4 ms·

Surely 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 Go

Surely 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Totally 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.

csydas 10y ago

I 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 ago
Totally 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.