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: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.

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

[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?

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: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.