Don't care for the guy but I believe bad people should be allowed to make money. I have an issue with advertisers bullying platforms to remove bad guys, but that's the way it works.
It's far less reasonable for governments to use their authority to intervene between those parties, at least without clear legal justification and prior exercise of due process.
The incentive structures are clear: you do nothing and maybe get fired if your company gets embroiled in a controversy due to the placement of those ads, or you pull your ads and spend that budget in another channel, and worse case nothing will happen to you, and best case you'll be praised for proactive thinking. Woke or not, I'd imagine most people would choose the latter; the former is mostly downside with limited upside.
Of course you don't. You're watching things you're comfortable with and so you have no complaint about an advertiser's association with it.
> I'm pretty sure this is also true for 99.9% of other people. This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" by attacking people and companies they don't like.
Holding advertisers accountable for their placement, and distributors accountable for their catalog, predates "woke culture" by well over a century. Most "woke culture" activists in the US grew up seeing it aggressively deployed by "family oriented" activist groups in 1970's - 2000's era and they saw it be extremely effective at influencing what was available on TV, in print, in cinemas, and on music shelves because it threatened revenue and scared capitalists. And those "family groups" learned it from the anti-communists of the post-WWII era, etc, etc.
It's not new, it's not "woke", and history suggests that it does have material impact on media, culture, and business.
I'd say that advertisers are in a good place to know whether people do or don't notice what ads are next to content, or vice versa.
I do notice ads and assume some minimal endorsement of content by the advertisers - we are constantly assured that Internet ads are at least demographically targeted.
It's reasonable for them to care, but it's less reasonable that anyone else care about their concerns.
Advertisers are the clients, but they also need something to attract our eyeballs before they can hijack our attention with their shitty ads. Media is a lot more consolidated than the ad industry and they have a strong enough position to push back. All media has to say is "if you pull your ads we'll never run another ad for your product in any of our magazines/broadcasts/websites again"
There's zero reason why anyone should assume that just because an ad is shown in a magazine it indicates total approval of the full contents of that magazine anyway.
Yes, you'd think in 2023, platform companies could just disassociate advertisers with channels rather than just kicking someone off the platform. You don't want your ads on Brand's channel? Just uncheck the "show ads on this channel" box.
I'm fairly certain that's available, but companies want people completely silenced and use their advertising money as leverage to do so, which is significantly more insidious.
yeah, misleading people on the internet is big business
So what? In America, unless you violate FDA or SEC (or similar) agencies, or are slandering or libelling, its not illegal. Also, who is the arbiter of what is "true" in your comment above? Not everything has a fact based logical answer that is generally accepted. Should pastors be kicked off YT for "misleading" people about heaven? Free speech protects EVERYONE's right to speak because from someone else's point of view, you are the one that is misleading someone.
Also, in terms of Brand, or other cases, an allegation can be settled in many courts. Once adjudicated, it is appropriate to consider action.
if you're asking this question then we don't have anything to talk about
But if you don't think it's a utility, it would be strange to believe they should be regulated like one.
You don't really have a choice with regards to your YouTube usage, currently. There isn't anything near YouTube, and due to it's currently-established presence, we won't realistically see it getting replaced any time soon.
If businesses don't get to decide how to spend their money on advertising, who does?
Were the rallies actually pro-Hamas, or pro-Palestine?
* While speaking at an off-campus event, Cornell professor Russell Rickford described the massacre of Israelis as "exhilarating" and "energizing". You can find plenty of citations (including video) by Googling his name; most of them come from right-wing news sources, but unfortunately the liberal newspapers didn't deem this worth mentioning.
* Many examples of the protesters chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Wikipedia actually has an article about this phrase, which originates from before Gaza and the West Bank were controlled by Israel. In other words, the term "Palestine" referred to something other than West Bank/Gaza when that slogan was originated. In the true meaning of that phrase, "Palestine" refers to the entire region of which modern-day Israel is a subset, and "free" means "no Israel". All of this lines up with the Hamas worldview.
* Black Lives Matter tweeted a picture saying "I stand with Palestine" that had a picture of a man on a paraglider. [1] That's a reference to Hamas terrorists using paragliders to cross checkpoints at the Gaza border, and then murdering innocents (including women, children, and babies). Again, the words-as-written on that tweet just reference "Palestine" while the picture makes it perfectly clear who they really stand with. Also, I'm sorry for citing exclusively right-wing sources. I swear this really happened, and is being reported correctly here; it's just that liberal sources won't cover it.
[1] https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-blm-chicago-deletes-i...
#1 and #3 are just bizarre. You have to have a seriously fucked-up world view to excuse what Hamas did on Saturday, regardless of anything and everything Israel did prior to that.
Sadly the video ends, I'm not sure if his remarks are complete: https://news.yahoo.com/students-want-cornell-university-hist...
Well, it was poor choice of words since you can't expect mobs with pitchforks to understand nuance, but if I can interpret his words favorabily to him, the exhiliration is not because some Israeli grandmas and babies were being butchered, but because; imagine a dog that's been kept in a small cage and abused for many years, wouldn't you expect it to hate its owner, and wouldn't you expect it to bite the owner, if given the chance; well, finally it's gotten a chance.
To expand on "poor choice of words"/"nuance", yeah ok, I agree with you to a degree, being exhilirated rather than horrified does seem to me he's taking the deaths for granted. Here's your whataboutism: it seems some of the "Hate Israel" camp take the Israeli deaths for granted, just like some of the "Hate Hamas" camp take the Palestinian deaths for granted and justify these with "Well, what can you do if Hamas hides among civilians?"/"It's Hamas' fault anyway, not IDFs!" and deaths painful to family and friends are just summarized as "collateral damage".