Are Twitter advertisers really worried their ads will land next to harmful content?

Apparently, a number of months ago, this happened:

www.marketing-interactive.com...

Someone's advertisements ended up getting associated with some tweets made by child pornographers.


Since then, the possibility of something like this has been used as a justification to defend Twitter's censorship policies. (Even though I think child pornography has never, nor ever would be, permitted when those policies are lightened.)


marketing.twitter.com...


marketing.twitter.com...


My personal thinking is that, if you allow speech that falls outside someone's accepted norms, they should simply be required to be flagged. For example, if a racist wants to talk about how much they hate the Twileks in Star Wars, and want to restrict them to drinking from Twilek only water fountains, .... the tweet should be flagged as "racist". (Also if they hate other people, like Asian or Black people... etc.... )


Or for an example that is slightly closer to mainstream, maybe they want to make a "toxically masculine" tweet, they could just flag it
"Chauvanist". Like the Jeremy's Razors ad.




I think it is well within the abilities of someone like Elon Musk to be able to write an AI that carefully excludes tweets with those flags from being connected with ads by advertiser wishing to to associate with them.

If a user refuses to, or carelessly neglects to put the right tags on their tweets, then you ban them for that. Not the content. Just the lack of flagging of the content. (Some users may wish to permaflag their account with some flags, so they never forget to apply them.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You're telling me twits tweet about such stuff?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Nope, really bad idea.

Not only does it collide with how twitter works, it only furthers the name calling, separation and restricts flow of information. You will have groups flagging each other even more into oblivion.

It should be very simple rule. If it's not manner & decorum or crime related, it flies. As simple as that. This all just got so complicated because the former twitter management was declaring snails as elephants and escalated terms like "hate speech" when it wasn't. That lead to a ban happy climate. If twitter stops political biased banning or banning for wrongspeak, the issue will tone down a lot.

Then it's up to the users again to just mind a bit what they write.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It's got nothing to do with actual concerns over content. They've been advertising alongside unabashed pedophiles, zoophiles, and their advocates for a couple years now. Death threats, riot planning, and doxxing brigades all operated openly so long as they were alt-left woke nonsense. Active terror groups could be found promoting their hate messages, so long as they were the right hate messages. They've had no problem with their ads being next to people advocating for children to be secretly given hormone treatments and lobbying for genital mutilation to be accepted medical treatment for psychological disorders.

It's about getting their way and being able to control who gets to say what. I noticed about two months ago, before Musk took over even, that far left loons started limiting replies because even under woke management the normies were showing they'd had enough of the lies and propaganda. Most normal people don't approve of degeneracy being normalized. The don't want to be exposed to it constantly while going about their day.

A bunch of clowns all said they were going to leave too, but they're too addicted to their hourly bot-fueled validation. I believe the only people who have left to date are the ones Musk fired. Just wait until he's done digging through the internal communications. There's going to be a treasure trove of election information. Hopefully he moves to immediately release all the evidence of collusion between the Biden admin and prior management to violate the first amendment on COVID.

The advertisers are being good corporate shills to get their future ESG ratings boosted.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
I've done a few Promoted Tweets (for a certain book) and the question hadn't occurred to me. But I've been able to use key words to help define a target audience, and my choices probably make the juxtaposition unlikely.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I don’t think publishers care. A few years ago I read a story about an aboriginal woman who had petrol poured over her and lit, due to a family domestic violence attack.

The woman died, sadly.

Though on the same page was an adver for fire pits.

Pretty tasteless of the newspaper.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Nope, really bad idea.

Not only does it collide with how twitter works, it only furthers the name calling, separation and restricts flow of information. You will have groups flagging each other even more into oblivion.

It should be very simple rule. If it's not manner & decorum or crime related, it flies. As simple as that. This all just got so complicated because the former twitter management was declaring snails as elephants and escalated terms like "hate speech" when it wasn't. That lead to a ban happy climate. If twitter stops political biased banning or banning for wrongspeak, the issue will tone down a lot.

Then it's up to the users again to just mind a bit what they write.

This is the best way, for the reasons you stated. I was censored on a few platforms for simply questioning covid policy. Never once did I go into anything traditionally considered unacceptable, but people had gotten bent out of shape over what others think in recent years.

I got kicked out of a huge facebook page, a few years back, because I tried to defend myself as a white person having dreads. That group of over a thousand people were fully indoctrinated in the woke mentality to believe that dreads were cultural appropriation whereas I argued that europeans can have curly hair too and our ancestors may have grown dreads due to this. Was not the right response and I got kicked out. Second strike after I said buying a dream catcher as a baby gift for a non indigenous baby wasn't racist. Even my friend who is native agreed and logically said native artisans rely on sales outside of their communities.

Anyhow, the point is we need to go back to the old saying "sticks and stones"... actually can't remember the rest but the idea is that words shouldn't be taken as equivalent to a mortal wound.

I'm so tired of the division.

a reply to: igloo
Your personal experience about the dreamcatcher is a very good example. It's even an artisan piece of work, real artisan and made with spirit. That it's not clear to those woke people that dreamcatchers made by the native and available to buy is already the agreement in itself to legitimately own one, when we think about it.

Would be different if such a graceful sharing was copied in mass production, then I would be SMH too. But the woke crowd went full blown bonkers on the whole thematic.

It's brazen to try tell the people what they can or not can do with their hair, be it your dreadlocks or my dark purple hair. In my case I just like the optics, in your case you at least like the optic. So we share this minimum requirement to make it happen so you have dreadlocks and I a different color. Based on that no one should unasked interfere in that and try to attach it to political or cultural things.

I would see it different when it's about spiritual and religious stuff and used in a mocking manner. I have never experienced any example about such a case and currently don't know one. The people themselves belonging to the culture will speak up by themselves, they don't need a woke crowd of self justice working unattached and in parallel with them.

These people just all need to find a real hobby and, or, some juju and chill down a bit. I am tired of the divisiveness too.

ADD; Even then it's often either speculative if a case of "mocking" is intentional or that the person is just not aware of it. Additional, it's still up to the individual to mind such accidental mocking or not. And even if one does not care, it should not be assumed as hateful from the very beginning.