Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
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!!)?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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 (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 toward free speech and a track record of bowing to mob pressure and/or their own political agendas now have a near-monopoly on ad sales.
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.
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...
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.
I run several chat forums and every now and then Google changes the rules, one week something is fine, the next it isn't and you're responsible to scrub all that no longer complies. Last time they did this, there was 23 million posts across several chat forums to review or risk losing my Adsense account, to which there is little recourse.
I hope it hurts, I hope it really hurts!
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?
What is ridiculous is that these holier than thou multinationals call PewDiePie videos "hate videos".
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
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.
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?
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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 legitimate and good content, but it's mostly teasers and since it's purpose is to advertise itself, then any other ads are just confusing the issue, and my feeling is that most of the teaser content is free of ads, or at least the ads are not intrusive. Things like snippets from HBO or paid news channels.
The rest of the wannabe good content is pirated stuff. Much of that is reduced below good by the insertion of lots of intrusive ads, obviously for cases where the pirate is profiting that way, but YouTube has an obvious vested interest in supporting that sort of thing as long as some sucker is paying for the ads. Then there is a HUGE amount of fake piracy that is just intended to lure you to an installer where your computer will get pwned. Offensive enough, but downright EVIL when it is targeting innocent children, and LOTS of it has been doing exactly that for many years.
I used to waste some time trying to fight against it, but I eventually realized the google is too EVIL to care now, as long as they are making money off it. The motto about "Don't be evil" is long dead in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." However there is a real threat to the google's new mission statement. They had to revise it when they realized there was too much information out there and that "useful" was a complicated notion. The new mission of the google is to make the advertisers' information available and the utility function is the corporations' profits. Humans are only incidentally involved.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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".
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 of the September 11th attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is Wahhabist, and so is the Islamic State.
I hear Trump went to Saudi Arabia to kiss ass a couple weeks ago. Isn't interesting that at this height of anti-Islamic sentiment, our leaders are embracing the Saudis? Funny how this idea of Wahhabism has had zero press since 9/11 too.
By the way, if you want a real introduction to Islamic history, pick up a book called 'Destiny Disrupted'. I am the mushy liberal who welcomes all -law abiding- muslims, but I recommend the book in the sense of 'know your enemy'. It's not a book to change anyone's opinions. It may give you some perspective on exactly how far the Islamic world has fallen. It will refine your priorities of what sects to keep an eye on.
Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else. The religion is fucked, and more or less incompatible with either the modern concept of the nation-state and generally prohibitive of democracy. But western civilizations beat the Islamic world so badly in the 18th and 19th centuries that we don't even bother to teach that part of history. The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories. And if you'll take a look at (e.g.) the civil war going on in Afghanistan, it will hopefully become clear that these people are mostly dangerous to themselves (especially in the sense that sharia law does not apply to non-Muslims). However, to the degree that there is a threat, let's do be specific about which country is exporting terrorism and terrorist ideas.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.