4 ms·
The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them
by this_user 9y ago
The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising.
Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.
- gnu8 9y agoI wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- malnourish 9y agoOr the company might just die. If you want to "punish" them, use or create a different site.
- pkaye 9y agoYou can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.
- Scoundreller 9y agoIf they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I. I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit. Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.
- slivym 9y agoIt's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK. The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant. So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages. You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.
- otakucode 9y agoThat was the excuse YouTube used. It was a lie. A plain fabrication. We know this because Alphabet released their earnings and made crystal clear that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred at all. There was no dip in advertising revenue. In fact, it has only increased. Their motive is not driven by skittish advertisers.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoWhat? When no advertisers Google is footing the bill. So Google having Alex Jones on YT means Google is paying the bills. On guns tons and tons and tons of companies have cut ties with the NRA. Yet Google still has the NRA channel. Data does not support your post. Personal!y I wish Google would remove content with no advertisers and we can get rid of the alt right crap.
- Scoundreller 9y agoOr just offer 2 tranches of advertising. A higher rate for those that only want to be next to “vetted” content. Another cheaper rate for those that don’t care.