Alcohol advertising

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

What about controversial topics like faith healers? Reiki? What about when it gets more blurred, like acupunture? I suppose we can take a "no threads, no ads" approach whereby if the thread wouldnt be allowed, neither should the ad but I dont think we should be getting into policing the internet or raising other peoples kids.

DeV.

I think a "no threads, no ads" policy is the most sensible approach. You're already in the business of policing the internet, we ban certain content and pretending otherwise is counter productive. Everyday boards-LTD moderator's filter content to protect users. 4Chan doesn't police the internet, boards-LTD most certainly does. That's no bad thing. Do you really want to run a site with no social conscience?

Dav

I'd have to say I don't completely agree with your interpretation there Boston. We police *our* bit of the internet to a certain extent. We don't want to have to ban things, and it certainly isn't through wanting to be the baby-sitter. The simple facts are that people can't and won't be civil or mature when it comes to certain issues, so we don't allow them. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I do see a lot of merrit to the "no threads - no ads" suggestion though, I'll look a bit more into this with the technical people.

Orion

Just to restate - I don't find ads offensive just like I won't be offended by a TV show - if I don't like it I just won't look at it. And the filtering of ads as the OP suggests is a ludicrous idea.

However, there may be legal issues with allowing alchohol advertising in general on a 13 rated site. Particularly with proposed new laws (I know that the Vintners have pre-empted them with a voluntary code) restricting alchohol advertising. This is not the same as 'policing the internet' as DeV said. I completely agree it is up to parents to raise their own kids. If seeing an ad for beer turns a kid to drink then there's something wrong at home - it's not the ads fault. This is not a legal opinion of course as I'm no lawyer but it is something that struck me.

tbh

also, just to say that I don't really want to force boards to have a hard and fast set of rules about what's allowed, and what's not. What I would like, however, is the ability to report a dodgy ad and if the powers that be agree that it's inappropriate, it can be removed.

JIZZLORD

in fairness google does throw up some odd ones

DeVore

tbh wrote: »

also, just to say that I don't really want to force boards to have a hard and fast set of rules about what's allowed, and what's not. What I would like, however, is the ability to report a dodgy ad and if the powers that be agree that it's inappropriate, it can be removed.

This is basically what I think too. But its going to come down to a judgement call by the admins and my vote is going to go to blocking the truely unacceptible.

DeV.

Boston

Dav wrote: »

I'd have to say I don't completely agree with your interpretation there Boston. We police *our* bit of the internet to a certain extent. We don't want to have to ban things, and it certainly isn't through wanting to be the baby-sitter. The simple facts are that people can't and won't be civil or mature when it comes to certain issues, so we don't allow them. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I do see a lot of merrit to the "no threads - no ads" suggestion though, I'll look a bit more into this with the technical people.

I didn't mean to imply there's a desire to police the internet. I'm sure there's no desire for that responsibility. However, boards-LTD is a moderated site, as such it is policed and there is responsibility towards the users.

DeVore wrote: »

This is basically what I think too. But its going to come down to a judgement call by the admins and my vote is going to go to blocking the truely unacceptible.

DeV.

Only the "truely" unacceptable? The kinda unacceptable being ok? I Get your point, you want to put as few limitations on the site as possible. But this isn't someones opinion you're curtailing, the rules for what can be advertised on a forum should be more strict then what can be posted for the simple reason advertisements have an Air boards-LTD backed legitmacy.

DublinWriter

Out of curiosity, can you specify which ads can be shown via your adsence account?

For example, if someone wanted to set up a catholic discussion board and didn't want ads for certain types of services coming through etc...

DeVore

There is a method of excluding particular ads but afair you need to know about the ad before you can exclude it (ie: there isnt a blanket ban on keywords ... I could be wrong about that though)

DeV.

Victor

DeVore wrote: »

I wouldnt be opposed to the idea of a mod bringing a potentially harmful ad to our attention in a particular forum but aside from PI and LTI, I wouldnt expect to get more then 1-2 year (just as reference to the scale of things).

Sometimes there are ads for "Date Married Women" and the like, invariably on "my relationship is breaking down"-type threads.

What about controversial topics like faith healers? Reiki? What about when it gets more blurred, like acupunture?

The assertive position is that alternative medicine is not OK, complimentary medicine is OK. Some people are cured by the placebo effect. However, God said "ask and you shall receive". Praying to God only works so far, he espects you to ask for a bandage if you are suffering from serious blood loss.

I suppose we can take a "no threads, no ads" approach whereby if the thread wouldnt be allowed, neither should the ad but I dont think we should be getting into policing the internet or raising other peoples kids.

At the same time, its been a long held principle, that we don't allow things that would bring boards into disrepute.

Marketing companies like to "normalise" certain behaviours amongst the impressionable. That is why smoking advertising is all but illegal and alcohol advertising is being restricted.

Macros42 wrote: »

Just to restate - I don't find ads offensive just like I won't be offended by a TV show - if I don't like it I just won't look at it. And the filtering of ads as the OP suggests is a ludicrous idea.

I'm asking can a small percentage of ads be filtered in certain locations. I'm not sure what filters are available.

If seeing an ad for beer turns a kid to drink then there's something wrong at home

Probably. But lets face it, 50% of homes are below average.

JIZZLORD wrote: »

in fairness google does throw up some odd ones

One of the hottest women I've ever known was an amputee, but targetting amputees is another matter. Now maybe there are genuine reasons for it - do amputees find it difficult to get dates? I would think not and I would defer to amputee advocates on that. However, it does seem to be the type of ad aimed at amputee fetishists.

Orion

Victor wrote: »

I'm asking can a small percentage of ads be filtered in certain locations. I'm not sure what filters are available.

But as others have said where do you stop with that? Should dating ads be banned from Relationship Issues? Should Quake ads be banned from the Unreal Tournament forum? Should religious ads be banned from the Atheist/Agnostic section?

At the end of the day they are just ads. It's up to you whether or not you click on them. It's not Boards.ie's job to protect you. It's up to you to protect yourself.

[edit]btw - ludicrous was too strong a word in my last post- no offence was intended

Nevyn

It's about the PI/RI mods feeling that we have some what of a duty of care.
Google banner ads are one thing but the larger ones at the bottom of the page are selected per forum and I don't think there is any harm what so ever in asking what can be done and if certain types of ads can be restricted.

Lets find out what can be done and then where and why it should be done.

Boston

Macros42 wrote: »

But as others have said where do you stop with that? Should dating ads be banned from Relationship Issues? Should Quake ads be banned from the Unreal Tournament forum? Should religious ads be banned from the Atheist/Agnostic section?

You ignore relevance. It would be seldom appropriate to post on a thread advertising anything. Should dating adds be banned on personal issues? No, since the only reason dating threads aren't allowed is because its simply not what the forum is about.

Take the religious one for example, no religious adds shouldn't be banned from the atheist forum since its just a matter of relevance, however maybe catholic adds about converting pagans should be allowed on the spirituality forum?

At the end of the day they are just ads. It's up to you whether or not you click on them. It's not Boards.ie's job to protect you. It's up to you to protect yourself.

[edit]btw - ludicrous was too strong a word in my last post- no offence was intended

I just go straight a head and post the avi I have of two girls sharing a cup, its OK once I put NSFW in the thread title right? Don't be so disingenuous.

Orion

Boston wrote: »

I just go straight a head and post the avi I have of two girls sharing a cup, its OK once I put NSFW in the thread title right? Don't be so disingenuous.

I wasn't being disingenuous. I reread my post and realised that it could have been interpreted in a manner it wasn't intended. Thanks for the input.

Boston

Macros42 wrote: »

I wasn't being disingenuous. I reread my post and realised that it could have been interpreted in a manner it wasn't intended. Thanks for the input.

I interpreted your assertions correctly. If Boards-LTD is forcibly made responsible for content, examples being porn due to public image, warez due to legality, then its OK for it to be censored, but the minute its not Boards-LTD responsibility then it becomes a case of "User beware".

The owners wanted this site to be a place where people could come to seek support and also to build their communities. It's not OK to simply shirk the resulting responsibility. If these adds didn't make boards.ie money we wouldn't be having this debate about who should be policing what. That's actually the truly disingenuous thing, theres a duplicity in this I find quiet unpalatable.

DeVore

Thats rubbish Boston, trollish rubbish and you know it. The amount we are talking about in lost revenue is laughable and has never entered my thoughts or arguments. Now who is being disingenuous.

Please, spare me your supposedly high-minded digs. I've said if we can come to a reasonable basis on which to make these decisions I'm happy to go with that.

As far as I can see, it will be a case by case basis. There will be half a dozen genuine cases and we'll deal with them. The rest of this is storm in a teacup PC crap being argued as a semantic game of fencing for laughs.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Thats rubbish Boston, trollish rubbish and you know it. The amount we are talking about in lost revenue is laughable and has never entered my thoughts or arguments. Now who is being disingenuous.

So what's the problem? Why so long for a straight answer? Through out the thread you've been hinting at being OK in principle but clucking at straws for reasons not to put your support behind the idea. Call it trolling or whatever you want, but now we know where you stand on this. If I'd taken the gentle approach we'ed still be waiting.

Please, spare me your supposedly high-minded digs. I've said if we can come to a reasonable basis on which to make these decisions I'm happy to go with that.

A reasonable bases was established some pages back. "No thread, no Add".

As far as I can see, it will be a case by case basis. There will be half a dozen genuine cases and we'll deal with them. The rest of this is storm in a teacup PC crap being argued as a semantic game of fencing for laughs.

DeV.

You know, when I see people like Macros42 make comments wholly against what I personally feel the ethos of Boards.ie-LTD is and a site owner says nothing to contradict them, I have to take it that those views are also the views of the site owner.

DeVore

Balloney.

As for taking my time... its called "thinking something through and considering the consequences of your actions and decisions". I do quite a bit of it you know.

I'm out to the Mods Town-Hall meeting tonight, so I wont be responding here tonight. tbh, I dont have a great deal more to add to this anyway. I'll leave others to have the final word.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Balloney.

As for taking my time... its called "thinking something through and considering the consequences of your actions and decisions". I do quite a bit of it you know.

DeV.

I could say something, but I think I best not.

Anyway, I got what I wanted, it doesn't really matter if you feel how I went about it is baloney.

Enjoy the town hall meeting.

Boston.

jhegarty

DeVore wrote: »

There is a method of excluding particular ads but afair you need to know about the ad before you can exclude it (ie: there isnt a blanket ban on keywords ... I could be wrong about that though)

DeV.

You can't ban by keyword , only URL.

You can select so that only pre-approved ads are displayed. But that's only for targeted ads , not the keyword based ones.


So on a technical side it would be difficult to achieve.

On the other hand how quickly would a posted who suggested a drink on a drink problem thread be hit with the site-ban stick ? Very quickly I would assume.

DublinWriter

DeVore wrote: »

There is a method of excluding particular ads but afair you need to know about the ad before you can exclude it (ie: there isnt a blanket ban on keywords ... I could be wrong about that though)

DeV.

I only ask because I run a small vbulletin site in the UK with a Google adsence account funding it.

I've noticed that of-late certain of the ads coming through are tending to be a bit more risquè.

It's not an issue in my particular context, but I could imagine that other, more broader discussion boards, might have a serious issue with some of the Google ads being generated.

Maybe there's a wider debate to be had on the ubiquitous nature of Google funding in relation to discussion sites?

Orion

Boston wrote: »

I interpreted your assertions correctly. If Boards-LTD is forcibly made responsible for content, examples being porn due to public image, warez due to legality, then its OK for it to be censored, but the minute its not Boards-LTD responsibility then it becomes a case of "User beware".

I misinterpreted which part of your quote you were calling disingenuous. I thought you were referring to my retraction of the word ludicrous.

I still don't believe I am though. I'm not talking about any moral/ethical removal of keywords from Google ads. If you read my posts again I'm purely talking about the possible legal implications of alcohol advertising on a site that 13+ are invited to use.

Porn is disallowed on boards - hence your 2girls/1cup example is invalid regardless of marking it NSFW. Libelous or potentially libelous posts are banned - an example of where boards.ie Ltd is responsible for content as someone who's been here as long as you should be fully aware of - cf: a sticky in every forum. My comments were not against the ethos of boards - in fact if you read my last post again I think you're arguing in agreement with me - ads shouldn't be censored.

e.g.

Macros42 wrote:

Just to restate - I don't find ads offensive just like I won't be offended by a TV show - if I don't like it I just won't look at it. And the filtering of ads as the OP suggests is a ludicrous idea.

Even you agree that the law has to be adhered to - which is exactly what I was saying. Not a moral objection to alcohol ads - just that they might be spurious legally due to minors using the site. That's all. Nothing else. So where's my duplicity?

Boston

Macros42 wrote: »

Porn is disallowed on boards


Even you agree that the law has to be adhered to - which is exactly what I was saying. Not a moral objection to alcohol ads - just that they might be spurious legally due to minors using the site. That's all. Nothing else. So where's my duplicity?

Porn is banned due to taste and decency, wheres the problem banning alcohol adds for the same reason?

Regardless of your rambling, the correct decision has been made.

IRLConor

While "no thread, no ad" is a fairly good policy decision* it's non-trivial to implement technically. Part of it is according to what DeVore and jhegarty have said, and part of it is due to the way advertising is inserted into boards.ie.

In short, it's a pain in the hole to selectively remove Google ads on boards.ie so unless you have a very compelling case to remove a specific ad, it's unlikely to change. Obviously if I'm told to implement it, I'll do my best to sort it out but there are far more pressing issues to deal with right now.

* IMHO, as a user, not an employee, usual disclaimers apply, etc.

Boston

IRLConor wrote: »

While "no thread, no ad" is a fairly good policy decision* it's non-trivial to implement technically. Part of it is according to what DeVore and jhegarty have said, and part of it is due to the way advertising is inserted into boards.ie.

In short, it's a pain in the hole to selectively remove Google ads on boards.ie so unless you have a very compelling case to remove a specific ad, it's unlikely to change. Obviously if I'm told to implement it, I'll do my best to sort it out but there are far more pressing issues to deal with right now.

* IMHO, as a user, not an employee, usual disclaimers apply, etc.

Remove all adds from the threads in question. A thread on PI pops up about whatever, provide the moderators with the ability to flag the thread as being no adds. It's a hack, but it's straight forward. A database entry and when the page is dynamically generated this* is removed?

<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>

* I've no real idea how the adsense adds are integrated but I do know you guys remove them from the mobile skin.

Conor

That solution is possible, but it's not as easy as it looks. The ads are inserted in the skins and there's no easy way of doing per-thread conditionals in a template as far as I know. It's not just a question of wrapping something in an if statement anyway.

You'd probably be talking about writing a plugin for vBulletin to add that ad-removing functionality and then writing an extension to the moderator utilities to allow moderators to control it.

It's all possible, but it comes down to a policy decision on whether the benefit of that level of control is worth the cost of the development and maintenance of another customization of vBulletin.

Boston wrote: »

* I've no real idea how the adsense adds are integrated but I do know you guys remove them from the mobile skin.

Per-skin customizations are trivial - vBulletin has a built-in mechanism for that - but per-thread customizations are not.

Boston

Conor wrote: »

That solution is possible, but it's not as easy as it looks. The ads are inserted in the skins and there's no easy way of doing per-thread conditionals in a template as far as I know. It's not just a question of wrapping something in an if statement anyway.

You'd probably be talking about writing a plugin for vBulletin to add that ad-removing functionality and then writing an extension to the moderator utilities to allow moderators to control it.

It's all possible, but it comes down to a policy decision on whether the benefit of that level of control is worth the cost of the development and maintenance of another customization of vBulletin.

Thats pretty much what I had in mind. Anyway, it looks like the adsesne will soon allow filtering by category.

The issue will then before A) Can it be forum specific and are the categories wide enough.

Helix

DeVore wrote: »

I dont think we should be getting into policing the internet

that certainly is an interesting slant on things

Boston

The thread had moved on now Helix, we're now discussing practical ways this may be implemented and the issues there in. As such I propose the last few posts be split off and sent to the development board while the remain thread be closed.

Conor

Boston wrote: »

Thats pretty much what I had in mind. Anyway, it looks like the adsesne will soon allow filtering by category.

The issue will then before A) Can it be forum specific and are the categories wide enough.

I suspect the answers will be:

A) Not without us implementing stuff on our side.
No.

As for splitting this thread, I don't see much point in that. Whatever about Helix's axe-grinding the issue at hand is primarily sociological, not technical, i.e. not can it be done but should it be done. If 99% of people on the site want this issue dealt with, some solution will be implemented. If only 1% of people on the site care about it then it'll go onto the pile of "nice to have" features that may or may not ever get done.