2 ms·
> I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents. Basically you are saying that brand safety, somethi
by Zigurd 2y ago
> I'm also not convinced that advertisers are afraid of showing their ads close to "questionable" contents.
Basically you are saying that brand safety, something ad-supported social media assiduously protects, is a misplaced concern?
I guess a lot of people, including a few that run a few social media sites, don't understand why all their ads are for freeze dried food in buckets and overpriced gold coins.
- throw310822 2y agoNo, I am saying that what threatens "brand safety" is attacks by organizations via the media. (See an example in my other answer about the NBC News article). Those organizations have the power to decide your politics by threatening to shame your advertisers for the fact that they advertise on your platform. They get to decide which content is "problematic" and which platforms should be singled out. And if a self-appointed "anti-hate group" says that there are too many nazis on a platform, the advertisers are not going to take the risk of arguing that the numbers are irrelevant or that they're not convinced.
- Zigurd 2y agoWhat's not problematic about Andrew Anglin? What business would want to appear next to him? When the guy who owns outright a social media site welcomes people like Anglin, do you really think anyone needs to decide someone's politics? Amusing fact: When Linda Yaccarino ran all of NBCUniversal's ad sales, NBCUniversal was a member of GARM.