5 ms·

> That choice boggles the mind. Serving ads is hard when there's porn on the site.

by mevile 7y ago

IshKebab 7y ago
Use a different domain then?
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  This does seem like a stupid simple solution. tumblr.com can continue being SFW, and then there'd be nsfwtumblr.com (or whatever) that contains "the good stuff". Retain account name uniqueness across both domains.
  - Zanni 7y ago
    tumblx.com, surely.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      tumblrer
  - nullc 7y ago
    My very limited experience with tumblr (pre-rule change) is that it was essentially impossible to use without being frequently exposed to sexually explicit photographs. ... in contrast to reddit, which is full of outright porn but there I seldom see anything more risque than a bikini shot unless I navigate to a relevant subreddit. Maybe the critical difference is that if your account would have anything remotely adult at all, including text, or would repost anything from account that was flagged adult then your account would need to be flagged adult. And as a result a lot of accounts were adult flagged and a lot of users felt they had to log in and enable view-adult in order to not get left out. And then even if you have no particular interest in browsing the explicit content on tumblr you can't have many contacts before you start getting occasional reposts of it. Regardless, being able to have a site which users can fully engage with without a steady stream of surprise crotch shots that they aren't interested in seems like a pretty reasonable goal. Banning the content outright seems like a really blunt way to get there, but maybe that was less damaging to the monetization strategy than making a lot of images click to load?
blobster 7y ago
How about Imgur? And Reddit?
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Reddit runs its own ad network. And has famously had issues monetizing itself.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Partially. Reddit also has the usual DoubleClick/Adsense ads too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stcredzero 7y ago
If you've got porn on a domain, it doesn't matter if you show ads on porn or not, it doesn't matter if you require age verification, nothing you do will likely matter. What if there was a way to "ban" something by changing it's domain? What if there were two web apps with a linked backend? Let's say: tumblargh.com tumblarghR.com When something is "banned" from tumblargh.com, it remains on tumblarghR.com, which is otherwise a mirror of tumblargh.com.
- TremendousJudge 7y ago
  isn't this what 4chan did with 4channel.org?
  - Anon1096 7y ago
    4chan split into two sites because PayPal stopped working on the main domain, but similar idea.
coldtea 7y ago
That boggles the mind as well. The purpose of an ad is to be seen. Whether it's seen next to porn should be irrelevant. I guess, because prudery.
- mbreese 7y ago
  A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content. Where an ad is seen can be just as (if not more) important to the advertiser as the ad itself. So, if your site serves up adult content -- you can guarantee that companies with large ad budgets won't be buying ad space.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content. If all brands allowed their ads to appear next to adult content, then it wouldn't be any special association for any particular brand, just another outlet. So I guess it has more to do with the historical prudery of some countries, when an ad appearing next to adult content would trigger angry letters to the editor, editorials, and so on from "concerned citizens". That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today...
    - k_sze 7y ago
      > That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today... I guess it’s because Playboy and FHM are somehow considered tasteful and for connoisseurs?
      - ethbro 7y ago
        I suppose that was Hugh Hefner's brilliance. That if Playboy was seen as "tasteful porn", then advertising space instantly became more valuable.
8ytecoder 7y ago
As long as content is flagged and companies can block their ads from content they find objectionable it would’ve been fine.
jjeaff 7y ago
That doesn't seem to stop Twitter.

> That choice boggles the mind. Serving ads is hard when there's porn on the site.

by mevile 7y ago

> That choice boggles the mind. Serving ads is hard when there's porn on the site.

IshKebab 7y ago

Use a different domain then?

CydeWeys 7y ago
This does seem like a stupid simple solution. tumblr.com can continue being SFW, and then there'd be nsfwtumblr.com (or whatever) that contains "the good stuff". Retain account name uniqueness across both domains.
- Zanni 7y ago
  tumblx.com, surely.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    tumblrer
- nullc 7y ago
  My very limited experience with tumblr (pre-rule change) is that it was essentially impossible to use without being frequently exposed to sexually explicit photographs. ... in contrast to reddit, which is full of outright porn but there I seldom see anything more risque than a bikini shot unless I navigate to a relevant subreddit. Maybe the critical difference is that if your account would have anything remotely adult at all, including text, or would repost anything from account that was flagged adult then your account would need to be flagged adult. And as a result a lot of accounts were adult flagged and a lot of users felt they had to log in and enable view-adult in order to not get left out. And then even if you have no particular interest in browsing the explicit content on tumblr you can't have many contacts before you start getting occasional reposts of it. Regardless, being able to have a site which users can fully engage with without a steady stream of surprise crotch shots that they aren't interested in seems like a pretty reasonable goal. Banning the content outright seems like a really blunt way to get there, but maybe that was less damaging to the monetization strategy than making a lot of images click to load?

blobster 7y ago

How about Imgur? And Reddit?

CydeWeys 7y ago
Reddit runs its own ad network. And has famously had issues monetizing itself.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Partially. Reddit also has the usual DoubleClick/Adsense ads too.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

stcredzero 7y ago

If you've got porn on a domain, it doesn't matter if you show ads on porn or not, it doesn't matter if you require age verification, nothing you do will likely matter. What if there was a way to "ban" something by changing it's domain? What if there were two web apps with a linked backend? Let's say: tumblargh.com tumblarghR.com When something is "banned" from tumblargh.com, it remains on tumblarghR.com, which is otherwise a mirror of tumblargh.com.

TremendousJudge 7y ago
isn't this what 4chan did with 4channel.org?
- Anon1096 7y ago
  4chan split into two sites because PayPal stopped working on the main domain, but similar idea.

coldtea 7y ago

That boggles the mind as well. The purpose of an ad is to be seen. Whether it's seen next to porn should be irrelevant. I guess, because prudery.

mbreese 7y ago
A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content. Where an ad is seen can be just as (if not more) important to the advertiser as the ad itself. So, if your site serves up adult content -- you can guarantee that companies with large ad budgets won't be buying ad space.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content. If all brands allowed their ads to appear next to adult content, then it wouldn't be any special association for any particular brand, just another outlet. So I guess it has more to do with the historical prudery of some countries, when an ad appearing next to adult content would trigger angry letters to the editor, editorials, and so on from "concerned citizens". That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today...
  - k_sze 7y ago
    > That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today... I guess it’s because Playboy and FHM are somehow considered tasteful and for connoisseurs?
    - ethbro 7y ago
      I suppose that was Hugh Hefner's brilliance. That if Playboy was seen as "tasteful porn", then advertising space instantly became more valuable.

8ytecoder 7y ago

As long as content is flagged and companies can block their ads from content they find objectionable it would’ve been fine.

jjeaff 7y ago

That doesn't seem to stop Twitter.