4 ms·

It'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

It'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 ago
Hiring 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 ago
It'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.

xupybd 4y ago

Hiring 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 ago

It'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.