What's up with the propaganda in YouTube ads?

[InertiaSelling]

Hi. I'm a bit surprised by YouTube's ad policy lately. In a few days, I've been served two political messages before my videos.

 

• A message from a Turkish news network, which tried to justify Turkey's actions towards the Kurdish minority, both in Turkey and in Syria iirc, with references to the PKK.
• A message directly from the Polish PM's office (Kancelaria Premiera), which explained how "Germany has put Poland through hell" during WW2.

 

Obvious state propaganda is obvious. Turkey has been bombarding Kurdish fighters in Syria, despite their involvement in the fight against Daesh and their alliance with several countries, including France. Poland has passed a bill that criminalises the mention of any kind of complicity between the Polish people and the nazi regime. These are both topical, controversial issues, so I won't discuss them here, and I invite you to do the same so that this topic doesn't get locked. What surprises me is that YouTube agrees to serve one-sided, political messages to its users before their videos.

 

Can someone with a knowledge of YouTube's ad policy tell me why they seem not to fear any kind of backlash?

[Guest]

I can definitely agree with polish propaganda. I saw loads of government ads on youtube since the new president was elected 2 years ago. (I live in poland, those ads even show up in the trending category)

[asus killer]

why should they fear any backlash? things are really out of hand, shouldn't they be allowed to free speech. I haven't seen it but by your own words:  "tried to justify" and "explained" are absolutely fair means of doing it. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong, still should be allowed to do it. Are you gonna start censorship on the internet?

it's everyone's job to not be a passive receptacle of everything you read or watch and be critical and investigate for your self, still pick and choose by censorship seams totally wrong. Besides if they are wrong it's a good way of exposing them.

[InertiaSelling]

5 hours ago, Pangea2017 said:

I looks like what you are reporting is true (checked the poland video, this is going to be large in foreign press).

Advertisment is money and google loves money. These adds are controverial but there are also "normal" political advertisments during elections.

 

This is the adword help page for this topic: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6014595?hl=en

That's interesting. I didn't know YouTube's ad policy allowed states or state-related organisations to spread their views on topical issues. Thank you.

 

5 hours ago, asus killer said:

why should they fear any backlash? things are really out of hand, shouldn't they be allowed to free speech. I haven't seen it but by your own words:  "tried to justify" and "explained" are absolutely fair means of doing it. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong, still should be allowed to do it. Are you gonna start censorship on the internet?

it's everyone's job to not be a passive receptacle of everything you read or watch and be critical and investigate for your self, still pick and choose by censorship seams totally wrong. Besides if they are wrong it's a good way of exposing them.

I do not advocate censorship on the Internet, or anywhere really. The thing is, in France and many EU countries, paid-for political ads aren't allowed, especially during elections, because we don't want media coverage of parties to depend on whether or not they are supported by the part of the population with the most money. There is a debate to be had about that. Some would say it's a severe blow to freedom of speech, but our lawmakers seem to have thought otherwise. We could also have a discussion about whether or not restricting certain contents to certain media can be considered censorship.

 

Also, you must be aware that even countries that support freedom of speech the most have laws against defamation and deceptive advertising. The bombing of Kurdish armed groups as well as the Polish Holocaust bill have both been heavily criticised, and Turkey as well as Poland are known to be quite authoritarian. Then again, we could discuss the legitimacy of private companies, or even states, when it comes to deciding what is deceptive and what isn't.

 

Same goes for what you said about everyone needing to be critical of what they watch, as it could be argued that not everyone has proper knowledge of geopolitics, political science and history. Some people would consider restrictions on political propaganda to be necessary in order to prevent fake news from reaching gullible people. Some would even compare them to age restrictions on pornography consumption. That's another interesting topic for debate.

 

As much as I'd like to discuss all of this, I'm afraid such arguments aren't allowed here. I guess you could call that a restriction of freedom of speech as well, but that's up yo tou.

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, InertiaSelling said:

 

I do not advocate censorship on the Internet, or anywhere really. The thing is, in France and many EU countries, paid-for political ads aren't allowed, especially during elections, because we don't want media coverage of parties to depend on whether or not they are supported by the part of the population with the most money. There is a debate to be had about that. Some would say it's a severe blow to freedom of speech, but our lawmakers seem to have thought otherwise. We could also have a discussion about whether or not restricting certain contents to certain media can be considered censorship.

 

i think the US paid political ads are stupid, but again free speech. And you are mixing paid ads with media coverage, don't think even for a second that media coverage isn't bought, influenced all over the world and Europe is no exception.

 

2 hours ago, InertiaSelling said:

Also, you must be aware that even countries that support freedom of speech the most have laws against defamation and deceptive advertising. The bombing of Kurdish armed groups as well as the Polish Holocaust bill have both been heavily criticised, and Turkey as well as Poland are known to be quite authoritarian. Then again, we could discuss the legitimacy of private companies, or even states, when it comes to deciding what is deceptive and what isn't.

 

defamation and deceptive advertising are not what's going on here. And do you see the irony in you asking for censorship and calling them authoritarian?

 

 

2 hours ago, InertiaSelling said:

 

Same goes for what you said about everyone needing to be critical of what they watch, as it could be argued that not everyone has proper knowledge of geopolitics, political science and history. Some people would consider restrictions on political propaganda to be necessary in order to prevent fake news from reaching gullible people. Some would even compare them to age restrictions on pornography consumption. That's another interesting topic for debate.

 

i get your point, but just because people are naive or education system fails we cannot treat adults like little children, and who decides what can be and can't be according to standards? some guy with a red pen paid by the government? my country had that when we were a dictatorship.

There is this thing called religion that caused more misery, wars and deaths in history than any other event or decease, gods and parting seas and what not. I could say people are naive and we should not allow it. Am i being fair?

Maybe improve education systems would be a better option than what you propose.

In my social media feed there are always tons of shared fake news that are shared by friends who think they are true, most if not all could be avoided if they just google it. People love a good drama, something to be outraged about, react first, think later, if ever.

[TetraSky]

2 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

And I've been getting those BLOCKCHAIN and GET BITCOIN QUICK scheme ads and video suggestions quite recently ._.

I sometimes wish I had control over which ad/suggestion gets to me. maybe that'll get me to use my youtube account for watching videos

Usually, disliking videos will remove it and similar from your recommended feed.
I'm assuming you've probably watched a few bitcoin videos to learn what it was, liked a bunch of them and now you get those.

[InertiaSelling]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

i get your point

I doubt that. My whole message was about how many questions this topic raised, and how we shouldn't discuss it here. The only time I gave my own opinion was when I stated that I did not advocate censorship. Why do you talk about "what (I) propose" and "the irony in (me) asking for censorship and calling them authoritarian"? Where did I propose anything? Please read what I wrote again.

[asus killer]

39 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

I doubt that. My whole message was about how many questions this topic raised, and how we shouldn't discuss it here. The only time I gave my own opinion was when I stated that I did not advocate censorship. Why do you talk about "what (I) propose" and "the irony in (me) asking for censorship and calling them authoritarian"? Where did I propose anything? Please read what I wrote again.

what i mentioned as your proposal (the censorship) was a obvious conclusion from the original post about the "backlash" and "youtube policies" and your "surprise". You wanted the ads stripped and/or not to be "one-sided" (there should be a counter ad?)

 

mind you that i did not discussed the ads or it's message in itself (have no intention of going down that rabbit hole) but rather why they couldn't exist

[InertiaSelling]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

what i mentioned as your proposal (the censorship) was a obvious conclusion from the original post about the "backlash" and "youtube policies" and your "surprise". You wanted the ads stripped and/or not to be "one-sided" (there should be a counter ad?)

 

mind you that i did not discussed the ads or it's message in itself (have no intention of going down that rabbit hole) but rather why they couldn't exist

I didn't say I would be in favor of YouTube refusing to serve political ads. I said I was surprised that they accepted to do so with no apparent fear of backlash, even though it is pretty obvious that such clips can spark criticism against the platform that agrees to display them.

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, InertiaSelling said:

I didn't say I would be in favor of YouTube refusing to serve political ads. I said I was surprised that they accepted to do so with no apparent fear of backlash, even though it is pretty obvious that such clips can spark criticism against the platform that agrees to display them.

i guess more than anything is a clash between a french and american view of things. An ad is not a statement, you should understand what it represents, it is by no means a factual statement of any sorts. There are lots of examples of ads (comercial or political or whatever) with statements that simply aren't true.

[Guest]

It's just a shift in the way advertising is done - similar ads can be found in newspapers. Just that everyone's transitioning from TV & print to online services like Facebook or Google's network for advertising.

[Sauron]

They don't care what advertisers say as long as they pay for the spot (unless the ad is concretely malicious, as in it leads to phishing sites or scams). They want content to be advertiser friendly, not advertisers to be content friendly - if that makes any sense to you. This is part of the reason I find it increasingly harder to condemn the use of adblock; youtube makes no effort to make their ads any more bearable.

[DrMacintosh]

There are plenty of "Universities" and groups that put on a good face in hopes to suck them in with misinformation. One that is pretty obvious is PragerUniversity: https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/videos

 

It is neither a University nor does it teach or have any physical locations nor do the people speaking have any real credentials. It was just started as a way for some rich conservative guy to lambast whatever goes against narrative. 

[DutchTexan]

Oh no! Political positions you don't agree with are being forced around all the media you consume???  

[DutchTexan]

9 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Nor does it teach

 

nor do the people speaking have any real credentials

 

It was just started as a way for some rich conservative guy to lambast whatever goes against narrative. 

Why not just say you don't agree with them rather than lie and attack credibility with your opinion? There are plenty of YouTube channels called 'schools'. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

rather than lie and attack credibility with your opinion?

I looked up their speakers and watched their content. If what I said is opinion I would like to know what the "facts" are.

[Blademaster91]

10 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

There are plenty of "Universities" and groups that put on a good face in hopes to suck them in with misinformation. One that is pretty obvious is PragerUniversity: https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/videos

 

It is neither a University nor does it teach or have any physical locations nor do the people speaking have any real credentials. It was just started as a way for some rich conservative guy to lambast whatever goes against narrative. 

I've never heard of the channel,but agreeing with censorship while discrediting a channel because it doesn't align with your own views and opinions? There are a lot of Youtube channels out there that can teach you more than the biased mainstream news does,despite Google trying to silence free speech.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

but agreeing with censorship while discrediting a channel because it doesn't align with your own views and opinions?

As opposed to? Also when did censorship come into this? 

[DutchTexan]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

I looked up their speakers and watched their content. If what I said is opinion I would like to know what the "facts" are.

Logical arguments and points of view are made in all their most popular videos. I'm sorry you don't agree. I'm sorry you discredit whatever doesn't agree with your world view. (Because you brought them up) PragerUniversity is not blatant propaganda and they have every right to advertise on YouTube. Just because you disagree and (I'm guessing) don't consider their employees or featured individuals as significant doesn't mean they are unqualified. 

 

Have a look at their employees and read about them here: https://www.prageru.com/staff 

 

Have a look at their presenters and read about them and the video they were invloved with here: https://www.prageru.com/presenters

 

It's very easy to look into PragerU and see they're not some people screwing around and spewing nonfactual/intellectually dishonest content.

 

 

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

As opposed to? Also when did censorship come into this? 

Because when it's biased for certain political issues then it's okay, but then when it's opposite of those values then it's 'propaganda'. That mindset is what leads to censorship. It's not like censoring non liberal/progressive voices or ideas haven't already been happening for a while now.

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Logical arguments and points of view are made in all their most popular videos.

Of course they do. 

 

If they did not present themselves they would have very little way of expanding and getting people to watch them. 

 

6 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

It's very easy to look into PragerU and see they're not some people screwing around and spewing nonfactual/intellectually dishonest content.

I'll concede that they are not "screwing around" but I have seen a few instances of significant intellectual dishonesty and half truths being used to make their view sound like the better one. 

[kaiju_wars]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Of course they do. 

 

If they did not present themselves they would have very little way of expanding and getting people to watch them. 

 

I'll concede that they are not "screwing around" but I have seen a few instances of significant intellectual dishonesty and half truths being used to make their view sound like the better one. 

 That argument can be said about any, for lack of a better term, political talk show host.  

 

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

 That argument can be said about any, for lack of a better term, political talk show host.  

Absolutely. Its the reason I do not watch major media outlets and use at least 4 new media sources to get my news. 

 

Major networks are fine for real time reporting and major events, but their political commentary is usually garbage compared to even some of the worst new media outlets. 

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Absolutely. Its the reason I do not watch major media outlets and use about 4 new media sources to get my news. 

 

Major networks are fine for real time reporting and major events, but their political commentary is usually garbage compared to even some of the worst new media outlets. 

I'm not talking about major media outlets.  PragerU is alternative media.  Same sense that TYT, Secular Talk, Joe Rogan, Steven Crowder, hell, even crazy ass Alex Jones. 

Major networks is just that though, for real time reporting.

But more and more people are moving to alternative media for political commentary.  I would even argue that PragerU is one of the better alternative political commentators.  They at least research and try to construct content in a very well informed, thought out, easy to follow manner.  Same can't be said for other commentators.  

[Sakkura]

PragerU is a right-wing propaganda outlet, not an educational institution. That's simply a convenient front. The very fact that they falsely pose as a university should tell you everything you need to know about their reliability and honesty.

 

It was founded by one of the usual American radio talk show loons, who casually compares Obama to Hitler and thinks the mainstream media are a threat to society.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

I would even argue that PragerU is one of the better alternative political commentators.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. 

 

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

They at least research and try to construct content in a very well informed, thought out, easy to follow manner. 

Well, the way I see it, a lot of what they do is not for the betterment of their audience. Rather it brings them in and keeps them hooked with fallacies, buzz words, and half truths.