5 ms·

> This had consequences for deviantArt's revenue. It meant that we could not run ads from the "reputable" ad networks Advertising: perhaps the best and most ef

by sph 2y ago

> This had consequences for deviantArt's revenue. It meant that we could not run ads from the "reputable" ad networks Advertising: perhaps the best and most effective involuntary ally of the Puritan movement. It is a shame that the Internet that we have created depends pretty much solely on that form of revenue.

eloisant 2y ago
It's not just ads, it's a lot of B2B services that ban you if you don't have a strict rule on sexual content (or even nudity).
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Unless it's a conservative religious service, why would they care? Money is money, and porn isn't a crime.
  - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
    In some places it is.
    - echelon 2y ago
      How silly.
zbentley 2y ago
> Advertising: perhaps the best and most effective involuntary ally of the Puritan movement. The usual defense by advertisers is that their clients do not want their businesses to be associated with adult material, so they insist that advertisers do not place ads on adult-content-friendly websites to reduce the risk of that association happening due to ads adjacent to adult content. I'm curious as to how valid that is. Are many/most businesses (or many/most businesses that are highly valuable to advertisers) materially concerned enough about association-with-adult-content-via-ad-placement that they would switch advertisers over it? Or are advertisers manufacturing family-friendly ad placement as a competitive selling point that their customers never really asked for? I'm also curious about the next level down the stack, as it were: if a significant subset of businesses who hire advertisers are concerned about adult-content-association-via-nearby-placement, why is that? Is it merely disgust/discomfort on the part of business leadership and prevailing culture? Or does data indicate that there's a material risk to enough businesses' bottom lines that it's fiscally prudent to avoid that association? (Reasoning from first principles without data, so probably wrong) I'm skeptical about the validity of both claims. Adult content is really popular across many demographics whose behavior is otherwise quite different. Given that broad base of popularity, is it really that risky for a business to have its brand appear in an ad next to pornography compared to, say, appearing on a politically extreme news site, or next to algorithmically-prioritized ragebait content on social media? Unlike adult content, I feel like the associations formed by seeing a company mentioned next to something anger inducing are more likely to be negative than the associations formed by seeing it next to adult content that the viewer presumably sought out. In both cases, the chance of behaviorally-significant associations being formed at all seems quite low, so I'd imagine that effects here (if there are any) would only be visible in the very very large.
- mavhc 2y ago
  People who hate nudity will organise protests and get news coverage, giving more voice to a minority. Same with anything, the ones massively for/against something will spend money time/money on complaining that the passive majority. See gun control in US for an example
- smogcutter 2y ago
  https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-o... Advertisers don’t have to believe the content is actually objectionable to fear reprisal. Outrage machine types on all sides will make an issue out of anything they can use to score points for themselves. The marginal value of putting a Johnson & Johnson ad (say) in front of some furries is nothing compared to dread of the headline “J&J wants your children to be furries!”
  - 20after4 2y ago
    > putting a Johnson & Johnson ad (say) in front of some furries A very real possibility when advertising on DeviantArt. But a no-adult-content policy would have (probably) satisfied adsense terms but would not have eliminated (most) of the furrie content on DeviantArt.
  - silenced_trope 2y ago
    This. The advertisers care about getting bad press and having to do the rounds in the "news cycle". By now everyone knows that advertisers don't choose which posts, tweets, images, etc. their ads are shown next to, but that still won't stop the CNNs of the world from writing a "<Brand> advertises next to Nazi content on <Platform>!" article.
    - zbentley 2y ago
      While many media outfits are very good at manufacturing outrage, I’m not sure whether a big ad farm putting (say) Walmart ads on PornHub would materially move the needle on bad-press-risk. Like, if a media outlet or politico wants to make hay about Walmart being advertised next to nazis, I’m sure that’s trivially easy to find today (and you only need to find one instance of that adjacency to make hay for a news cycle). So why isn’t this already an issue in the status quo? Why aren’t brands being pressured into changing their ad placement habits right and left? Sure, some businesses are being called out for things they explicitly endorse (e.g. Budweiser pride ads), but that’s not the same thing as running an ordinary ad in a questionable place. Perhaps advertisers have written off adult content sites as places where there isn’t enough money to be made to risk it? If so, I’m curious what consumer behavioral data backs up that conclusion.
bitcharmer 2y ago
Yet somehow being a nuisance streamer on platforms like twitch or kik still yields insane profits. Just don't show your ass and you'll never get banned for anything. Bonkers.
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
Religion is the source of that nonsense. Help bring it down any legal way possible. Ridicule it, expose it, help people realise it's just a bunch of fairytales, most often useless and sometimes actually damaging.
- jimmygrapes 2y ago
  Sounds like a very religious way to handle your issues
  - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
    Your are correct. Religion taught me this. So why not let it backfire on them.
    - smsm42 2y ago
      Yes, when they famously declared "there's no sex in USSR" it was because USSR was a theocracy.
      - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
        Communism was a religion.
        redmajor12 2y ago
        As much as science is a religion.
        smsm42 2y ago
        So, you extend the definition of a religion to "everything a lot of people support" and then declare that it needs to be "brought down". How does it work for you - you plan to ban people from agreeing on anything, and thus enshrine world peace?
- Dracophoenix 2y ago
chrisallenlane 2y ago
> Advertising: perhaps the best and most effective involuntary ally of the Puritan movement. Which is weird, given that "sex sells."
- Pet_Ant 2y ago
  It needs to be teased not given away. > If music be the food of love, play on; > Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, > The appetite may sicken, and so die. The point is actually to suggest sex. Keep you aroused, but not let you finish. Imagine, if Budweiser ran a brothel and buying their beer actually got you laid. You'd get laid, forget about sex for a while, and the association between the beer and sex would not entice you to buy the product.
  - revscat 2y ago
    [dead]
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
What doesn't make sense to me is why the major ad networks don't just have a setting for advertising on NSFW sites, or for that matter on NSFW pages. They're just leaving money on the table. Ads are sold at auction, so the auction price on NSFW pages would be lower, but because it would be lower then some advertisers would want the discount. The alternative is that the ad network bans them and gets nothing, the advertiser loses out on cheap impressions and the site goes bankrupt. Sites like Deviant Art could have a policy to the effect of "NSFW content is allowed but you have to mark it" and then advertisers who don't want to be seen next to NSFW content, aren't. Hypothetically some user could post something NSFW without marking it, but the same is true on sites that ban NSFW content entirely. Then the site itself gets the full payment on the majority of pages that are safe for work, still gets something from the ones that aren't, and doesn't have to deal with shady malware-laden ad networks.
- rchaud 2y ago
  > What doesn't make sense to me is why the major ad networks don't just have a setting for advertising on NSFW sites, or for that matter on NSFW pages. Two main reasons: - Websites cannot accurately classify content a lot of the time without human review. Ads are served dynamically, so they could appear on a NSFW post faster than a human can review it. It's less work to simply optimize for as little NSFW as possible. - NSFW content consumers aren't valuable to advertisers or ad network operators because they don't sell products that could be placed as a 'contextual' ad. Ad platforms need insurance brokers, banks and CPG brands to make up the fat tail of revenue. That stuff can be placed next to posts about pretty much anything. NSFW content on the other hand doesn't work the same way, which is why ads on porn sites are for scam dating sites and unregulated erection pills.
  - echelon 2y ago
    The first "kosher" brand that advertises on NSFW contexts can take my money.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      It still wouldn't work in the way you think it might. Advertising is about keeping something "top of mind", companies won't want to link their brand in someone's mind to when they're pounding off. This is doubly so considering the use of remarketing cookies. While you're watching something that's bound to fill you with regret moments after the fact, you won't want to see an ad showing the Amazon products you were browsing previously.

by sph 2y ago

eloisant 2y ago

It's not just ads, it's a lot of B2B services that ban you if you don't have a strict rule on sexual content (or even nudity).

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Unless it's a conservative religious service, why would they care? Money is money, and porn isn't a crime.
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
  In some places it is.
  - echelon 2y ago
    How silly.

zbentley 2y ago

> Advertising: perhaps the best and most effective involuntary ally of the Puritan movement. The usual defense by advertisers is that their clients do not want their businesses to be associated with adult material, so they insist that advertisers do not place ads on adult-content-friendly websites to reduce the risk of that association happening due to ads adjacent to adult content. I'm curious as to how valid that is. Are many/most businesses (or many/most businesses that are highly valuable to advertisers) materially concerned enough about association-with-adult-content-via-ad-placement that they would switch advertisers over it? Or are advertisers manufacturing family-friendly ad placement as a competitive selling point that their customers never really asked for? I'm also curious about the next level down the stack, as it were: if a significant subset of businesses who hire advertisers are concerned about adult-content-association-via-nearby-placement, why is that? Is it merely disgust/discomfort on the part of business leadership and prevailing culture? Or does data indicate that there's a material risk to enough businesses' bottom lines that it's fiscally prudent to avoid that association? (Reasoning from first principles without data, so probably wrong) I'm skeptical about the validity of both claims. Adult content is really popular across many demographics whose behavior is otherwise quite different. Given that broad base of popularity, is it really that risky for a business to have its brand appear in an ad next to pornography compared to, say, appearing on a politically extreme news site, or next to algorithmically-prioritized ragebait content on social media? Unlike adult content, I feel like the associations formed by seeing a company mentioned next to something anger inducing are more likely to be negative than the associations formed by seeing it next to adult content that the viewer presumably sought out. In both cases, the chance of behaviorally-significant associations being formed at all seems quite low, so I'd imagine that effects here (if there are any) would only be visible in the very very large.

mavhc 2y ago
People who hate nudity will organise protests and get news coverage, giving more voice to a minority. Same with anything, the ones massively for/against something will spend money time/money on complaining that the passive majority. See gun control in US for an example
smogcutter 2y ago
https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-o... Advertisers don’t have to believe the content is actually objectionable to fear reprisal. Outrage machine types on all sides will make an issue out of anything they can use to score points for themselves. The marginal value of putting a Johnson & Johnson ad (say) in front of some furries is nothing compared to dread of the headline “J&J wants your children to be furries!”
- 20after4 2y ago
  > putting a Johnson & Johnson ad (say) in front of some furries A very real possibility when advertising on DeviantArt. But a no-adult-content policy would have (probably) satisfied adsense terms but would not have eliminated (most) of the furrie content on DeviantArt.
- silenced_trope 2y ago
  This. The advertisers care about getting bad press and having to do the rounds in the "news cycle". By now everyone knows that advertisers don't choose which posts, tweets, images, etc. their ads are shown next to, but that still won't stop the CNNs of the world from writing a "<Brand> advertises next to Nazi content on <Platform>!" article.
  - zbentley 2y ago
    While many media outfits are very good at manufacturing outrage, I’m not sure whether a big ad farm putting (say) Walmart ads on PornHub would materially move the needle on bad-press-risk. Like, if a media outlet or politico wants to make hay about Walmart being advertised next to nazis, I’m sure that’s trivially easy to find today (and you only need to find one instance of that adjacency to make hay for a news cycle). So why isn’t this already an issue in the status quo? Why aren’t brands being pressured into changing their ad placement habits right and left? Sure, some businesses are being called out for things they explicitly endorse (e.g. Budweiser pride ads), but that’s not the same thing as running an ordinary ad in a questionable place. Perhaps advertisers have written off adult content sites as places where there isn’t enough money to be made to risk it? If so, I’m curious what consumer behavioral data backs up that conclusion.

bitcharmer 2y ago

Yet somehow being a nuisance streamer on platforms like twitch or kik still yields insane profits. Just don't show your ass and you'll never get banned for anything. Bonkers.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

Religion is the source of that nonsense. Help bring it down any legal way possible. Ridicule it, expose it, help people realise it's just a bunch of fairytales, most often useless and sometimes actually damaging.

jimmygrapes 2y ago
Sounds like a very religious way to handle your issues
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  Your are correct. Religion taught me this. So why not let it backfire on them.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    Yes, when they famously declared "there's no sex in USSR" it was because USSR was a theocracy.
    - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
      Communism was a religion.
      - redmajor12 2y ago
        As much as science is a religion.
      - smsm42 2y ago
        So, you extend the definition of a religion to "everything a lot of people support" and then declare that it needs to be "brought down". How does it work for you - you plan to ban people from agreeing on anything, and thus enshrine world peace?
Dracophoenix 2y ago

chrisallenlane 2y ago

> Advertising: perhaps the best and most effective involuntary ally of the Puritan movement. Which is weird, given that "sex sells."

Pet_Ant 2y ago
It needs to be teased not given away. > If music be the food of love, play on; > Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, > The appetite may sicken, and so die. The point is actually to suggest sex. Keep you aroused, but not let you finish. Imagine, if Budweiser ran a brothel and buying their beer actually got you laid. You'd get laid, forget about sex for a while, and the association between the beer and sex would not entice you to buy the product.
- revscat 2y ago
  [dead]

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

What doesn't make sense to me is why the major ad networks don't just have a setting for advertising on NSFW sites, or for that matter on NSFW pages. They're just leaving money on the table. Ads are sold at auction, so the auction price on NSFW pages would be lower, but because it would be lower then some advertisers would want the discount. The alternative is that the ad network bans them and gets nothing, the advertiser loses out on cheap impressions and the site goes bankrupt. Sites like Deviant Art could have a policy to the effect of "NSFW content is allowed but you have to mark it" and then advertisers who don't want to be seen next to NSFW content, aren't. Hypothetically some user could post something NSFW without marking it, but the same is true on sites that ban NSFW content entirely. Then the site itself gets the full payment on the majority of pages that are safe for work, still gets something from the ones that aren't, and doesn't have to deal with shady malware-laden ad networks.

rchaud 2y ago
> What doesn't make sense to me is why the major ad networks don't just have a setting for advertising on NSFW sites, or for that matter on NSFW pages. Two main reasons: - Websites cannot accurately classify content a lot of the time without human review. Ads are served dynamically, so they could appear on a NSFW post faster than a human can review it. It's less work to simply optimize for as little NSFW as possible. - NSFW content consumers aren't valuable to advertisers or ad network operators because they don't sell products that could be placed as a 'contextual' ad. Ad platforms need insurance brokers, banks and CPG brands to make up the fat tail of revenue. That stuff can be placed next to posts about pretty much anything. NSFW content on the other hand doesn't work the same way, which is why ads on porn sites are for scam dating sites and unregulated erection pills.
- echelon 2y ago
  The first "kosher" brand that advertises on NSFW contexts can take my money.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    It still wouldn't work in the way you think it might. Advertising is about keeping something "top of mind", companies won't want to link their brand in someone's mind to when they're pounding off. This is doubly so considering the use of remarketing cookies. While you're watching something that's bound to fill you with regret moments after the fact, you won't want to see an ad showing the Amazon products you were browsing previously.