[csande17]

> Because the juxtapostion of the ad with the offensive content makes it look like the advertiser endorses the content.

This isn't the case, not really. No one believes that Henry Ford has personally reviewed and approved every social media post that has an ad for Ford trucks next to it. That's just not how online advertisements work. (Consider that Gmail shows ads in your inbox, and that doesn't mean Ford is reading your mail.)

But activists and old-media and the like have managed to convince a lot of advertisers that it is the case. This happened relatively recently; the YouTube "ad-pocalypse" is less than ten years old. It'll be interesting to see how this perception changes in the future.

[threeseed]

You have this completely backwards.

Advertisers are the ones with the power here. It is their money and there is a wide array of choices for them to spend that money. And they have made clear over many years that brand safety is important to them.

So if Twitter doesn't want to listen to them then they will suffer not the advertisers.

[csande17]

I'm not sure you replied to the right post. I'm not saying advertisers don't have power. I'm saying advertisers' opinions about brand safety don't reflect the real world, those opinions were formed relatively recently, and they might change their minds again in another few years.

If it helps, the situation is similar to Donald Trump's presidency. The man had power, but he frequently made poor decisions based on his incorrect beliefs.

[lapcat]

"Replies to our posts with hardcore antisemitism and adult spam remained up for days even when flagged."

This seems like a serious concern.

Twitter advertisers never had control over the tweets that an ad appears between. That's pretty random. But the replies to promoted tweets are different matter, and they stick to the ad wherever it's seen.

[csande17]

Yeah, that's one area where claims of consumer confusion are a bit more legitimate. A lot of platforms let you delete replies to your posts, but Twitter doesn't, so people might see those and think "why hasn't this company deleted these replies?". (In fact, I personally am confused; I thought there were tools for hiding replies or disabling them or something. But I haven't used Twitter for a while, and maybe they don't work on ads.)

[threeseed]

> I'm saying advertisers' opinions about brand safety don't reflect the real world

It reflects their world view which is all that matters when they hold all the cards.

And not sure where you are getting the idea brand safety is a recent concept. According to this [1] aligning content and brand has been an issue for over 70 years.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2021/05/19/...

[lapcat]

> No one believes that Henry Ford has personally reviewed and approved every social media post that has an ad for Ford trucks next to it.

Because he died in 1947?

[csande17]

Among other reasons!

[Rebelgecko]

If United Airlines ads show up during a 9/11 documentary, the brand doesn't necessarily care that its their fault for buying ads on keywords like "New York flights". A screen shot will end up on Reddit regardless making fun of the juxtaposition regardless. Even even if Mr. United himself wasn't involved with the placement.

[timeon]

> Henry Ford

Not sure if Henry Ford who was spreading antisemitic hoaxes is good example here.