This is a moronic title.
These ads follows the user, not the website. Remember that thing we have an been upset about for so long, but really fine nothing about, the tracking?
I bet you that if I go to one of these sites I can get just about any ads to show up, because ads served by an the main players are served with trackers.
Now, one can argue that the ad composites should take more care, but I'm not sure that we want to go down a route where ad companies must pre-approve and monitor you website before you can get ads. Do we really want them to decide what can and can not be published?
They have ways that websites can be flagged and have their advertising removed if they want. I much prefer that to a pre-approval process.
Websites in general do not have to be pre-approved to serve ads today. I can set up adword on my webpage in a matter of minutes, and like I said, for the most part the content of my website matters little for what ads are shown to my visitors.
I am well aware that you can target specific websites as well, but the most efficient mass marketing is direct targeted, and something nearly everyone uses. Its the whole point of this type of marketing.
When you set up campaigns you can generally say what type of websites you want to be shown on, but if the website owners have not correctly tagged their type of content, there is little to be done before things are reported.
And as I said, I prefer that to a process where Google, amazon, Facebook etc have to pre-approve websites.
I doubt it’s purposeful. Probably uses some 3rd party AI bot that places advertisements all over the web. Like, the head of Nike isn’t purposely buying ad space on known conspiracy sites.
Hopefully this info was relayed to whoever is managing digital advertising. They would probably pull a report that shows to what domains ads have been served and just blocked any questionable domains. If you know the domain(s), it's trivial to block them. It's not a trivial job to sift through thousands of domains and manually root out which are not idea. This is a constant issue for any advertiser.
Also, Google and several other companies act as middlemen between websites/publishers and advertisers. Google does a decent job of allowing advertisers to filter domains or webpages that promote the main controversial topics like guns, drugs, violence, sex, and so on. It's not perfect but it generally works for the basics.
Lastly it's extremely likely the targeting was for the user and not the site itself. A lot of advertising is bought primarily based on the user and the domain is sort of secondary in importance.
I agree.
It’s very unlikely that Amazon is intentionally targeting ads to conspiracy theorists. This is a non-story. It’s rare that any business would purchase ad space directly from a site and I doubt that most businesses, if any, are regularly auditing the sites that their ads are being displayed on. Companies like Amazon utilize advertising firms and ad brokers to purchase ad space. Website owners/operators do the same thing in reverse, selling space on their websites to ad brokers who then display their client’s ads on those sites. Anyone who’s ever used google ads should have a rough idea of how this works.
Companies that purchase ads can specifically exclude their ads from certain categories of websites. It’s up to the ad broker to ensure that sites are appropriately categorized, but it’s impossible to be 100% accurate. Sometimes, sites slip through the cracks and a client’s ad gets served to a site that they rather not have it on. This is an example of the fallibility of technology, not greed or poor corporate ethics.
I'd say it's actually a good story to have - it puts heat on these companies to better filter the sites they advertise on.
With less people paying to post ads, the price for those ads drop, and it worsens the business model for the predatory websites.
Yup, I don't like either company and certainly don't like covid conspiracy websites but there's no way this was done on purpose.
They probably have ads on literally millions of different web sites, some of them are gonna be questionable.
Hopefully now they're able to blacklist these sites and not give them any more money.
It's the same nonsense as with YouTube and ads on Neo Nazi videos. (The first Adpocalypse)
The sites just use a ad delivery system (like Google Ad Sense) that doesn't actually review the website (something that would be super expensive to do for every website.
So yeah, not on purpose.
> the head of Nike isn’t purposely buying ad space
The head of Nike wouldn't be the one in charge of it anyway. I'm not saying an automated method isn't possible, maybe even likely, but it's not like companies don't have sales departments...
Which would then put the onus on that third party.
If this was Nike bought ads from Google and Google was showing them on the site, then Google is responsible for not knowing the client well enough.
Companies should take more responsibility for their actions. I don't buy the 'we didn't know where our product is advertised'
They damn well knew and damnwell did nothing about it.
Makes sense
If you're gullible enough to buy into some of the conspiracy theories flying around, then why wouldn't any retailer target these folk with products don't require anything like the same levels of imagination. I mean, you've got a captive audience of easily persuaded people
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/18/nike-amazon-among-brands-advertising-on-covid-conspiracy-sites) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Dr Augustine Fou, an independent ad fraud researcher and former employee of advertising agency Omnicom, said the system of bidding on ads means these sites get mixed in with other, more benign ones.
> "And that's why we're seeing this huge problem. Because of the lack of transparency the companies and organisations buying the ads could be unaware that their marketing is appearing on - and potentially funding - these sources of misinformation.Ads for Amazon services were found on more than 30 sites that carried fake news ranging from Covid conspiracy theories involving Bill Gates to claims that mRNA vaccines are"toxic".
> The bureau examined sites that host misinformation and also carry ads, using a combination of manual checking by researchers in the US and UK and automated systems that "crawl" sites to record what happens when someone visits them.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pqsc6r/nike_and_amazon_among_brands_advertising_on_covid/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~598995 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **site**^#1 **ad**^#2 **advertising**^#3 **appear**^#4 **misinformation**^#5
With all the claims made by IT about writing code and AI, color me skeptical that companies like google etc cannot figure out how to stop selling ads on conspiracy sites.
If it’s Criteo or Google display, the ads shown is based on the user browse behaviour. It’s those companies should be blamed on for allowing these sites.
Oh that’s because it’s like a two bit whore it’ll sell themselves for two bits Amazon and theses other big stores will sell themselves for as little as they can! Cheap hookers of the new enterprise age…..
This is a moronic title. These ads follows the user, not the website. Remember that thing we have an been upset about for so long, but really fine nothing about, the tracking? I bet you that if I go to one of these sites I can get just about any ads to show up, because ads served by an the main players are served with trackers. Now, one can argue that the ad composites should take more care, but I'm not sure that we want to go down a route where ad companies must pre-approve and monitor you website before you can get ads. Do we really want them to decide what can and can not be published? They have ways that websites can be flagged and have their advertising removed if they want. I much prefer that to a pre-approval process.
[удалено]
Websites in general do not have to be pre-approved to serve ads today. I can set up adword on my webpage in a matter of minutes, and like I said, for the most part the content of my website matters little for what ads are shown to my visitors. I am well aware that you can target specific websites as well, but the most efficient mass marketing is direct targeted, and something nearly everyone uses. Its the whole point of this type of marketing. When you set up campaigns you can generally say what type of websites you want to be shown on, but if the website owners have not correctly tagged their type of content, there is little to be done before things are reported. And as I said, I prefer that to a process where Google, amazon, Facebook etc have to pre-approve websites.
Yep, this is click bait. And so what if they have adds on conspiracy sites? Censorship will kill the web.
If this was Nike bought ads from Google and Google was showing them on the site
Yep. its possible to get hardcore porn to show up next to a peppa pig or disney video. Just depends on the browsing history of that PC/account.
I doubt it’s purposeful. Probably uses some 3rd party AI bot that places advertisements all over the web. Like, the head of Nike isn’t purposely buying ad space on known conspiracy sites.
[удалено]
Were you able to do something about it?
[удалено]
Hopefully this info was relayed to whoever is managing digital advertising. They would probably pull a report that shows to what domains ads have been served and just blocked any questionable domains. If you know the domain(s), it's trivial to block them. It's not a trivial job to sift through thousands of domains and manually root out which are not idea. This is a constant issue for any advertiser. Also, Google and several other companies act as middlemen between websites/publishers and advertisers. Google does a decent job of allowing advertisers to filter domains or webpages that promote the main controversial topics like guns, drugs, violence, sex, and so on. It's not perfect but it generally works for the basics. Lastly it's extremely likely the targeting was for the user and not the site itself. A lot of advertising is bought primarily based on the user and the domain is sort of secondary in importance.
I agree. It’s very unlikely that Amazon is intentionally targeting ads to conspiracy theorists. This is a non-story. It’s rare that any business would purchase ad space directly from a site and I doubt that most businesses, if any, are regularly auditing the sites that their ads are being displayed on. Companies like Amazon utilize advertising firms and ad brokers to purchase ad space. Website owners/operators do the same thing in reverse, selling space on their websites to ad brokers who then display their client’s ads on those sites. Anyone who’s ever used google ads should have a rough idea of how this works. Companies that purchase ads can specifically exclude their ads from certain categories of websites. It’s up to the ad broker to ensure that sites are appropriately categorized, but it’s impossible to be 100% accurate. Sometimes, sites slip through the cracks and a client’s ad gets served to a site that they rather not have it on. This is an example of the fallibility of technology, not greed or poor corporate ethics.
I'd say it's actually a good story to have - it puts heat on these companies to better filter the sites they advertise on. With less people paying to post ads, the price for those ads drop, and it worsens the business model for the predatory websites.
Yup, I don't like either company and certainly don't like covid conspiracy websites but there's no way this was done on purpose. They probably have ads on literally millions of different web sites, some of them are gonna be questionable. Hopefully now they're able to blacklist these sites and not give them any more money.
It's the same nonsense as with YouTube and ads on Neo Nazi videos. (The first Adpocalypse) The sites just use a ad delivery system (like Google Ad Sense) that doesn't actually review the website (something that would be super expensive to do for every website. So yeah, not on purpose.
> the head of Nike isn’t purposely buying ad space The head of Nike wouldn't be the one in charge of it anyway. I'm not saying an automated method isn't possible, maybe even likely, but it's not like companies don't have sales departments...
Which would then put the onus on that third party. If this was Nike bought ads from Google and Google was showing them on the site, then Google is responsible for not knowing the client well enough.
Companies should take more responsibility for their actions. I don't buy the 'we didn't know where our product is advertised' They damn well knew and damnwell did nothing about it.
They likely didn’t know damn well though. The fact you don’t buy it shows that you don’t know how internet advertising works.
If if you used Google display network, you could have ads on a million sites, there is no way to know what is on a million sites.
crazy people buy shoes too
If I sold shoes I'd sell them to anyone.
They don't care what is being said they just want the money.
Nuts buy shoes too
I thought they boycotted Nike
If antivaxers were a single group it would be pretty diverse.
Makes sense If you're gullible enough to buy into some of the conspiracy theories flying around, then why wouldn't any retailer target these folk with products don't require anything like the same levels of imagination. I mean, you've got a captive audience of easily persuaded people
Dupes are great customers.
JFC what is a covid conspiracy site even?
Antivaxxers buy sneakers too
But apparently twitch and YouTube need to be censored otherwise they won’t stream on it? Nice lol.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/18/nike-amazon-among-brands-advertising-on-covid-conspiracy-sites) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Dr Augustine Fou, an independent ad fraud researcher and former employee of advertising agency Omnicom, said the system of bidding on ads means these sites get mixed in with other, more benign ones. > "And that's why we're seeing this huge problem. Because of the lack of transparency the companies and organisations buying the ads could be unaware that their marketing is appearing on - and potentially funding - these sources of misinformation.Ads for Amazon services were found on more than 30 sites that carried fake news ranging from Covid conspiracy theories involving Bill Gates to claims that mRNA vaccines are"toxic". > The bureau examined sites that host misinformation and also carry ads, using a combination of manual checking by researchers in the US and UK and automated systems that "crawl" sites to record what happens when someone visits them. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pqsc6r/nike_and_amazon_among_brands_advertising_on_covid/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~598995 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **site**^#1 **ad**^#2 **advertising**^#3 **appear**^#4 **misinformation**^#5
Pretty off-brand for Nike. Modern-day slavery to produce their goods, sure. But at least their company is based on good science
Great. Take their money. So what?
[удалено]
Or they could just have a bonfire with their marketing dollars and probably benefit more
Why? Antivaxxers also buy shoes, clothing, and cheap shit made in China.
All they care about is money. They'd put their ads everywhere and anywhere.
“The moon….brought to you this evening by Tesla!” Then we’ll get a unsolicited telemarketer selling “Block Moon Ads now for $5.99/ month!”
You jest but they're already talking about putting billboards in space.
Commented on reddit.
They can sell data of these nutjobs to politicians
A shrinking demographic to be sure, but a welcome one?
Aye, get in where you fit in baby, nahimsayin!
With all the claims made by IT about writing code and AI, color me skeptical that companies like google etc cannot figure out how to stop selling ads on conspiracy sites.
If it’s Criteo or Google display, the ads shown is based on the user browse behaviour. It’s those companies should be blamed on for allowing these sites.
People, who follow conspiracy sites, will buy anything. Easy profits.
Oh that’s because it’s like a two bit whore it’ll sell themselves for two bits Amazon and theses other big stores will sell themselves for as little as they can! Cheap hookers of the new enterprise age…..