"Boo hoo! The people who pay for my journal say things I don't want to hear!"
If this was some kind of endorsement of homophobia from LJ, I really doubt they would be running the animated banner with two girls making out that they frequently have on my sims journal. Srsly.
Besides, it's likely doubleclick or Google Ads that accepted the ad banner in the first place; LJ's just farming the space out to those two, and likely as not didn't proof it.
-- Steve'll note that context-sensitive ads often do end up with, er, "less than salubrious" matches sometimes.
Okay, whatever this does or doesn't say about the active attitudes re: homophobia from LJ staff and owners, it does mean that LJ needs to be a little more discriminating when it comes to where it takes ad revenue from.
And it's worth remembering: LiveJournal has a sizable queer user base (one which might be compared the user base of actively homophobic people who would be bothered by the lesbian ads on your sims journal, which, as ronebofh said, is a tiny minority of users).
For "the people who pay for my journal," viewcount is relevant information. And that's something worth remembering when deciding whether or not to sell ad space to anti-queer organizations, or to do their ad space sales through a third-party company who's willing to do so.
While i don't think that this single ad is going to lead to a mass exodus of queers from LJ to, say, DreamWidth, this kind of thing--and LJ's response to it--will add up if it's something that's perpetuated, since it will taint users' attitudes toward LJ. Public Relations 101.
:J isn't taking ad revenue from NOM; they are taking ad revenue from a third-party server. This uproar is what, 2, 3 hours old?
Give 'em a chance to respond. This is an ongoing problem with adservers, and it requires diligence. But c'mon, I doubt LJ pays someone to monitor all ads 24/7. And frankly, I don't mind the adserver not censoring. LJ gets to pick and choose their ads. If NOM didn't accurately identify the nature of their ad, even if LJ wanted to keep them away, they wouldn't even know it was their until someone complained.
Sure, bad PR. But frankly some people jump too quickly. cut 'em some slack. It's not as if LJ has a history of homophobia or religious proselytizing.
...which, and I apologize, is more a response to others than to you specifically.
My guess is, they won't want or hope for the shitstorm. Most ads try to sell a product, also, not stir up bigoted, homophobic responses in their audience.
That said, this whole kerfluffle is, IMO, overwrought.
I was totally not commenting on the ad, but on people who expect control over a service they don't pay for. The princess complex amuses me no matter what context it shows up in. I would have been equally amused about whiny panicky homophobes, racists or bigots, but there are none on my friends-of-friends list.
I had to see someone's posting the ad to even know it was showing up. I'm not seriously pissed at LJ - the science-based medicine blogs I frequent have homeopathy ads show up all the time.
This was my first thought. I've never seen ads on LJ, because I started with a Paid account and eventually bought a Permanent one. I'm always logged in.
Because A) I *tend* not to edit my posts. Especially not before there are *real* updates. B) CS saying they're going to do something about it is not the same as anyone doing something about it.
Now, are you through playing passive-aggressive asshole games with comments on my journal to my friends, or do you need to go fuck yourself?
I'm terribly amused by the site the ad points to stating that gay marriage violates free speech and religious freedom. Because somebody choosing to do something that doesn't in any way involve you is OBVIOUSLY violating your civil liberties to such an extent that you get to ignore their civil rights!
I think up a metaphor that does justice to the hypocrisy implicit in that line of reasoning.
Argh. Okay.. I just couldn't bring myself to be worked up over this one. LJ, like just about every paid-with-advertising website, uses banner ads that are bought and delivered by a third party service. They probably didn't set up their filter right, or something stupid like that; or, alternately, they aren't given that choice at all and can only complain about specific ads.
The proper response when you see an ad that offends you is definitely to complain. But Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, to automatically claim they're bigots and homophobes, or supporters of such, without even giving them a chance to explain? It's pretty excessive, IMO.
It makes for some pretty entertaining flounces, at any rate. ("I'm LEAVING LIVE JOURNAL! They don't CARE about MY delicate sensibilities and they expect me to be REASONABLE! Well, I NEVER!"...and off they go.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 04:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 04:56 pm (UTC)If this was some kind of endorsement of homophobia from LJ, I really doubt they would be running the animated banner with two girls making out that they frequently have on my sims journal. Srsly.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 05:19 pm (UTC)-- Steve'll note that context-sensitive ads often do end up with, er, "less than salubrious" matches sometimes.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 05:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 05:48 pm (UTC)And it's worth remembering: LiveJournal has a sizable queer user base (one which might be compared the user base of actively homophobic people who would be bothered by the lesbian ads on your sims journal, which, as
For "the people who pay for my journal," viewcount is relevant information. And that's something worth remembering when deciding whether or not to sell ad space to anti-queer organizations, or to do their ad space sales through a third-party company who's willing to do so.
While i don't think that this single ad is going to lead to a mass exodus of queers from LJ to, say, DreamWidth, this kind of thing--and LJ's response to it--will add up if it's something that's perpetuated, since it will taint users' attitudes toward LJ. Public Relations 101.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 06:11 pm (UTC)Give 'em a chance to respond. This is an ongoing problem with adservers, and it requires diligence. But c'mon, I doubt LJ pays someone to monitor all ads 24/7. And frankly, I don't mind the adserver not censoring. LJ gets to pick and choose their ads. If NOM didn't accurately identify the nature of their ad, even if LJ wanted to keep them away, they wouldn't even know it was their until someone complained.
Sure, bad PR. But frankly some people jump too quickly. cut 'em some slack. It's not as if LJ has a history of homophobia or religious proselytizing.
...which, and I apologize, is more a response to others than to you specifically.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 06:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 06:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 11:36 pm (UTC)"Encountered"?
I take it you've never met Magnus before.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 11:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 11:36 pm (UTC)But, then, you've never been too good about seeing a problem with bigotry, have you.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 12:25 am (UTC)That said, this whole kerfluffle is, IMO, overwrought.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 07:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 07:39 pm (UTC)I've not seen an ad on LJ yet.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 09:11 pm (UTC)I had to see someone's posting the ad to even know it was showing up. I'm not seriously pissed at LJ - the science-based medicine blogs I frequent have homeopathy ads show up all the time.
The ad itself pisses me right off, mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 09:49 pm (UTC)This was my first thought. I've never seen ads on LJ, because I started with a Paid account and eventually bought a Permanent one. I'm always logged in.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 10:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 11:34 pm (UTC)But the fact that Livejournal is farming ads from bigots is always worth watching for.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 09:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 03:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 03:41 am (UTC)A) I *tend* not to edit my posts. Especially not before there are *real* updates.
B) CS saying they're going to do something about it is not the same as anyone doing something about it.
Now, are you through playing passive-aggressive asshole games with comments on my journal to my friends, or do you need to go fuck yourself?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 03:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 11:51 pm (UTC)I think up a metaphor that does justice to the hypocrisy implicit in that line of reasoning.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-03 11:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 12:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 10:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 12:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 12:42 am (UTC)YOU'RE CRAZY IN THE COCONUT.
<3
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 01:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 01:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 01:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 01:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 01:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-06 02:46 am (UTC)rrrrrrRatamazoo, let's have a tune!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-06 02:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 01:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 12:22 am (UTC)The proper response when you see an ad that offends you is definitely to complain. But Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, to automatically claim they're bigots and homophobes, or supporters of such, without even giving them a chance to explain? It's pretty excessive, IMO.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 03:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 09:28 am (UTC)It makes for some pretty entertaining flounces, at any rate. ("I'm LEAVING LIVE JOURNAL! They don't CARE about MY delicate sensibilities and they expect me to be REASONABLE! Well, I NEVER!"...and off they go.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 04:19 pm (UTC)You know, like all those people who insisted they were moving to Canada.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-05 12:48 am (UTC)#2: I ALREADY live in Canada. Sheesh!
[1]: By whch I mean Doubleclick, who are without a doubt the single worst people on the internet who aren't breaking any laws.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 02:30 am (UTC)Time to get bitchy
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-04 10:55 pm (UTC)