[rifung]

> At the end of the day, advertisers and viewers can't possibly care what video it's showing on as long as they're getting the right target audience.

This isn't true?

Advertisers certainly do care. They don't want their ad dollars to be spent paying publishers for content that's controversial because it makes them look bad. It also has the potential to damage their brand.

This actually happened and is what led YouTube to lose a significant amount of ad revenue which in turn created the situation we have now.

I work for Google, opinions are my own.

[jagged-chisel]

> ... advertisers ... can't possibly care what video it's showing ...

I read this as 'advertisers don't care about the particular topic of the ad in general.' They don't care if you're watching a DIY home fixit video, or a coder streaming his working session, as long as you're a target for diapers and they're advertising diapers.

[Breza]

Ah, the old endemic versus non-endemic debate. Increasingly, you're right, but some brands really like the prestige of having their ads appear with content related to their topic.

[braindeath]

And it sounds like the person you’re responding to is countering this very premise.

“They don't want their ad dollars to be spent paying publishers for content that's controversial because it makes them look bad.”

[jagged-chisel]

They care insofar as political controversy is concerned. Topically, they are not concerned. This is the distinction I feel does exist.

[braindeath]

What actual difference does drawing this distinction make? It doesn’t change the advertisers behavior.

[lapnitnelav]

Yes, there's a whole subset of the industry dedicated to preventing such a thing, with players like IAS, DoubleVerify, MOAT, ...