• lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s the kind of amateur fuck-up that you wouldn’t expect from the world’s most successful advertising company.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

      • loutr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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…

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s about what the advertisers themselves have said. They supposedly don’t want it. It matters fuck-all what you or me think.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.