
AT&T, other U.S. advertisers quit Google, YouTube over extremist videos - 13of40
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/22/att-pulls-google-youtube-ads-over-offensive-content/99497194/
======
londons_explore
I suspect the recent blocking of ads on LGBT video creators is part of Googles
response to this.

It's rather hard to pick a subset of videos which no advertisers consider
offensive. Social norms in one country might vary widely from another country
or culture.

It looks like Google is getting criticized from both sides here, and there is
no middle ground.

~~~
toss1941
Google should give censorship the middle finger, while also giving advertisers
more control over where their ads play. Categorization is good, censorship
isn't.

~~~
draw_down
What does this actually mean, though? Advertisers are always free to spend or
not spend their dollars as they see fit.

~~~
myowncrapulence
If an advertiser doesn't want to reach viewers on the largest and most
concentrated video market on Earth then that's their own internal problem they
need to deal with.

This is the brave new world. The free-market of information is beginning to
show its teeth for better or worse and those who shy away from it will lose
market share.

~~~
devoply
Exactly. Google doesn't realize that it wields an incredible amount of power
in this situation. If these guys don't advertise than someone else will. They
will win, these idiots will lose.

~~~
sprafa
Advertising is a surprisingly concentrated market, with five or six
conglomerates making most of ads you see (WPP, Publicis, Mccain, etc.)

In fact this whole brewhaha was started because the current head of the WPP
said he wanted Google to do something about his ads showing up next to
extremist videos. It's not inconceivable the article on The Times that started
it all was made as part of WPP's strategy to make Google kowtow to them on
this subject.

Basically don't underestimate the power of advertising agencies. They can
produce news cycles at will.

------
AJ007
Have any other these same brands bailed on Facebook because of live rape,
murder, or suicide streams?

[http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/gangbanger-facebook-lives-
his-o...](http://nypost.com/2016/06/17/gangbanger-facebook-lives-his-own-
murder/) [http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-
chi...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/facebook-live-gang-rape-chicago/)

Consumers create the content they consume now. Big brands that decide they
need to opt out of Youtube also need to opt out of Facebook, Instagram, and
Snapchat. Upon doing so, they will be forgotten.

Ben Thompson at Stratechery has had a lot of thoughtful things to say about
brands and their relationship to television. It was a virtuous cycle not just
for mega brands and content producers but also retail. Internet advertising
disrupted that. ( Good read: [https://stratechery.com/2016/dollar-shave-club-
and-the-disru...](https://stratechery.com/2016/dollar-shave-club-and-the-
disruption-of-everything/) )

On another note, I've been wondering for years how long it would be until
advertisers would decide maybe they don't want their brands pre-rolling in
front of snuff films on Daily Mail and other curated news platforms.

------
londons_explore
The "extremist" videos in question here aren't exactly niche. Some have 30
million views. Thats fairly mainstream.

I watched a few (with english translations), and while they are religious in
nature, the few I sampled didn't seem anything out of the ordinary for
youtube.

~~~
cpncrunch
What was the video about?

------
pilsetnieks
Curiously, a decidedly tech-unsavvy publication from where I live, described
this event as "companies are boycotting YouTube because extremist videos are
displayed alongside their ads."

Which unintentionally describes YouTube as what it actually is.

~~~
shshhdhs
If it's correct, why do you say it's unintentional?

~~~
mi100hael
Presumably, YouTube at least wants you to think the videos are the main
feature and the ads are just a small add-on, so you would expect the article
to say "companies are boycotting YouTube because their ads are displayed along
side extremist videos." The wording the author quoted makes it sound like the
ads are the main featured content.

------
synicalx
To be fair, it can't possibly be easy for Google work out what ads are
appropriate for what content. I mean some will be easy like a crap music video
and Beats, but there are some videos that just aren't ad material.

"Ok we've got a large topless woman covered in slogans, holding a sign, and
screaming at a crowd. Maybe.... Nescafe?"

~~~
FLUX-YOU
Context is difficult but maybe if you can't establish an easy context, you
don't run ads from major buyers.

Another option is separating classes of customers into major buyers like AT&T
and everyone else -- AT&T's ads only go onto curated and high reputation
channels.

AT&T and other advertisers frankly seem to have not understood the risk of a
site which plays their ads on videos that anyone in the world can upload. Or,
they have tolerated or controlled the risk up until now and ads + terrorist
videos have become a big enough news story that Google has been made into the
fall guy.

------
cpncrunch
If 98% of flagged videos are reviewed with 24 hours, it raises the question of
why these videos are not getting deleted. Are they not getting flagged? Is
google not reviewing them quickly enough? Are they not really as objectionable
as the advertisers claim (as londons_explore's comment alludes to)?

~~~
13of40
I suspect there's a vast grey area between what's actually against the terms
of service and what some companies want their ads shown next to. For example,
a video calling for Muslims to return to the middle East to fight in the
jihad, with no actual graphic content, might not violate the TOS, but British
Airways probably doesn't want their ad in the same zip code as that.

~~~
williamscales
Sure but then that just shifts the question to why aren't t ads simply
manually disabled on those videos if they are being reviewed already?

~~~
cpncrunch
But why disable ads on a video that doesn't violate ToS? What they need is a
"religious content" category, so people can choose not to have their videos
there.

~~~
williamscales
I mean, I think that disabling those ads is the entire point here. Ads are
showing up on videos that don't violate the TOS but that advertisers don't
want to be associated with. If 98% of the videos in question are getting
reviewed anyway Google has a simple meatspace solution.

------
raverbashing
Google seems to think algorithms can solve everything

As in the case of maps, it is clearly not the case. They actually need humans,
with critical sense (those are more expensive) to check case by case

Videos can also get input from the users but a) this is prone for abuse and b)
they need better inputs than like/not like and bad cases are harder to report

~~~
wslh
Google has a tracking record of not giving support and relying on the
community for Q&A. Which means there is no real answers to different concerns.
Some solutions exist but Tom from Minnesota or John from New York give bad
responses and someone else trust them because these answers are in the Google
support site.

------
xupybd
I think this will pass. Google's audience will pull back the advertisers.
Google holds the keys to the castle here.

------
ignoramceisblis
Surely companies enter into these agreements knowing what service Google will
provide for them, right? On top of that, I don't think many people believe
even Google has the technology and resources to scan every bit of content they
show and determine if it's "extreme"\--according to a particular company.

This is a case of companies catching flak from potential customers for being
associated with something offensive to those vocal customers, and wanting to
distance themselves from it. So they try to shoot the messenger:
Google/Youtube.

They either knew what they were getting into when they signed the contract
(because "We'll give you money. Just shove our company down the gullet of the
public."), or they're inept.

~~~
csydas
I don't think that the response is entirely unreasonable; Google doesn't have
to comply if they don't want to, and it will just be a game of who flinches
first after that.

It's not really unprecedented to request a change in policy or to try to
influence a service you're using. I agree with you that this should just be an
accepted cost of algorithm based advertising, but I don't see the response as
particularly unreasonable. The companies want a change in how it works, and
they're trying to throw their financial weight behind it.

I mean, it's not like they're suing to break contract, they're just not
continuing to use the product because it no longer is serving their needs.

I'm really not trying to be a corporate apologist here - whether their ads are
there or not I won't see them so I frankly don't care. But I'm not sure why
there is a condescending attitude towards the corporations for trying to make
a change, and then stopping use of a product they deem to no longer meet their
needs.

~~~
ignoramceisblis
Totally understood, and agreed: companies are allowed to use (or not) whatever
services they want, and they will ask for whatever they want. My original
comment was made to point out: they got what they (should have) expected, and
now they're dealing with damage control. Which I would fully expect them to
do.

------
watmough
I rather thought that Google advertised to the person using YouTube, and the
video is just the vehicle.

Thus, you'd expect ads targeted at you to appear on any video you watch, even
extremist ones.

This may be quite difficult for Google to 'fix'.

------
londons_explore
Note that many of the companies say they have withdrawn "non-search" ads. For
many advertizers, that could be a tiny fraction of their budget.

~~~
greglindahl
It's important to remember that non-search advertising is a small business for
Google compared to search ads.

------
randomgyatwork
Conspiracy theory, this is related to the changing dynamics of popular media.
These advertisers are actually concerned about money going to non-approved
media sources. The extremists videos are a happy coincidence / excuse for them
to act on.

------
yabatopia
With all the ad profiling and targeting going on, is it really a coincidence
that certain ads appear next to somewhat extreme content? Maybe some brands
and extremist groups do share the same audience?

That fact can be hard to swallow for the marketing department of a company:
'Apparently 80 percent of our customers are white supremacists or hate gays.'
Or something like: 'It seems that 1 in 3 of our shampoo buyers like beheading
videos.'

Consequently those companies pulling advertising on Google and YouTube should
stop selling their products and services to extremist or similar inappropriate
customers. Or put a disclaimer on their products or in their TOS: 'This
product can not be sold to, or used by, viewers of beheading videos, Muslim
extremists, Paul Ryan voters or Breitbart readers.'

~~~
devdoomari
I don't think it's about 'stop selling to extremists', but rather about
'having my image associated to extremist-contents'.

------
reader5000
The internet is a medium of communication like air and should not be subject
to advertiser brand management. Advertising really shouldnt even be the
primary method of financing; it should all be paid for with some sort of tax.

~~~
lewiscollard
> it should all be paid for with some sort of tax.

Which in practice works out as the state deciding what things should and
should not be funded and, therefore, seen. Even if the current global
political climate was not so awful I would still think this is a terrible
idea.

------
noodly
That's great - the less ads the better ;)

Looks like extremist videos make internet great again.

------
cgb223
If only companies would do the same thing with Twitter

They'd sooner delete controversial republican personalities accounts before
the confirmed ISIS recruiting accounts

Not that I agree with either, you'd just think the latter would take
significantly more precedent

------
shiftpgdn
I'd be curious of the ramifications if Google were to retaliate by delisting
their sites from the search index or direct to competitor sites.

~~~
deelowe
I'd imagine it would be something serious involving the DOJ.

~~~
wapz
They could definitely lower the search results and could definitely show the
competitors if you searched for them without reprimand I believe. I remember
when Google put google flights over competitors there was some legal action by
the FTC but it was dropped [0].

[0] [https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/20/ftc-report-google-
search...](https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/20/ftc-report-google-search-bias/)

