4 ms·

I really feel like the "why" here should not be that hard. They likely don't want to carry pro gun or anti-abortion ads and they are making the right choice to

I really feel like the "why" here should not be that hard. They likely don't want to carry pro gun or anti-abortion ads and they are making the right choice to say they don't want to carry anti-gun or pro-choice either. Especially considering what Disney is currently doing for their employees to have access to proper medical care and abortions. I am unclear on the laws regarding political advertising but I have to wonder if they allowed one (pro-choice) they would be in hot water if they blocked the other (anti abortion)? What do the other platforms do for this case? The article is missing a ton of details here. It said they carried this ad, but do they carry anti-abortion ads?

smt88 4y ago
This is a good point for cultural issues, but the refusal to carry pro-environment ads can't be defended that way. There are no "both sides" to the issue.
- beardyw 4y ago
  Whilst I sympathize with your point, if there's no both sides, no one would be advertising.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  Yeah that one I am a bit more unclear on. But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real? Or do they just ignore the topic all together? I legitimately don't know. While I agree there shouldn't be 2 sides to this issue, the unfortunate reality is there very much is or we would not be in this mess right now.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real? They used to. Now they just say that the EPA is killing jobs or whatever. I don't think it matters in this case. My point is that it's not a culture war. It is not a political decision to decide to allow ads that talk about climate change. I wouldn't be upset if they ran the Republicans' ads too. It just can't be considered a matter of opinion either way.
- kodyo 4y ago
  If you're trying to convince me of something, I must not be on your side. And even if you think climate change is a thing, there are differing opinions on how to address it, and those obviously have political components to them.
  - smt88 4y ago
    But Hulu is banning ads that mention climate change at all. The Democratic ad might only say, "We can fix climate change while creating jobs," and even that is banned.
AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
...but what's the rationale behind banning "climate change"? I checked for more info on this, and it seems like they really did ban the phrase "climate change". > According to Patel, a Hulu representative called his campaign notifying them that the 30-second ad violated an “unwritten Hulu policy” related to “sensitive” content in political ads shortly after it was submitted to the platform on June 30th. > “Hulu demanded we remove footage of Jan. 6 and the word ‘climate change’ from our ad as they were deemed ‘sensitive,’” Patel said on Twitter Wednesday. > To appease Hulu, Patel’s campaign replaced the ad’s mention of “climate change” with “democracy” and replaced footage of the January 6th riots at the Capitol with images of protesters holding QAnon signs. That version of the ad was sent to Hulu on July 1st and approved on July 5th. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/13/23207499/hulu-disney-suraj-patel-new-york-congress-nadler-maloney https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/13/23207499/hulu-disney-sura... In both these articles Hulu repeatedly refuses to comment, which is unfortunate. I'd like to know why they don't want people to say "climate change" in political ads.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  Wether we like it or not, climate change has turned into a major political issue. We have a party of science deniers. Wether or not most Americans believe this is different from wether or not an entire party has made it a cornerstone of their policies. Which again goes back to my original thinking, that they are just blocking it across the board instead of allowing both sides to voice their opinion. Especially if they strongly disagree with that side. Given the block is just "climate change" I am inclined to think that is the case here.
HWR_14 4y ago
> I have to wonder if they allowed one (pro-choice) they would be in hot water if they blocked the other (anti abortion)? I don't believe so, unless they are selling that one below market rates (which makes it an in-kind contribution). I'm guessing this is more about "let's not take a side" than any legal requirement.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  I vaguely remember there being some laws that if you run political ads you have to give equal air time (if asked) or something like that. I would think if so you could not block one side of a topic but allow another. Maybe I am completely wrong here but I am trying to search around for an actual answer. Edit: Based on the wording on this FCC document it sounds like this is the case https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    That applies to TV and radio because the electromagnetic spectrum is limited. It does not apply to the internet. It may or may not apply to websites that simulcast tv or radio shows.

smt88 4y ago

This is a good point for cultural issues, but the refusal to carry pro-environment ads can't be defended that way. There are no "both sides" to the issue.

beardyw 4y ago
Whilst I sympathize with your point, if there's no both sides, no one would be advertising.
nerdjon 4y ago
Yeah that one I am a bit more unclear on. But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real? Or do they just ignore the topic all together? I legitimately don't know. While I agree there shouldn't be 2 sides to this issue, the unfortunate reality is there very much is or we would not be in this mess right now.
- smt88 4y ago
  > But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real? They used to. Now they just say that the EPA is killing jobs or whatever. I don't think it matters in this case. My point is that it's not a culture war. It is not a political decision to decide to allow ads that talk about climate change. I wouldn't be upset if they ran the Republicans' ads too. It just can't be considered a matter of opinion either way.
kodyo 4y ago
If you're trying to convince me of something, I must not be on your side. And even if you think climate change is a thing, there are differing opinions on how to address it, and those obviously have political components to them.
- smt88 4y ago
  But Hulu is banning ads that mention climate change at all. The Democratic ad might only say, "We can fix climate change while creating jobs," and even that is banned.

AftHurrahWinch 4y ago

...but what's the rationale behind banning "climate change"? I checked for more info on this, and it seems like they really did ban the phrase "climate change". > According to Patel, a Hulu representative called his campaign notifying them that the 30-second ad violated an “unwritten Hulu policy” related to “sensitive” content in political ads shortly after it was submitted to the platform on June 30th. > “Hulu demanded we remove footage of Jan. 6 and the word ‘climate change’ from our ad as they were deemed ‘sensitive,’” Patel said on Twitter Wednesday. > To appease Hulu, Patel’s campaign replaced the ad’s mention of “climate change” with “democracy” and replaced footage of the January 6th riots at the Capitol with images of protesters holding QAnon signs. That version of the ad was sent to Hulu on July 1st and approved on July 5th. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/13/23207499/hulu-disney-suraj-patel-new-york-congress-nadler-maloney https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/13/23207499/hulu-disney-sura... In both these articles Hulu repeatedly refuses to comment, which is unfortunate. I'd like to know why they don't want people to say "climate change" in political ads.

nerdjon 4y ago
Wether we like it or not, climate change has turned into a major political issue. We have a party of science deniers. Wether or not most Americans believe this is different from wether or not an entire party has made it a cornerstone of their policies. Which again goes back to my original thinking, that they are just blocking it across the board instead of allowing both sides to voice their opinion. Especially if they strongly disagree with that side. Given the block is just "climate change" I am inclined to think that is the case here.

HWR_14 4y ago

> I have to wonder if they allowed one (pro-choice) they would be in hot water if they blocked the other (anti abortion)? I don't believe so, unless they are selling that one below market rates (which makes it an in-kind contribution). I'm guessing this is more about "let's not take a side" than any legal requirement.

nerdjon 4y ago
I vaguely remember there being some laws that if you run political ads you have to give equal air time (if asked) or something like that. I would think if so you could not block one side of a topic but allow another. Maybe I am completely wrong here but I am trying to search around for an actual answer. Edit: Based on the wording on this FCC document it sounds like this is the case https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming
- HWR_14 4y ago
  That applies to TV and radio because the electromagnetic spectrum is limited. It does not apply to the internet. It may or may not apply to websites that simulcast tv or radio shows.