Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 26 2017, @01:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the can-you-blame-them dept.

Google has failed to convince major brands (such as AT&T, Verizon, Enterprise Holdings, Volkswagen, and Tesco) to continue advertising on YouTube, following the "revelation" that ads can appear next to extremist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, raunchy, etc. content. From Google's Tuesday response:

We know advertisers don't want their ads next to content that doesn't align with their values. So starting today, we're taking a tougher stance on hateful, offensive and derogatory content. This includes removing ads more effectively from content that is attacking or harassing people based on their race, religion, gender or similar categories. This change will enable us to take action, where appropriate, on a larger set of ads and sites. We'll also tighten safeguards to ensure that ads show up only against legitimate creators in our YouTube Partner Program—as opposed to those who impersonate other channels or violate our community guidelines. Finally, we won't stop at taking down ads. The YouTube team is taking a hard look at our existing community guidelines to determine what content is allowed on the platform—not just what content can be monetized. [...] We're changing the default settings for ads so that they show on content that meets a higher level of brand safety and excludes potentially objectionable content that advertisers may prefer not to advertise against. Brands can opt in to advertise on broader types of content if they choose.

The growing boycott started in the UK:

On Friday, the U.K. arm of the Havas agency, whose clients include the BBC and Royal Mail, said it would halt spending on YouTube and Web display ads in Google's digital advertising network. In doing so, Havas UK CEO Paul Frampton cited a duty to protect clients and "ensure their brands are not at all compromised" by appearing alongside or seeming to sponsor inappropriate content. The decision by a global marketing group with a U.K. digital budget of more than $200 million to put its dealings with Google on "pause" followed a recent controversy over YouTube star Felix "PewDiePie" Kjellberg, who lost a lucrative production contract with Maker Studios and its owner, Walt Disney Co., over "a series of anti-Semitic jokes and Nazi-related images in his videos," as the Two-way reported. As the BBC reports, "Several high profile companies, including Marks and Spencer, Audi, RBS and L'Oreal, have pulled online advertising from YouTube."

Google's Chief Business Officer Philipp Schindler also promised to develop "new tools powered by our latest advancements in AI and machine learning to increase our capacity to review questionable content for advertising".


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @04:20AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @04:20AM (#484265)

    > Who gets to decide what is hateful, offensive or derogatory?

    The people paying to run the ads.
    Its their money, you don't think they should get to chose what they spend it on?
    If you don't pay for my speech that's censorship!!! ::rolleyes::
    Entitled prick.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @04:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @04:42AM (#484268)

    But the point is that they don't watch every video to decide. Instead, they rely on automated systems that look for certain phrases, or identified audio, or whatever else. This means that the advertisers don't really decide, the people who write the assumptions in the algorithm do. And just like any heuristic, there will be shortcuts and false identifications an all sorts of problems. Then, they probably supplement the algorithm with tests by people who actually have time to sit through and categorize various videos, and the kind of people who do that usually can because they have some sort of agenda (whether they believe it is beneficent or maleficent).

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:14AM (3 children)

    by Dunbal (3515) on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:14AM (#484314)

    Its their money, you don't think they should get to chose what they spend it on?

    No. If they're afraid of the RISK of advertising on an open platform like youtube, they should spend their money elsewhere instead of shutting down youtube. It's kind of ironic. Eventually when nothing but sanitized content is available on youtube, no one will use youtube anymore. And advertisers will be throwing money into a vacuum like they do on TV today. The best bit is - no one actually watches/cares about the ads. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:45AM

      by isostatic (365) on Sunday March 26 2017, @10:45AM (#484323) Journal

      That's exactly what they're doing. They're saying "we won't spend money on your platform while it does X"

      If enough companies do this then the advertising income drops, and google either comes up with a way to appease their lost customers, or they shut down.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @11:43AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 26 2017, @11:43AM (#484335)

      > The best bit is - no one actually watches/cares about the ads. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

      Man, that is some crazy-ass motivated reasoning. No one cares about the ads? Tell that to PewDiePie.

      Hell, you clearly care about the ad money or you wouldn't be trying to argue that this is a bad idea.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2017, @12:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27 2017, @12:33AM (#484483)

        Maybe he doesn't care about the ad revenue but does care a bit about debunking the arguments of the perpetually offended.