Gaza and Lebanon get the same treatment, but West Bank does not. I assume this is the result of an automatic or crowd-sourced algorithm, rather than a deliberate decision made by the company.
Welcome to the beautiful world of "brand safety". It's not the same but I think the core of the problem is similar to how adtech works:
Whenever you visit a website who wants to display an ad, or whether you see a YouTube video, the adtech machinery tries to guess from URL path, article content, embedder website etc. whether the content is "brand safe" for example to show you Ikea ad.
Each advertiser has different preferences, but many prefer to avoid having their ads shown when the page is e.g. a news page about terrorism, wars etc.
(This has an effect of sometimes demonetising people who create very valuable content but the topic is not "advertising safe" so sorry no ads for you and no money for the creator).
You're relatively neutral (which I highly appreciate as it's rare), but still I feel some sense of entitlement that if you make YouTube content that's taking on controversial topics you're owed advertisers. You're not owed advertisers.
If someone needs funding for their serious reporting work, then they need to figure out people whose interests align with theirs and get that funding. It's not exactly surprising that the maker of soda drinks isn't interested in getting into an Israel-Palestine conflict, is it?
Yeah, this is the story. Banning "Palestine" is problematic and all, but banning "Mohammed" (and I tried alternate spellings, all banned) excludes the most common name on Earth.
Someone done messed up. I wouldn't get too excited.
Ah the classic manufactured outrage of a twitter mob which doesn't understand the topic they're discussing.
Companies suck and computers suck, now get busy on some real problems, you won't achieve your "equality" by giving 6$ to a megacorp to write "Palestine" on a bottle
8 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 12.8 ms ] threadWhenever you visit a website who wants to display an ad, or whether you see a YouTube video, the adtech machinery tries to guess from URL path, article content, embedder website etc. whether the content is "brand safe" for example to show you Ikea ad.
Each advertiser has different preferences, but many prefer to avoid having their ads shown when the page is e.g. a news page about terrorism, wars etc.
(This has an effect of sometimes demonetising people who create very valuable content but the topic is not "advertising safe" so sorry no ads for you and no money for the creator).
If someone needs funding for their serious reporting work, then they need to figure out people whose interests align with theirs and get that funding. It's not exactly surprising that the maker of soda drinks isn't interested in getting into an Israel-Palestine conflict, is it?
Someone done messed up. I wouldn't get too excited.
Companies suck and computers suck, now get busy on some real problems, you won't achieve your "equality" by giving 6$ to a megacorp to write "Palestine" on a bottle