedom of speech will be corrected in the global marketplace by adding more SJW staff.
      UK net users will be returned to safe tax payer funded propaganda and the normal approved public private partnership content.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Racists gotta eat too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So whats the deal? Stop hating on racists!

    1. Re:Racists gotta eat too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So whats the deal? Stop hating on racists!

      But you see, the non-haters need to hate the haters, to show what tolerant non-haters they are, or else the haters might keep hating.

  7. Targeted Ads by wafflemonger · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Targeted Ads by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Targeted Ads by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Targeted Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the other way around. Guardian is advertising on YouTube. It's not like the crazy loony bombers are advertising on Guardian via Google. Now Guardian doesn't like it that their ads appear in crazy loony videos.

      But maybe the Skynet has really become self-aware and is trying to convert the loonies. Hey, I find you like watching mad bombers and beheadings. Now try this liberal newspaper and educate yourself!

    4. Re:Targeted Ads by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

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

      So, working as intended?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Targeted Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google knows a lot of detail about the people using YouTube, so why can they not put the adverts with videos which are 'popular' with the advertiser's target demographics? This should not need them to watch the videos or even be too concerned about the subject matter, just select those which are watched by the target audience.

    6. Re:Targeted Ads by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re: Targeted Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say Guardian readers aren't interested in Islamic propaganda, but they are interested in the effects of Russian propaganda on us elections and perhaps Russian influence on current admin.

  8. Cash is king by Oxygen99 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  9. When will sites who run them be responsible by houghi · · Score: 2

    I will take /. as an example. It loads ads of different size and loads them in two times and so slow that I often click on an add by accident. No, I am unable to install an adblocker. Yes, I know it is stupid my company allows me to surf /. and does not block ads, but why would they? This leads me to my second point.

    When there are ads with some hacking in it, websites say they are not responsible. I think they should be. I am not saying that the ad syndicates should not be responsible. I say that if you host content YOU should be responsible as well. And that will include using an Iframe that pulls content from an unknown source.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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, but only in the same capacity as the affected companies: as a paying advertiser.

    2. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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 to be a considerable competitor for the various social platforms.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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 advertisers don't want to be associated with insane bigotry, and it's completely reasonable that Google take steps to accommodate this.

    6. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      Freedom for boobs! First amendment!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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 about those that debunk charlatans, snake-oil peddlers, religious nuts or others trying to bring their version of "the truth" to the people? Today, what we have is some people posting their, let's say incredibly well researched, conspiracies about chemtrails, the illuminati and other secret societies, flat earths and various other things, and you will of course get those that debunk them. That is, essentially, what an argument is like. One presents his theories, the other one refutes them and presents his, followed, hopefully, by another answer to it and so on.

      If this "hate speech must be banned" trend catches on, you will find both sides increasingly locked into attempts to silence the other side by disabling them from actually monetizing so they essentially have to stop. Yes, that means we get to hear a lot less bullshit on YouTube, but at the same time it also means way less diversity. What we will eventually get is what we already have in various other media and social platforms: One side of the argument is forced one way or another to leave, turning the whole thing essentially into a huge echo chamber for one sided reinforcement.

      I wouldn't want this to happen on YouTube, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Wootery · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:No money for you, dissident! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Different people have different perspectives by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I suppose it would help if there was only one ad person for a consistent position to have a chance. This would by no means be any guarantee, however.

  12. British "free speech" norms by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    In Britain, apparently quoting the Bible 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 term "hate-filled" seems to mean something very different over there.

    1. Re:British "free speech" norms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context is important. Threats and harassment are not "free" speech but criminal acts.

    2. Re:British "free speech" norms by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      You're using the law to justify itself. Why are they criminal acts?

    3. Re:British "free speech" norms by tbannist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:British "free speech" norms by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      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 offends someone.

      You should try actually being honest instead of peddling lies.

      It's perfectly alright for Britain to draw the line between free speech and hate crimes differently from the US, and it's perfectly fine for me to point that out. That's also simply a fact.

      it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.

    5. Re:British "free speech" norms by tbannist · · Score: 1

      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 not even attempt to present the complainant's story), but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

      it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.

      The sad thing is you seem to think that what the defendant claims happened is what actually happened, even when the facts are right there contradicting his story. So try reading and understanding the entire article next time, before you start spreading bullshit around. You duped yourself into believing a Fake News story here, and you have no one to blame but yourself for exposing the fact you are an easily manipulated fool.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    6. Re:British "free speech" norms by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      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 restrictions on free speech and in which citizens accept such restrictions.

      Again, this is just one of many examples of how US and UK differ on the question of hate speech. For you to try to argue that the UK has free speech just like the US is completely out of touch with reality.

  13. Wait until they discover the comments by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  14. Do people make that association? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Do people make that association? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      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 publish.
      Then the US "internet" happened and the UK played along with freedom for a while. Now the UK SJW want control back.
      Time to reshape the "internet" so it fits back in with the policy and culture of SJW in the UK.
      Internet in the UK will return to what UK television, publishing was in the UK in the 1950-90's
      A lot of new content but its all UK government approved.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Ads aren't a problem using... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have built into the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  16. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "money no the smell"