[swatcoder]

It's reasonable for advertisers to care about where their ads appear and what content they're associated with. It's been part of placement strategy for as long as modern advertising has existed. Magazines/broadcasts/websites naturally need to be sensitive to that because advertisers are ultimately their clients.

It's far less reasonable for governments to use their authority to intervene between those parties, at least without clear legal justification and prior exercise of due process.

[autoexec]

> It's reasonable for advertisers to care about where their ads appear and what content they're associated with.

It's reasonable for them to care, but it's less reasonable that anyone else care about their concerns.

Advertisers are the clients, but they also need something to attract our eyeballs before they can hijack our attention with their shitty ads. Media is a lot more consolidated than the ad industry and they have a strong enough position to push back. All media has to say is "if you pull your ads we'll never run another ad for your product in any of our magazines/broadcasts/websites again"

There's zero reason why anyone should assume that just because an ad is shown in a magazine it indicates total approval of the full contents of that magazine anyway.

[nvm0n2]

I don't associate companies with whatever random things their ads appear next to, I don't even remember it. I'm pretty sure this is also true for 99.9% of other people. This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" by attacking people and companies they don't like.

[gottorf]

> This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference"

The incentive structures are clear: you do nothing and maybe get fired if your company gets embroiled in a controversy due to the placement of those ads, or you pull your ads and spend that budget in another channel, and worse case nothing will happen to you, and best case you'll be praised for proactive thinking. Woke or not, I'd imagine most people would choose the latter; the former is mostly downside with limited upside.

[nvm0n2]

When has this ever happened. The amount of drama caused by businesses pulling ads seems way higher than leaving them running.

[bediger4000]

Marketers/advertisers have clearly felt different about this forever. There's really no doubt that advertisers leaned on newspapers to have certain stories "above the fold" or to not carry or diminish other stories.

I'd say that advertisers are in a good place to know whether people do or don't notice what ads are next to content, or vice versa.

I do notice ads and assume some minimal endorsement of content by the advertisers - we are constantly assured that Internet ads are at least demographically targeted.

[clucas]

Do you think it should be illegal for companies to make advertising decisions based on the politics of the content their ad might run on?

[nvm0n2]

Not sure governments should regulate to that level of detail but in principle sure why not.

[chowells]

So you're against free speech, then? Believe it or not, free speech includes the freedom to not repeat something someone else said.

[nvm0n2]

What is being repeated here? And how is the largely automated as placement system "speech"?

[swatcoder]

> I don't associate companies w with whatever random things their ads appear next to, I don't even remember it.

Of course you don't. You're watching things you're comfortable with and so you have no complaint about an advertiser's association with it.

> I'm pretty sure this is also true for 99.9% of other people. This brand safety stuff is just an excuse for woke marketing staffers to feel like they're "making a difference" by attacking people and companies they don't like.

Holding advertisers accountable for their placement, and distributors accountable for their catalog, predates "woke culture" by well over a century. Most "woke culture" activists in the US grew up seeing it aggressively deployed by "family oriented" activist groups in 1970's - 2000's era and they saw it be extremely effective at influencing what was available on TV, in print, in cinemas, and on music shelves because it threatened revenue and scared capitalists. And those "family groups" learned it from the anti-communists of the post-WWII era, etc, etc.

It's not new, it's not "woke", and history suggests that it does have material impact on media, culture, and business.

[coldacid]

This is why the value4value model is morally superior to the advertisement financed model.

[samketchup]

In the morning to ya!

[underseacables]

Is this a No Agenda reference on Hacker News!?