Still More Advertisers Pull Google Ads Over YouTube Hate Videos (morningstar.com)

"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."

Comments

Alternative media.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

Re: Alternative media.

[ArmoredDragon]

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 that Innocence of Muslims video being the cause of those people dying, there was huge pressure from the US government and some of the actors for Google to delete it, and they stood their ground and refused on the basis of freedom of speech. That was quite a commendable thing because of the costs they had to incur for defending what was otherwise a really poorly made video (from what I heard, I never watched it.)

I think in an ideal world, any and all content should remain accessible and shouldn't be subject to deletion, (Reddit) nor should any unpopular opinions be criminalized (Europe, who have failed to learn from the past) no matter how stupid it is. Even if the idiots are given a forum, the truth will be vindicated.

That is not to say or imply that they should have the right to sponsorship though -- far from it.

Re:Alternative media.

[jandersen]

Here's an interesting article: http://www.freepresshouston.co...

'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.

What videos exactly?

[elrous0]

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?

[wvmarle]

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:What videos exactly?

[Dutch Gun]

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:What videos exactly?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's almost like Google has a search problem on their hands.

Re:What videos exactly?

[AmiMoJo]

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:Why the media blitz over this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

But Dissent is Now HATE

[Kunedog]

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...

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[AmiMoJo]

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 to their actions, because they are too inconsistent to be rational.

Re:But Dissent is Now HATE

[Raenex]

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.

Care to buy ad time on a platform based on random

[_Shorty-dammit]

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?

Hate videos == PewDiePie

[blind biker]

What is ridiculous is that these holier than thou multinationals call PewDiePie videos "hate videos".

Re:Hit Job on Google?

[drinkypoo]

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:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell

[drinkypoo]

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: Care to buy ad time on a platform based on ran

[Zero__Kelvin]

They Target the audience successfully, unless your claim is that racists don't like Wal Mart. The complaint is that those companies don't like some of their potential and actual customers, not that their ads are wasted on them.