6 ms·
Google targets low-income women with ads for anti-abortion pregnancy centers
- xupybd 4y agoI don't think Google is doing this. The people running the ads are.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoI do think they have culpability for enabling this sort of targeting, and dealing with these people. It's not always as easy as "who did it". The ball rolls as much because it was kicked as because it is round.
- suddenclarity 4y agoI'm sceptical about handing all ethical decisions to 3-4 big companies. It seems to be in line with "authority being good as long as it aligns with my opinions". Should the companies micromanage based on their beliefs?
- marginalia_nu 4y agoIt's ultimately how we act to change the world that is good or bad. Some entities (such as big companies) have a disproportionately large impact on the world, and as a result, are laudable or culpable more often than other, smaller entities.
- loa_in_ 4y agoArguably expecting them to make decisions in these matters gives them even more disproportionate influence. People should be holding people coming up with the ads accountable according to more fundamental societal frameworks, like courts of law or some kind of societal moral court
- marginalia_nu 4y agoThis is a power they have regardless of expectations. The thing that makes them culpable is what they did (or did not do), and how it affected the world.
- xupybd 4y agoThey're choosing not to swing the balance. If they interfere in any direction there will be a significant portion of society that finds the direction they pick to be evil.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoTurning a blind eye like that doesn't actually liberate them from complicity. Inaction can very much be action within a moral context.
- elcomet 4y agoNot acting is a choice, and it can swing the balance as much as acting.
- loa_in_ 4y agoBut not acting is the only choice that allows someone else to make the... choice. And that's the crux, it's not their business to judge people, it's (greater) society's business.
- elcomet 4y agoIs it really? Do women who see those anti-abortion clinic ads have the choice to see them? They don't really, at least not an informed choice.
- hackerlight 4y agoWe'd all prefer laws to be the guardrails, but there's always going to be a grey area that's simultaneously legal and unethical and we shouldn't think it's acceptable to behave unethically as long as it's legal. Especially when these large companies help shape those legal guardrails with lobbying efforts.
- suddenclarity 4y agoMy point is, do we really want these companies to decide what's ethical and not.
- hackerlight 4y agoYes if the only alternative in actual present reality is that they behave unethically. It's the second worst option out of more than 2 options.
- xupybd 4y agoSo we can say with certainty that the most ethical advice for all of these women is to recommend abortions? I think this is a more complex issue than you're suggesting.
- hackerlight 4y agoNot disagreeing, I was speaking more in the abstract.
- xupybd 4y agoSorry, I made a few incorrect assumptions there.
- hulitu 4y agono, but they are already doing it.
- sam0x17 4y agoIf you pay a hitman, both you and the hitman are equally at fault
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- angry_octet 4y agoThis is an unhelpfully simplistic, and a poor analogy as well.
- sam0x17 4y agoIt's really not. We let advertising platforms off the hook even in cases where they are paid to spread misinformation. In other areas we are not so lenient even though the situation is essentially identical (some entity being paid to do some bad thing on behalf of some bad actor). This is precisely that situation from a moral perspective. Google should be held accountable for every ad they run. It's different from platforms moderating social media, because they actually have to approve every ad and they are getting paid to run it. So if anything it's a poster-child really good analogy.
- xupybd 4y agoHiring a hit man is illegal. We, as a society, have created laws to govern us in areas we agree. Some issues we have near universal agreement. This topic is not one of them. What advice a young mother gets when considering an abortion is not something society has such laws on. It's not something where there is agreement. You are suggesting Google should enforce your morals. However they're unlikely to share your view on every topic. If you demand they be empowered to enforce morality you'll likely be very upset with the world they create.
- angry_octet 4y agoIt's a bad analogy because killing people (a hitman) is categorically wrong, and illegal, in all instances. Serving ads, and targeted ads, is legal, but in some circumstances many would consider it unethical. Is it ethical to serve anti-abortion messages/services to pregnant women in any circumstances? I would say no, all health related advertising should be restricted to medical services, rather than religious ones. But if you believe, as some Americans do, that abortion (at any date, including fewer cells than in a mole) is literally murder, they consider health information the same as Google providing advertising for hit men. They would love to censor medical information they same way they are censoring history and science. The commercial interests would oppose any restrictions on their ability to make money from the health industry. Their pockets are even deeper than religious fundamentalists are. Fundamentally opposed positions, and gerrymandered electorates, make resolution through legislation impossible. Which leaves activism, electoral/judicial reform contests, privately funded education campaigns, and counter messaging as effective strategies.
- QuarterReptile 4y agoLow-income women are far more likely to have abortions (49% of abortions are from women below the poverty level [0]). It's also my understanding that ad buys vary significantly in cost based on some proxy of spending power of the target audience; that makes this choice even smarter when an organization has constrained resources. Was someone hoping that the ads would be going to wealthy 55 year old men? Are wealthy women (who, overwhelmingly, do not have abortions) needing more ads in their lives? What's the story here? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-ge...
- toomuchtodo 4y agoGoogle is enabling harm by enabling these pregnancy crisis centers who work to convince low income women to keep children they can’t afford, trapping them in yet another cycle of poverty. The debate is, “does this fall into similar guardrails as other ad platform restrictions or self limits Google has imposed on it or it imposes on itself?” It costs very little to apply pressure to Google in concert with other efforts against these actors.
- tinus_hn 4y agoThe problem is that someone is saying things you don’t like. And even paying for the ‘privilege’! So you want to cancel them. Even band together to apply pressure to the platform, like a typical social justice warrior. People say things you don’t like. Get used to it.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoNah, you don't have to get used to it. You just need to find leverage, that's life. It's consequence culture, not cancel culture. You say "social justice warrior" like its a bad thing when advocating for the poor being fleeced by malicious actors (pregnancy crisis centers), who aren't going to contribute a dime or hand of help to folks who are locked into a path of suffering for a lifetime. Telling, but not surprising. Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand. Freedom of speech protects you from your government, no one else.
- steponlego 4y agoMakes sense, these women are most at risk for abortion.