Exclusive: YouTube ran ads from hundreds of brands on extremist channels

[Amused]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/19/technology/youtube-ads-extreme-content-investigation/index.html

Still. This is new, not from last year.


Ads from over 300 companies and organizations -- including tech giants, major retailers, newspapers and government agencies -- ran on YouTube channels promoting white nationalists, Nazis, pedophilia, conspiracy theories and North Korean propaganda, a CNN investigation has found.

 

[VirtualLarry]

In other news, YouTube runs ads, and hosting videos isn't free for them. News at 11.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

In other news, YouTube runs ads, and hosting videos isn't free for them. News at 11.

I think the point is these companies may not want to be associated with these types of viewpoint but were put there anywhere.

 

[Amused]

In other news, YouTube runs ads, and hosting videos isn't free for them. News at 11.

Yeah, that's why YouTube put out a press release saying they will fix this, right? Because it doesn't matter, right?

If you read the article, it's a very big deal for both YouTube, and the advertisers who were outraged their videos ended up on Nazi videos.

 

[bshole]

I think the point is these companies may not want to be associated with these types of viewpoint but were put there anywhere.

Could also be a case of old media striking out against new media. If you visit youtube liberal channels, I think you will find far deeper analysis of current news than you get on mainstream TV. For example, you will get more criticism of corporate influence than you ever get on regular TV. Mainstream media has taken multiple shots at these upstart news commentary channels in an attempt to shut them down. They nearly succeeded a year or two ago.

Watch this video....

 

[Greenman]

Nazis buy stuff just like everyone else.

 

[justoh]

Nazis buy stuff just like everyone else.

"Nazis" probably don't watch most of the videos that get flagged, since they're usually flagged inappropriately. Nazis wouldn't watch people who are taken out of context or misrepresented. They're not going to be watching the pug guy, for instance. They'll probably be watching the non-monetized, legitimately "offensive" (if that's possible), actually racist or anti-semitic channels that have 50 subs each and no red flags, which are fine, since advertisers aren't relevant.

 

[BurnItDwn]

"Nazis" probably don't watch most of the videos that get flagged, since they're usually flagged inappropriately. Nazis wouldn't watch people who are taken out of context or misrepresented. They're not going to be watching the pug guy, for instance. They'll probably be watching the non-monetized, legitimately "offensive" (if that's possible), actually racist or anti-semitic channels that have 50 subs each and no red flags, which are fine, since advertisers aren't relevant.

Holy shit, I agree for the most part with a justoh post.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Perhaps it is time to revisit and regulate this whole ad revenue, privacy invasive service based economy.

Nah, because these companies are killing it!

 

[Blackjack200]

"Nazis" probably don't watch most of the videos that get flagged, since they're usually flagged inappropriately. Nazis wouldn't watch people who are taken out of context or misrepresented. They're not going to be watching the pug guy, for instance. They'll probably be watching the non-monetized, legitimately "offensive" (if that's possible), actually racist or anti-semitic channels that have 50 subs each and no red flags, which are fine, since advertisers aren't relevant.

Not sure what you are talking about, there are a bunch of white nationalist YouTube channels that have tons of followers. PrisonPlanet is one, Baked Alaska is another. There are a few more that I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

[Phokus]

In other news, YouTube runs ads, and hosting videos isn't free for them. News at 11.

WHITE POWER (brought to you by the Apple Iphone)

I'm sure tim cook would be ok with that

 

[K1052]

Perhaps it is time to revisit and regulate this whole ad revenue, privacy invasive service based economy.

Nah, because these companies are killing it!

In the end, this is it. All this activity makes money. A lot of it.

Consequences are for the little people to worry about.

 

[realibrad]

I find this strange. This is a tech forum so I would expect people to understand how this type of stuff works a little better. Many of you give off the same feeling as Congress talking to Mark Z. about the interwebs.

 

[Amused]

I find this strange. This is a tech forum so I would expect people to understand how this type of stuff works a little better. Many of you give off the same feeling as Congress talking to Mark Z. about the interwebs.

So... you're saying there's not a problem?

 

[realibrad]

So... you're saying there's not a problem?

Bingo! Is it a problem that someone from the KKK drives a Ford? Does anyone think, "Man, I cannot believe a Ford dealership sold a car"? The answer is no. We do not think that Ford is associated with the KKK because the person drives a vehicle with the Ford emblem on it. So why do we assume that because an add pops up on a video that the company should be associated with the content?

 

[Blackjack200]

Bingo! Is it a problem that someone from the KKK drives a Ford? Does anyone think, "Man, I cannot believe a Ford dealership sold a car"? The answer is no. We do not think that Ford is associated with the KKK because the person drives a vehicle with the Ford emblem on it. So why do we assume that because an add pops up on a video that the company should be associated with the content?

The USPS just sued Lance Armstrong for $5million for defrauding them when they were sponsoring him. The didn't sue him for using the mail.

 

[Amused]

Bingo! Is it a problem that someone from the KKK drives a Ford? Does anyone think, "Man, I cannot believe a Ford dealership sold a car"? The answer is no. We do not think that Ford is associated with the KKK because the person drives a vehicle with the Ford emblem on it. So why do we assume that because an add pops up on a video that the company should be associated with the content?

Um... Ok. And you're accusing US of not understanding? Wow... Just wow.

 

[zinfamous]

Perhaps it is time to revisit and regulate this whole ad revenue, privacy invasive service based economy.

Nah, because these companies are killing it!

Yep.

This got me thinking: One thing that I tend to believe with the way interest groups in recent years, particularly the extremist/fascist/Nazis whatever have become louder and seemingly more prevalent, is that prior to the internet, they were always rather isolated among their scattered communities with very little cross-population communication, organizing, whatever. It's hard to get your newsletters and tracts out there when your tiny group of 10-20 Nazis are likely the only like-minded Nazis that you will encounter.

A large part of this that I somehow just realized, is that prior to the internet, you needed direct sponsorship from advertisers to get your information out to larger audiences. To publish anything substantial and target larger numbers of people, you needed advertisers to front those costs. And, of course, you need a product that advertisers wanted to endorse. Obviously, this wasn't ever going to be easy for Nazis and other hate groups. With algorithmic-determined advertising, advertisers really haven't had much control over their messaging. Well, not any, really.

I recall some years ago when the front page of Anandtech had a big fat "ABORTION IS MURDER!" ad running across the primary banner. I pointed this out to the administrators because, whether or not you agree with it, you understand why a hardware review site wouldn't want to be involved in such divisive political rhetoric (this was prior to Purch; though I'm sure the sentiment remains the same). Advertisers don't really have control over where their ads appear, and websites and groups don't have as much control over what type of ads appear over their content.

The ability for hate groups to unify over great distances, for their websites to thrive and keep up with the bills due, perhaps entirely, to the benefit of anonymous, algorithmic advertising are just some of the pitfalls in this rush to "freedom" through fully digital information access.

 

[realibrad]

The USPS just sued Lance Armstrong for $5million for defrauding them when they were sponsoring him. The didn't sue him for using the mail.

USPS was sponsoring Lance. Ford is not sponsoring ISIS under the current structure because small channels cannot get ad revenue as of right now.

Also note that USPS did not sue the company that made Lance's bike, the people that fed him, paces he ate.

Let me also ask you this, has there ever been a company that you stopped or reduced your business with because they sponsored someone that turned out to be an ass hat and was let go for being said ass hat?

 

[realibrad]

Um... Ok. And you're accusing US of not understanding? Wow... Just wow.

Yep. Care to explain why it is that you think I am missing something, and or what it is that you are seeing that I am not?

 

[Amused]

Yep. Care to explain why it is that you think I am missing something, and or what it is that you are seeing that I am not?

Oh, just the fact that the companies themselves and advertising agencies all agree, being shown on media that promotes racism, nazism and hate is bad for their brand image. As is paying advertising dollars directly to Nazis, White supremacists and general hate mongers.

But hey, WTF do the experts know? Realibrad on the internet told me there wasn't a problem!

 

[Ventanni]

Bingo! Is it a problem that someone from the KKK drives a Ford? Does anyone think, "Man, I cannot believe a Ford dealership sold a car"? The answer is no. We do not think that Ford is associated with the KKK because the person drives a vehicle with the Ford emblem on it. So why do we assume that because an add pops up on a video that the company should be associated with the content?

I think we need to understand how sponsorship/branding works to really understand what's going on here. Not forum blasting you here btw. I work in advertising, so I do this for a living.

In this hypothetical scenario, it's not that Ford "supports" the KKK directly by having an ad run before their video. It's because human emotion and long term memory are handled by the same part of the brain, and as a result, they trigger each other. Anyone watching a negative, hate-filled video of any kind is going to associate negativity and hate with the Ford brand name. And once branded, when they feel negative or hate filled, they'll think of Ford. And when they think Ford, they suddenly feel negative and full of hate. It works the other way, too. Your local gym hosts a "Run for Cancer" charity event in the neighborhood. It's a good thing, people come out and support it. Tons of businesses help sponsor this event. People will go to this event, feel good for participating, and see the sponsor's logos. Feel good, see logo; see logo, feel good. See logo, feel good. You get the picture, and that's exactly what sponsors are striving for.

As a result, big brand names are leaving YouTube left and right for this very reason. They simply can't control who their logo shows up next to, and it hurts their overall image.

 

[Amused]

I think we need to understand how sponsorship/branding works to really understand what's going on here. Not forum blasting you here btw. I work in advertising, so I do this for a living.

In this hypothetical scenario, it's not that Ford "supports" the KKK directly by having an ad run before their video. It's because human emotion and long term memory are handled by the same part of the brain, and as a result, they trigger each other. Anyone watching a negative, hate-filled video of any kind is going to associate negativity and hate with the Ford brand name. And once branded, when they feel negative or hate filled, they'll think of Ford. And when they think Ford, they suddenly feel negative and full of hate. It works the other way, too. Your local gym hosts a "Run for Cancer" charity event in the neighborhood. It's a good thing, people come out and support it. Tons of businesses help sponsor this event. People will go to this event, feel good for participating, and see the sponsor's logos. Feel good, see logo; see logo, feel good. See logo, feel good. You get the picture, and that's exactly what sponsors are striving for.

As a result, big brand names are leaving YouTube left and right for this very reason. They simply can't control who their logo shows up next to, and it hurts their overall image.

Fuck all that. WTF do advertising experts know anyway? Realibrad on the internet told us it doesn't matter so there!

 

[realibrad]

I think we need to understand how sponsorship/branding works to really understand what's going on here. Not forum blasting you here btw. I work in advertising, so I do this for a living.

In this hypothetical scenario, it's not that Ford "supports" the KKK directly by having an ad run before their video. It's because human emotion and long term memory are handled by the same part of the brain, and as a result, they trigger each other. Anyone watching a negative, hate-filled video of any kind is going to associate negativity and hate with the Ford brand name. And once branded, when they feel negative or hate filled, they'll think of Ford. And when they think Ford, they suddenly feel negative and full of hate. It works the other way, too. Your local gym hosts a "Run for Cancer" charity event in the neighborhood. It's a good thing, people come out and support it. Tons of businesses help sponsor this event. People will go to this event, feel good for participating, and see the sponsor's logos. Feel good, see logo; see logo, feel good. See logo, feel good. You get the picture, and that's exactly what sponsors are striving for.

As a result, big brand names are leaving YouTube left and right for this very reason. They simply can't control who their logo shows up next to, and it hurts their overall image.

The association is not always there though. What you just described is the foundation of modern advertising, but, if it worked perfectly then a lot of people would be out of a job.

Go back to the hypothetical I gave, and ask yourself if you think people would associate Ford with the KKK guy.

For the association to stick, you often need to have an extreme event, or repetition.

 

[realibrad]

Oh, just the fact that the companies themselves and advertising agencies all agree, being shown on media that promotes racism, nazism and hate is bad for their brand image. As is paying advertising dollars directly to Nazis, White supremacists and general hate mongers.

But hey, WTF do the experts know? Realibrad on the internet told me there wasn't a problem!

First, nobody is paying advertising dollars directly to the groups you listed. That was dumb.

Second, what people want does not always work with reality. Old people have a hard time understanding the digital world, so that may be your problem here.