• Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      89
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because in porn it’s consensual and enjoyed by both parties. They don’t want customers getting any ideas.

      • NOSin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your knowledge of porn is very limited. That statement of yours is barely half true.

  • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Better seen on Pornhub next to some anal fisting than on Twitter/X next to blatant nazi propaganda.

  • kubica@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are right, though. Noise pollution is real and harmful. If the venue can’t soundproof its walls then it should close.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only aspect which should be taken into consideration is noise ordinance laws, honestly. If the venue exceeds them, they’re clearly at fault.

        • Taleya@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fun fact: where i live if you want to build residential next to an existing live venue, soundproofing is your problem.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
          1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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.

          • jtk@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most mainstream brands don’t like to say they’re beyond willing to be associated with offensive stuff as long as it makes them money and they can pretend they aren’t associated with it. Google knows what they’re doing and they’re more than happy to take the bad press, which won’t effect them in any meaningful way.

        • guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For a lot of brands their most valuable customers are middle and upper class people, and their tastes tend to veer prudish/judgmental/conservative on these things. IE with the example of a kitchen appliance manufacturer, we think that’s a very popular/cross-class purchasing category, except for the fact that for tons of us our kitchen appliances are chosen for us by our landlords and among homeowners, the only ones who are regularly going out and swapping out their kitchen appliances are the well-off ones. LG’s best customers, and this is true of most businesses, are their rich customers.

          For the most part, rich and affluent customers’ tastes count for more just because they can consume more, and many of the people in charge of advertising decisions at these companies are themselves middle or upper class, so it’s like a self-reinforcing ideological loop caused by structural economic inequality. The population at large’s opinion about whether shit like this even matters doesn’t really enter into the equation because what counts as “respectable” for companies is entirely decided on a per-dollar basis.

  • sheepishly@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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:

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ugh, I hate hearing a no-no word in the video YouTube serves me after the 5 minute blowjob machine ad.

  • June@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh no, not on HARDCORE porn!

    I mean, in front of my salad?!

  • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    As usual, redditors lemmings 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.

    • tias
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean the problem really started with a headline that misrepresents the article

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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!

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Copernican@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?”

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!