3 ms·

Low-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 va

Low-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 ago
Google 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Nah, 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.
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      There, they better not say anything you don’t like or you’ll make sure there will be consequences! Because it is you, the enlightened, who decides what is righteous and what is not. You are the judge, jury and executioner. Telling!
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - QuarterReptile 4y ago
        You won't get any satisfaction out of a discussion with someone who can't resist his totalitarian impulse to impute malice to those with whom he disagrees.
        toomuchtodo 4y ago
        They said, unironically, in a thread about pregnancy crisis centers using Google Ads as part of an effort to draw women to a physical location to persuade them, while under duress, to carry pregnancies they don't want, can't afford to support, and who will receive immaterial support from the state. That is objectively malice, and closer to totalitarian than advocating for the disenfranchised (imho). https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232137/ https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I
        tinus_hn 4y ago
        True, and also it’s rather frustrating to debate people who cheat, like in this case by silently altering the comment after I reply.
        dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        That's his thing. When challenged he googles stuff that has a title that sounds like it backs his opinion. The ensuing debate about the article body being contradictory to his point moves the argument away from his point being poor and toward one of source legitimacy. It's a common rhetorical tactic. Were he not perpetually arguing for whatever is in fashion at any time he'd have been banned long ago for instigating flame wars.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Google 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Nah, 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.
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    There, they better not say anything you don’t like or you’ll make sure there will be consequences! Because it is you, the enlightened, who decides what is righteous and what is not. You are the judge, jury and executioner. Telling!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      You won't get any satisfaction out of a discussion with someone who can't resist his totalitarian impulse to impute malice to those with whom he disagrees.
      - toomuchtodo 4y ago
        They said, unironically, in a thread about pregnancy crisis centers using Google Ads as part of an effort to draw women to a physical location to persuade them, while under duress, to carry pregnancies they don't want, can't afford to support, and who will receive immaterial support from the state. That is objectively malice, and closer to totalitarian than advocating for the disenfranchised (imho). https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232137/ https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I
      - tinus_hn 4y ago
        True, and also it’s rather frustrating to debate people who cheat, like in this case by silently altering the comment after I reply.
        dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        That's his thing. When challenged he googles stuff that has a title that sounds like it backs his opinion. The ensuing debate about the article body being contradictory to his point moves the argument away from his point being poor and toward one of source legitimacy. It's a common rhetorical tactic. Were he not perpetually arguing for whatever is in fashion at any time he'd have been banned long ago for instigating flame wars.