11 ms·
AT&T, other U.S. advertisers quit Google, YouTube over extremist videos
- zer00eyz 10y agoAT&T... the company that advertises on fox news, that company. Pot and the fucking kettle right there.
- tdb7893 10y agoI don't agree with Fox news but they are generally a legitimate news source and really shouldn't be compared to stuff like terrorist propaganda.
- zer00eyz 10y ago> but they are generally a legitimate news source Generally they aren't. Infotaiment plausibly. Just because you mix a smattering of fact with logical fallacy does not make it legitimate, yet people believe it... if that doesn't fit the bill of "propaganda" I don't know what does.
- hueving 10y agoDepends on if you are referring to main news programs during the day or the opinion shows in the evening. Clearly the latter is going to be biased, but the news programs during the day is just facts as far as I can tell (I only see it in the airports since I don't have cable).
- golemotron 10y ago> if that doesn't fit the bill of "propaganda" I don't know what does. This election was a big switcheroo. Historically, FoxNews (FauxNews) had very biased coverage and not much balance. Now CNN has taken their place. Their webpage reads like a scandal sheet. Everything that Trump or the Republicans do is wrong. On Fox you'll see some criticism of Trump. I think it's explained by the fact Fox was always ambivalent about Trump because there's a base/establishment split in the Republican Party. CNN was "all in" against him from the beginning.
- zer00eyz 10y ago> Fox was always ambivalent about Trump Not really... Sean Hanity, one of fox's biggest draws, was arguably actively campaigning for Trump. > had very biased coverage and not much balance. Now CNN has taken their place. Their webpage reads like a scandal sheet. Yes CNN has become infotainment, MSNBC is slightly better. Your comparing having an agenda (CNN) to outright spin, refusing to cover relevant topics (Fox). CNN looks like a scandal sheet because we have had nothing but scandals and controversy for the last 100 days.
- vkou 10y agoCheerleading a liar's war that killed hundreds of thousands of people is terrorist propaganda. It's not that different from the lies that extremist recruiters/leaders spew to gain supporters. It's also 6pm on a network news channel.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- londons_explore 10y agoNote that many of the companies say they have withdrawn "non-search" ads. For many advertizers, that could be a tiny fraction of their budget.
- greglindahl 10y agoIt's important to remember that non-search advertising is a small business for Google compared to search ads.
- londons_explore 10y agoThe "extremist" videos in question here aren't exactly niche. Some have 30 million views. Thats fairly mainstream. I watched a few (with english translations), and while they are religious in nature, the few I sampled didn't seem anything out of the ordinary for youtube.
- cpncrunch 10y agoWhat was the video about?
- Lendal 10y agoExactly this. The screenshot in the article shows two women holding a black flag with writing in a language I assume is Arabic. They don't bother to translate what the flag says. Is all Arabic content extremist now?
- mi100hael 10y agoLet's not stick our heads in the sand, here. That particular design has been widely used by Daesh.
- londons_explore 10y agoI suspect the recent blocking of ads on LGBT video creators is part of Googles response to this. It's rather hard to pick a subset of videos which no advertisers consider offensive. Social norms in one country might vary widely from another country or culture. It looks like Google is getting criticized from both sides here, and there is no middle ground.
- ganfortran 10y agoWell money will talk eventually. Advertisers will win.
- thanksgiving 10y ago> Well money will talk eventually. Advertisers will win. I would imagine they will come to some middle ground. Can advertisers afford to not be on YouTube much less AdWords or DoubleClick properties?
- ganfortran 10y agoAdWords is still like 80% of Google's ads revenue though, and it has no problem of mismatch. However point is, they are not gone completely. Big advertisers have a much bigger say in business than people would usually think. I won't be surprised that Google might have dedicated agent or group of agents deal with advertisers like AT&T. So I guess, next Google will prioritize more aggressive censoring tools to please them.
- doktrin 10y agoMost commenters here appear to think that Google is holding all the cards over these poor schmucks like ATT, but I think you're onto something. Google might be a force of nature, but their income stream is and has always been vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised if they have to bend on this much more than HN thinks.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cpncrunch 10y agoIf 98% of flagged videos are reviewed with 24 hours, it raises the question of why these videos are not getting deleted. Are they not getting flagged? Is google not reviewing them quickly enough? Are they not really as objectionable as the advertisers claim (as londons_explore's comment alludes to)?
- 13of40 10y agoI suspect there's a vast grey area between what's actually against the terms of service and what some companies want their ads shown next to. For example, a video calling for Muslims to return to the middle East to fight in the jihad, with no actual graphic content, might not violate the TOS, but British Airways probably doesn't want their ad in the same zip code as that.
- williamscales 10y agoSure but then that just shifts the question to why aren't t ads simply manually disabled on those videos if they are being reviewed already?
- cpncrunch 10y agoBut why disable ads on a video that doesn't violate ToS? What they need is a "religious content" category, so people can choose not to have their videos there.
- williamscales 10y agoI mean, I think that disabling those ads is the entire point here. Ads are showing up on videos that don't violate the TOS but that advertisers don't want to be associated with. If 98% of the videos in question are getting reviewed anyway Google has a simple meatspace solution.
- noodly 10y agoThat's great - the less ads the better ;) Looks like extremist videos make internet great again.
- MK999 10y agoAmazon recently banned the sale of so-called 'holocaust denier' books (on March 8), seems that youtube is about to follow suit.
- eberkund 10y agoWhat do you mean "so-called"?
- MK999 10y agoI try to avoid using Orwellian terms.
- throwaway729 10y agoWhat's Orwellian about "holocaust denier"? 1984 is in very large part about historical revisionism. If anything, the term "holocaust denier" is the opposite of Orwellian, in that it specifically stigmatizes revisionism.
- MK999 10y agoIt stigmatizes inquiry, it's shorthand for 'heretic', pariah.
- tallanvor 10y agoI'm sorry, but calling a holocaust denier a denier doesn't stigmatize inquiry. There is no "both sides" here. The holocaust is a fact, documented by many first person accounts on both sides as well as physical evidence, much of which can be experienced by the remains of several of the camps. You could debate some of the numbers - was it at the lower end of the estimate or the higher end, but pretending that there is any legitimate reason to claim that the holocaust didn't happen is denying fact.
- reader5000 10y ago
- shiftpgdn 10y agoI'd be curious of the ramifications if Google were to retaliate by delisting their sites from the search index or direct to competitor sites.
- brokencode 10y agoI think ramifications would be very serious for Google, since they rely on public trust and good will. There is little barrier to switching search engines and many alternatives.
- deelowe 10y agoI'd imagine it would be something serious involving the DOJ.
- wapz 10y agoThey could definitely lower the search results and could definitely show the competitors if you searched for them without reprimand I believe. I remember when Google put google flights over competitors there was some legal action by the FTC but it was dropped [0]. [0] https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/20/ftc-report-google-search-bias/ https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/20/ftc-report-google-search...
- simplyluke 10y agoHuge loss in public confidence that would be far worse for Google than anything they could gain from such a retaliation.
- doktrin 10y agoSounds like a great way to instigate a US-based antitrust suit
- grigjd3 10y agoI would stop using Google, and so would a lot of people.
- cgb223 10y agoIf only companies would do the same thing with Twitter They'd sooner delete controversial republican personalities accounts before the confirmed ISIS recruiting accounts Not that I agree with either, you'd just think the latter would take significantly more precedent
- Allower 10y agoYeah, i would love if twitter had fewer ad's. I fucking block every single account behind a promoted tweet. Fuck you adverts, they are a waste of human attention in every imaginable way.
- andrewclunn 10y agoWorried about dandruff during your beheading video? Try Johnson & Johnson's "No more tears."
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoJihad making you thirsty? Coca Cola Bud Light "Down for Whatever" ads beside a video of a firefight in Syria Domestic truck ads would go great beside VBIED videos considering how few VBIEDs make it to their target.
- Allower 10y agoexcellent. fewer ads for garbage businesses. sounds good to me. keep listing extremist content, not like anyone with a brain watches that crap.
- xupybd 10y agoI think this will pass. Google's audience will pull back the advertisers. Google holds the keys to the castle here.
- yabatopia 10y agoWith all the ad profiling and targeting going on, is it really a coincidence that certain ads appear next to somewhat extreme content? Maybe some brands and extremist groups do share the same audience? That fact can be hard to swallow for the marketing department of a company: 'Apparently 80 percent of our customers are white supremacists or hate gays.' Or something like: 'It seems that 1 in 3 of our shampoo buyers like beheading videos.' Consequently those companies pulling advertising on Google and YouTube should stop selling their products and services to extremist or similar inappropriate customers. Or put a disclaimer on their products or in their TOS: 'This product can not be sold to, or used by, viewers of beheading videos, Muslim extremists, Paul Ryan voters or Breitbart readers.'
- devdoomari 10y agoI don't think it's about 'stop selling to extremists', but rather about 'having my image associated to extremist-contents'.
- synicalx 10y agoTo be fair, it can't possibly be easy for Google work out what ads are appropriate for what content. I mean some will be easy like a crap music video and Beats, but there are some videos that just aren't ad material. "Ok we've got a large topless woman covered in slogans, holding a sign, and screaming at a crowd. Maybe.... Nescafe?"
- FLUX-YOU 10y agoContext is difficult but maybe if you can't establish an easy context, you don't run ads from major buyers. Another option is separating classes of customers into major buyers like AT&T and everyone else -- AT&T's ads only go onto curated and high reputation channels. AT&T and other advertisers frankly seem to have not understood the risk of a site which plays their ads on videos that anyone in the world can upload. Or, they have tolerated or controlled the risk up until now and ads + terrorist videos have become a big enough news story that Google has been made into the fall guy.
- ignoramceisblis 10y agoSurely companies enter into these agreements knowing what service Google will provide for them, right? On top of that, I don't think many people believe even Google has the technology and resources to scan every bit of content they show and determine if it's "extreme"--according to a particular company. This is a case of companies catching flak from potential customers for being associated with something offensive to those vocal customers, and wanting to distance themselves from it. So they try to shoot the messenger: Google/Youtube. They either knew what they were getting into when they signed the contract (because "We'll give you money. Just shove our company down the gullet of the public."), or they're inept.
- csydas 10y agoI don't think that the response is entirely unreasonable; Google doesn't have to comply if they don't want to, and it will just be a game of who flinches first after that. It's not really unprecedented to request a change in policy or to try to influence a service you're using. I agree with you that this should just be an accepted cost of algorithm based advertising, but I don't see the response as particularly unreasonable. The companies want a change in how it works, and they're trying to throw their financial weight behind it. I mean, it's not like they're suing to break contract, they're just not continuing to use the product because it no longer is serving their needs. I'm really not trying to be a corporate apologist here - whether their ads are there or not I won't see them so I frankly don't care. But I'm not sure why there is a condescending attitude towards the corporations for trying to make a change, and then stopping use of a product they deem to no longer meet their needs.
- ignoramceisblis 10y agoTotally understood, and agreed: companies are allowed to use (or not) whatever services they want, and they will ask for whatever they want. My original comment was made to point out: they got what they (should have) expected, and now they're dealing with damage control. Which I would fully expect them to do.
- raverbashing 10y agoGoogle seems to think algorithms can solve everything As in the case of maps, it is clearly not the case. They actually need humans, with critical sense (those are more expensive) to check case by case Videos can also get input from the users but a) this is prone for abuse and b) they need better inputs than like/not like and bad cases are harder to report
- wslh 10y agoGoogle has a tracking record of not giving support and relying on the community for Q&A. Which means there is no real answers to different concerns. Some solutions exist but Tom from Minnesota or John from New York give bad responses and someone else trust them because these answers are in the Google support site.
- pilsetnieks 10y agoCuriously, a decidedly tech-unsavvy publication from where I live, described this event as "companies are boycotting YouTube because extremist videos are displayed alongside their ads." Which unintentionally describes YouTube as what it actually is.
- shshhdhs 10y agoIf it's correct, why do you say it's unintentional?
- mi100hael 10y agoPresumably, YouTube at least wants you to think the videos are the main feature and the ads are just a small add-on, so you would expect the article to say "companies are boycotting YouTube because their ads are displayed along side extremist videos." The wording the author quoted makes it sound like the ads are the main featured content.
- reader5000 10y agoThe internet is a medium of communication like air and should not be subject to advertiser brand management. Advertising really shouldnt even be the primary method of financing; it should all be paid for with some sort of tax.
- nerdponx 10y agoInteresting idea. Is YouTube any less of public good then a library?
- lewiscollard 10y ago> it should all be paid for with some sort of tax. Which in practice works out as the state deciding what things should and should not be funded and, therefore, seen. Even if the current global political climate was not so awful I would still think this is a terrible idea.
- watmough 10y agoI rather thought that Google advertised to the person using YouTube, and the video is just the vehicle. Thus, you'd expect ads targeted at you to appear on any video you watch, even extremist ones. This may be quite difficult for Google to 'fix'.
- randomgyatwork 10y agoConspiracy theory, this is related to the changing dynamics of popular media. These advertisers are actually concerned about money going to non-approved media sources. The extremists videos are a happy coincidence / excuse for them to act on.
- AJ007 10y agoHave any other these same brands bailed on Facebook because of live rape, murder, or suicide streams? http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/gangbanger-facebook-lives-his-own-murder/ http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/gangbanger-facebook-lives-his-o... http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chi... Consumers create the content they consume now. Big brands that decide they need to opt out of Youtube also need to opt out of Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Upon doing so, they will be forgotten. Ben Thompson at Stratechery has had a lot of thoughtful things to say about brands and their relationship to television. It was a virtuous cycle not just for mega brands and content producers but also retail. Internet advertising disrupted that. ( Good read: https://stratechery.com/2016/dollar-shave-club-and-the-disruption-of-everything/ https://stratechery.com/2016/dollar-shave-club-and-the-disru... ) On another note, I've been wondering for years how long it would be until advertisers would decide maybe they don't want their brands pre-rolling in front of snuff films on Daily Mail and other curated news platforms.