Don’t see what the problem is, most of these big brands love to fuck people.
Because in porn it’s consensual and enjoyed by both parties. They don’t want customers getting any ideas.
Your knowledge of porn is very limited. That statement of yours is barely half true.
Today’s pegging is sponsored by Nestle.
Today’s bondage is brought to you by Pepsi.
deleted by creator
ABDL sponsored by Hugees
The taste so nice you should taste it twice
Banggood ?
WTF now I love Nestle
Better seen on Pornhub next to some anal fisting than on Twitter/X next to blatant nazi propaganda.
😂 nazbol
Many sites have to get rid of adult content because of complains. Now what they are also going to blame porn sites for having porn?
Like people who move next door to a live music venue and complain about the noise.
Or ones who move in next to a pig farm and complain about the smell
They are right, though. Noise pollution is real and harmful. If the venue can’t soundproof its walls then it should close.
Noise pollution is harmful, but subject to an inverse-square law with regard to distance and not a big issue for people whose schedules are compatible with the venue’s hours. Seems to me who was there first should win that contest in most cases.
The only aspect which should be taken into consideration is noise ordinance laws, honestly. If the venue exceeds them, they’re clearly at fault.
Fun fact: where i live if you want to build residential next to an existing live venue, soundproofing is your problem.
who the fuck cares why is this bad
Be quiet, the only reason you can masturbate in peace without being flooded with ads is because advertisers think it hurts their business.
without being flooded with ads
You never went to a random porn site from Google search with a dozen pop-ups and 30 consecutive re-directs?
Why would you want to use a clearly SEO-centered clickbait site when pornhub, xhamster and xnxx exist?
i only volunteer to watch ads nowadays
ublock enters the room
Is that the name of new chastity cage brand?
Was joak
It’s more of a major goof on googles part than anything bad. These big prudish companies will start to pull ads if they think their brand is at risk. Apple has had rumors of expanding their ad network so if Google keeps slipping they might step in.
imagine not buying a MacBook because you seen it next to a vagina
these companies are idiots if they think anyone gives a fuck about this
imagine not buying a MacBook because you seen it next to a vagina
this is exactly what religious nutjobs usually do
They would have only seen that combination if they had gone looking for the vagina though…
You are assuming that they think rationally
Nah, they will just get mad and still buy the MacBook because their beliefs are not actually sincere.
The headline leaves out the most important part. Ads aren’t only being shown on porn sites, but they’re also appearing on websites that are hosted by sanctioned countries (eg, Russia). If those websites are getting kickbacks from Google, that violates laws. The EU is already investigating it.
It’s not bad, it’s funny.
Because the porn industry is rife with exploitation and trafficking and underage individuals and exploiting addictions and sexual abuse?? Come on it’s not that difficult to put the pieces together.
no it isn’t
deleted by creator
It’s the kind of amateur fuck-up that you wouldn’t expect from the world’s most successful advertising company.
deleted by creator
Because it’s not about whether or not it should be no big deal. It’s about whether or not it is currently a big deal
I totally agree with you personally, but whoever was in charge of this should know better.
You not caring about something is vastly different than a brand caring about something.
Brands supposedly pushed Google in to the “adpocalypse” and other types of ad revenue purges. Why? Because supposedly their content was being shown next to uncouth content. Content still allowed on YouTube (read: less extreme than hardcore porn).
So, now you tell me. Why should it be OK for Google to do what they constantly take money away from others over? And over less serious content, no less.
It’s about the hypocrisy. If you cannot see any, you’re not looking. If you don’t care about hypocrisy, then you’re just a fucking idiot.
Come on, you do know a lot of people take offense at porn for various reasons, right? And most mainstream brands don’t like being associated with offensive stuff…
deleted by creator
Wat
It’s about what the advertisers themselves have said. They supposedly don’t want it. It matters fuck-all what you or me think.
Dogs? What?
Anyway, nobody’s saying certain sites shouldn’t be allowed to have ads. The issue is which ads are shown on which sites. Advertisers don’t want their ads showing up next to content that their target audience might consider offensive. They also don’t want to waste their ad budget showing ads to people who aren’t likely to respond to the ad. The ability to pair ads with content that appeals to a certain audience is the whole reason Google is such an effective advertising platform.
Wish I could remember what FAST stands for right now
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Youtube: Nooooo!! You can’t say the fuck-fuck word in the first three minutes of the video and you can’t cover content that isn’t friendly to our advertisers!! If you do anything out of line we will demonetize you!!!
Meanwhile, Google:Ugh, I hate hearing a no-no word in the video YouTube serves me after the 5 minute blowjob machine ad.
Oh no, not on HARDCORE porn!
I mean, in front of my salad?!
Don’t forget to have your salad tossed!
Everything’s cool after a shower
He’s fucking those eggs up!
As usual,
redditorslemmings commenting on an article they haven’t read. This isn’t just about your brand appearing on a standard porn site. It’s also about your brand appearing on disinformation sites like Breitbart. Also, if your ads appear on those sites, it means that very probably your money is ALSO going to those sites.I mean the problem really started with a headline that misrepresents the article
I know that when I’m watching two hairy jocks fuck each other’s brains out is exactly the moment I’m thinking of buying a new set of LG kitchen appliances at The Home Depot’s Black Friday sale.
Think of the product placement opportunities!
Just as he’s lifting the bottom’s leg to get that undercarriage shot, I’m looking at the dishwasher he’s being fucked against. The sleek stainless steel finish. The touch controls. Is that GE Profile? How many decibels is it? I bet it’s under 45! I bet they’re doing dishes right now, and I can’t hear it!
If they’re having a piss and cum soaked orgy on the bed but in the next scene those sheets are clean then yeah I’ll have a look at that washing machine.
I love how this rhymes.
I can’t say if I’d be swayed into a purchasing decision by a porn site ad for collars from a pet store or rope from a hardware store. But I would absolutely respect the hell out of them for it. (Actually, if a hardware store made a “build this!” style ad where you made some sort of kink hardware from a pick list and free plans, I might actually go for it, because I like crafts and kink.)
Can you imagine the opportunities for novelty beds? Not just the newfangled memory foam ones or the adjustable base ones, but the ones with the slits and divots and cutouts for pillows that promise to solve all the problems with side sleepers and intense cuddlers? I don’t need any of that but I’d definitely be more receptive to one if I saw something interesting being done with them.
You depraved ingrate. You disgust me.
I can’t believe anyone would be so morally bankrupt as to buy LG appliances.
I have their microwave/oven and it’s very good. Still got physical buttons and knob instead of touch sensitive bs.
did they blame the client for caring, and then sue whomever discovered it? i hear thats very popular lately.
Caught? Is this illegal?
Contract violation for brand safety and media buy. Possibly fraud.
Imagine buying a vegan gluten free cake for 30 bucks. The baker gives you a dairy and gluten cake actually worth 15 bucks retail price.
I’m imagining this, and am just stuck here thinking that I should have just bought a chocolate bar, now what?
Advertisers by media (ad space). That ad space is usually defined by parameters or attributes. It could be based on characteristics of the user, like demographic or audience (like car shoppers), but often has other criteria of content attributes, and that can be negative attributes, like no ad space on porn sites or on pages where my direct competitors also have ads. So when Google misrepresents that ad space to the advertiser that had those specific parameters on the deal, it’s a problem.
Hold on a second.
Someone saw these ads and thought “I should admit to my porn habits to spread this information that materially doesn’t affect me, but puts revenue in Googles wallet and probably doesn’t harm the big brands at all?”
Can people not separate ads from what ever they are reading/watching in their minds?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
According to an Adalytics report, the Google Search Partner Network (SPN) has allegedly been putting brands at risk of all of these undesirable placements without advertisers fully realizing the dangers.
Among those impacted were big brands—like Amazon, Apple, BMW, Home Depot, Lego, Meta, Microsoft, Paramount+, Samsung, and Uber—and top government entities including the US Treasury and the European Commission.
Ads from nonprofits like the American Cancer Society and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, as well as major media outlets like The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal were also found on illegal or adult sites.
To determine roughly how seedy the SPN might be, Adalytics relied on open source data and web crawlers to flag search ads displayed on 7.2 million sites.
According to MediaPost, it has been estimated that the SPN “generates about $10.5 billion annually” for Google, while requiring advertisers to "acknowledge that our policies meet any image and reputation standards you may have for your company” before creating an ad campaign in its Search Network.
Adalytics’ report included a disclaimer that its “study does not allege that any entities violated US Treasury or international sanctions or any other anti-money laundering (AML) laws.”
The original article contains 684 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
