Google's Video Nasties
bloomberg.com
Google's Video Nasties
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#2The ironic thing is that this creates the very problem it seeks to solve...
If advertisers have no control over which content their ads appear near then they can legitimately claim, when criticised, that they are unable to pick and choose.
By giving advertisers control, when criticised, the critics can use that same control in order to pressure advertisers to limit ads to inoffensive content only (which, frankly, is almost nothing anymore).
But with the direction "being offended" has taken (i.e. someone on twitter will take offense to anything, and they feel they have a legitimate right to never feel offended) it won't be long before most content is inaccessible.
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#3The ironic thing is that this creates the very problem it seeks to solve... If advertisers have no control over which content their ads appear near then they can legitimately claim, when criticised, that they are unable to pick and choose. By giving advertisers control, when criticised, the critics can use that same control in order to pressure advertisers to limit ads to inoffensive content only (which, frankly, is…
Advertisers have always wanted to control the content that their ads appear next to because it determines the efficacy of the ad. If your wholesome, family brand starts showing up on porn or ISIS sites, it doesn't matter that you can say "oh that's out of our control," your brand has already been damaged. Also, if you cost structure is CPM, you probably didn't want to waste an impression on that page.
> (i.e. someone on twitter will take offense to anything, and they feel they have a legitimate right to never feel offended)
Your post was stronger without this straw man. Do you think a real person would say that they have a legitimate right to never feel offended? I don't think so.
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#4Is this related to the "restricted mode" fiasco with its over-broad restriction on LGBT content? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/21/youtube-rev...
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#5I think instead of these corps virtue signalling they should look at it this way: a person might be watching jihadist content and descending to a bad place, but then they see your sweet ass Mercedes ad and are like "fuck this, I eschew my extremist tendencies and vow to join the Western consumeristic rat race so that maybe one day I will have my own Merc and hot model friends inside of it! USA!!" I mean standard lane assist technology? Thats way cooler than using a shitty cell phone to blow up your clunky suicide vest.
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#6Is this related to the "restricted mode" fiasco with its over-broad restriction on LGBT content? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/21/youtube-rev...
What's the real deal with "restricted mode"? I don't think they care too much about people having to sign up to be able to watch a video. Do restricted videos show no ads? I can understand certain businesses not wanting to see their ads displayed next to some BDSM gay parade, LGTBI++ propaganda, beheadings or other extreme violence, etc. In that case, if they show no ads, why host them at all, if they can't cover the bandwidth they consume?
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#7The ironic thing is that this creates the very problem it seeks to solve... If advertisers have no control over which content their ads appear near then they can legitimately claim, when criticised, that they are unable to pick and choose. By giving advertisers control, when criticised, the critics can use that same control in order to pressure advertisers to limit ads to inoffensive content only (which, frankly, is…
Advertisers have always wanted to control the content that their ads appear next to because it determines the efficacy of the ad. If your wholesome, family brand starts showing up on porn or ISIS sites, it doesn't matter that you can say "oh that's out of our control," your brand has already been damaged. Also, if you cost structure is CPM, you probably didn't want to waste an impression on that page. > (i.e. someone…
> the efficacy of the ad
That part of it is easy to mitigate by the auction process. I.e., the mean efficacy of ad placement is reflected in the price of the winning bid due to the usual market forces.
The less quantifiable part of it, "my brand must never appear alongside X," cannot be dealt with in the auction because the recall has to be perfect and it's not feasible to guess how the advertiser would decide all the tricky cases.
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#8I wonder if front-loading advertisements is the future. Drinking your verification can before you get on the YouTube ride.
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#9Is this related to the "restricted mode" fiasco with its over-broad restriction on LGBT content? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/21/youtube-rev...
No, not related at all.
Re: Google's Video Nasties
#10The ironic thing is that this creates the very problem it seeks to solve... If advertisers have no control over which content their ads appear near then they can legitimately claim, when criticised, that they are unable to pick and choose. By giving advertisers control, when criticised, the critics can use that same control in order to pressure advertisers to limit ads to inoffensive content only (which, frankly, is…
I think your implication that any number of offended people will be acted on is a stretch.
Advertisers will respond to the masses, not the most outraged hecklers.