Facebook has taken the lion’s share of scrutiny from the US Congress and the media about data-handling practices that allow savvy marketers and political agents to target specific audiences, but it is far from alone.
YouTube, Google and Twitter also have giant platforms awash with more videos, posts and pages than any set of human eyes could ever check.
Their methods of serving ads against this sea of content might come under the microscope next.
Illustration: Mountain people
Advertising and privacy experts say a backlash is inevitable against a “Wild West” Internet that has previously escaped scrutiny.
There continues to be a steady barrage of new examples where unsuspecting advertisers had their brands associated with extremist content on major platforms.
In the latest discovery, CNN reported that it found more than 300 retail brands, government agencies and technology companies had their ads run on YouTube channels that promoted white nationalists, Nazis, conspiracy theories and North Korean propaganda.
Child advocates have also raised alarms about the ease with which children with smartphones are exposed to inappropriate videos and deceptive advertising.
“I absolutely think that Google is next and long overdue,” said Josh Golin, director of the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which earlier this month asked the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google-owned YouTube’s advertising and data collection practices.
YouTube has repeatedly outlined the ways it attempts to flag and delete hateful, violent, sexually explicit or harmful videos, but its screening efforts have often missed the mark.
It also allows advertisers to avoid running ads on sensitive content — such as news or politics — that do not violate YouTube guidelines, but do not fit with a company’s brand.
Those methods appear to have failed.
“YouTube has once again failed to correctly filter channels out of our marketing buys,” 20th Century Fox Film said on Friday last week after it learned that its ads were running on videos posted by a self-described Nazi.
YouTube has since deleted the offending channel, but the Hollywood firm says it has unanswered questions about how it happened in the first place.
“All of our filters were in place in order to ensure that this did not happen,” Fox said, adding that it has asked for a refund of any money shared with the “abhorrent channel.”
YouTube said that it has made “significant changes to how we approach monetization” with “stricter policies, better controls and greater transparency,” and said it allows advertisers to exclude certain channels from ads.
It also removes ads when it is notified of problems running beside content that does not comply with its policies.
“We are committed to working with our advertisers and getting this right,” YouTube said.
So far, just one major advertiser — Baltimore-based retailer Under Armour — has said that it has withdrawn its advertising in the wake of the CNN report, though the lull lasted only a few days last week when it was first notified of the problem.
After its shoe commercial turned up on a channel known for espousing white nationalist beliefs, Under Armour worked with YouTube to expand its filters to exclude certain topics and keywords.
On the other hand, Procter & Gamble, which had kept its ads off of YouTube since March last year, said it had come back to the platform, but drastically pared back the channels it would advertise on to less than 10,000.
It has worked on its own, with third parties, and with YouTube to create its restrictive list.
That is just a fraction of the about 3 million YouTube channels in the US that accept ads and is even more stringent than YouTube’s “Google Preferred” lineup that focuses on the most popular 5 percent of videos.
The CNN report was “an illustration of exactly why we needed to go above and beyond just what YouTube’s plans were and why we needed to take more control of where our ads were showing up,” Proctor & Gamble spokeswoman Tressie Rose said.
The big problem, experts say, is that advertisers lured by the reach and targeting capability of online platforms can mistakenly expect the same standards for decency on network TV apply online.
In the same way, broadcast TV rules that require transparency about political ad buyers are absent on the Web.
“There have always been regulations regarding appropriate conduct in content,” said Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys Inc, a New York customer research firm.
Regulating content on the Internet is one area “that has gotten away from everyone,” he said.
Also absent from the Internet are many of the rules that govern children’s programming on TV.
TV networks, for instance, are allowed to air commercial breaks, but cannot use kids’ characters to advertise products.
Such “host-selling” runs rampant on Internet services such as YouTube.
Action to remove ads from inappropriate content is mostly reactive because of lack of upfront control of what gets uploaded and it generally takes the mass threat of boycott to get advertisers to demand changes, BrandSimple consultant Allen Adamson said.
“The social media backlash is what you’re worried about,” Adamson said.
At the same time, politicians are having trouble keeping up with the changing landscape, evident by how ill-informed many senators and representatives appeared during questioning of Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month.
“We’re in the early stages of trying to figure out what kind of regulation makes sense here,” said Larry Chiagouris, professor of marketing at Pace University in New York. “It’s going to take quite some time to sort that out.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers