Hey, there! Log in / Register

Local college to stop ads on right-wing site

MassArt, which says it was unaware some of its ads were showing up on Breitbart, said today it will work with its ad networks to stop that.

MassArt said it was unaware its ads were winding up on the right-wing spew site until somebody complained this morning. Institutions and companies that purchase online ad space often use networks whose publisher sites they may not realize. In response to Amalia's complaint, the nation's only public art college said:

We're committed to being an accessible/cultural resource that supports diversity/inclusiveness. These ads will discontinue.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I love to read my Breitbart
So I decide to go to MassArt
The longer I stayed
The more they would say
I was the most stupid fart

up
Voting closed 0

What about advertising on Mother Jones?

Or are left wing sites ok?

up
Voting closed 0

Using the deductive skills I'm sure you have, you can probably figure out how the person who complained about Breitbart complained to them and how they responded.

But maybe first read their diversity statement and see if you can figure out why a site that has publicly hated women and minorities might be covered by that while Mother Jones would not.

up
Voting closed 0

With that kind of glib, context-free both-sidesism, your talents are wasted here; you should be hosting a Sunday morning talk show

up
Voting closed 0

Yet Another False Equivalence

False Equivalence

up
Voting closed 0

Why WOULD you advertise on sites that hate you?

up
Voting closed 0

I am not a fan of Breitbart, but it's a sad day when a single tweet from a person with about 15 followers forces a public university to cave and alter their ad strategy. mother-of-gawd. Are they doing the same with left-leaning websites?

Newsflash. People can be conservative AND creative at the same time.

Great job MassArt - you just sent a clear message to any prospective "conservative" student that their political options will not be tolerated on campus or in classroom discussion.

Here is a new disclaimer for MassArt advertising. "We fully support Diversity & Inclusiveness - As a talented artist, illustrator, or designer, you should consider attending MassArt - UNLESS you have conservative political leanings - we frown of that. And if you still decide to enroll, you better keep your mouth shut regarding any social, political, defense, law enforcement issues. And most likely, our staff and educators feel the same - so better just keep your head down. We value all opinions - just not yours.

just wow.

up
Voting closed 0

This isn't The Journal or The Hill we are talking about, its pretty much propaganda for the "alt-right" and has been against women and minorities. Cry me a river.

up
Voting closed 0

No doubt Charlie Baker will side with the far-left Mass Art crowd but since it's a state college under Baker's control, Setti Warren's friends in the media should officially pin down Baker on his stance to pull the ads from Breitbart but apparently not from any liberal sites.

Baker is already in the doghouse (or beyond) with the 1,050,000+ Trump voters in MA and this is just another nail in the coffin. The more Trump people that Setti can win over, convince to cast a blank or stay home, the better his chances. This is great!

up
Voting closed 0

Baker will take any opportunity that presents itself for him to virtue signal to the left.

up
Voting closed 0

Trump's approval rating in Massachusetts is a pathetic 29%. The only states he is somewhat popular in are uneducated, obese, poor shitholes like West Virginia.

up
Voting closed 0

That's only the result of there being so few Republicans in MA. Baker is popular nation-wide. Now, if you look at Baker's popularity in MA, among Republicans, it is low. Why? We know him best.

up
Voting closed 0

Because he's more interested in actually governing the state, rather than grandstanding and waving his member around to show us he's a man?

About it in a nutshell.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't often say that, but Thank You, Swirly.

up
Voting closed 0

way to label people with a broad-brush (like an entire state of people) Kinopio and show us how progressive you are. It's fun to watch.

up
Voting closed 0

There was nothing inaccurate about what the OP said:

Uneducated (forbes), Poor (wikipedia, but it's census data), Obese; shithole

up
Voting closed 0

I notice you love that 1.05m figure. That's also known as 32% of the vote. As an absolute figure, that's lower than McCain or Romney. As a share, its the worse result since 2000.

Like, nobody is saying that there aren't Republican voters in Massachusetts, but it doesn't look like rising path to power you want it to be.

up
Voting closed 0

I notice you love that 1.05m figure. That's also known as 32% of the vote.

I'm glad you noticed. Did you also notice Charlie Baker only defeated the totally inept Martha Coakley by 40,100 votes (1.9%) in 2014? Keep in mind that was with many enthusiastic folks who never miss an election and who voted for Trump in 2016. Most of us now can't stand Tall Deval. Baker may keep a few but if Setti Warren can rally the Dems, appear somewhat moderate and conceal any crazy, far-left ideas until after the election, he will pick up at least half or 3/4 of us in the 1,050,000 Trump crowd. I hope he does. I would rather an admitted Democrat than a RINO.

up
Voting closed 0

The reality is that it is amazing that Baker managed to beat Coakley at all.

Do you really think that Curt Schilling would do better? Scottie only won because he was a convenient place holder for two years. He slept a little too close to Karl Rove and POOF! Gone as soon as an effective Democrat appeared on the scene.

up
Voting closed 0

Politics aside, Mass Art advertising on Breitbart is a waste of money. Even if they weren't ideologically opposed to the bigoted garbage that Breitbart farts out, do you really think that reader base has many aspiring art students in it?

up
Voting closed 0

This is the real takeaway -- MassArt mistakenly spending advertising dollars on putting them square in the trashcan, will now work with advertising networks to not set money on fire.

Breitbart readers don't believe in education in general, let alone an arts and culture focused post-secondary degree.

up
Voting closed 0

staff to arrange their advertising, but pays an outside company to do so. That would explain how their ads wound up there.

BTW, 95% of all advertising expenditure is wasted money

up
Voting closed 0

My husband works for one of those adware companies that get paid to arrange advertising. Bratfart has been blacklisted for a couple years now. Only rare clients bother to opt in.

up
Voting closed 0

particularly clear on the algorhythms behind web advertising, but basically you pay a company that owns ad spaces on various pages to show your ad a certain number of times per month. They use, among other things, the IP address and cookies on the person's computer to determine which ad from the bank of available ads to show them.

So if you spend the afternoon searching adult websites and then go to WebsiteA, you might get ads for adult websites. If you live in Boston and go to WebsiteA, you'll get ads for stuff in the Boston area. If you go to WebsiteB that uses the same advertising company, you'll get similar ads.

This is an incredibly reductionist explanation of how web advertising works, but basically, you're not necessarily paying to advertise on a particular website: you're paying to advertise in a particular company's set of advertising slots spread out over a bunch of websites, based on the information available from the user's browser.

up
Voting closed 0

You have the basic idea, and you did say that your explanation was reductionist, but I'll add some clarifications.

Most publishers don't want porn ads appearing on their pages, so they blacklist categories of advertisers through their ad exchanges / supply-side platforms. So you're not likely to get ads for adult websites when you switch over to checking legit publisher content.

Most advertisers want to fiercely maintain "brand safety" which excludes ads from being shown on objectionable sites, so they blacklist some publisher categories through their demand-side platforms. However, it's tough to algorithmically "contextualize" any given page in any random publisher, so most advertisers use humans to build blacklists of domains to completely avoid. Most advertisers (notable exception being Amazon) have blacklisted Breitbart, since Breitbart is the poster child for the alt-right, white supremacism, and Russian-fueled actually fake news. So advertisers want o avoid any connection with Breitbart. There are people with too much time on their hands putting effort into shaming any advertiser that doesn't explicitly blacklist Breitbart. It's working. Breitbart is suffering financially. You can call it mob mentality, McCarthyism, or just standing up against Actually Fake News.

up
Voting closed 0

ONE MILLION Trump voters?!?!? In MASSACHUSETTS?!?!

IMAGE(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cmQLnBtDjbw/maxresdefault.jpg)

Baker must be shaking in his boots!

up
Voting closed 0

He could only beat Martha Coakley by 1.9% in 2014. Trump voters were 32% last year. How many can he afford to lose if the Dems nominate someone credible this time?

up
Voting closed 0

Baker has been working hard to undercut Drumpf at the state level for a while now. I'm sure he's on plenty of "true red" hit lists.

The reality in MA is that actions and incumbent status speak more loudly than words and rhetoric and party affiliation. Most voters are independent. Baker has been shitty on public transit, but has tackled a number of issues in appropriate ways without giving two defications about what "republicans" (republicans as my father wouldn't recognize them) want to posture about. It would have to be a very strong Democrat to topple him given that he's putting together mostly acceptable track record. The party is better off expending resources and strong candidates elsewhere.

Don't assume that that 32% of Drumpf voters are all that loyal to Drumpf - many were merely loyal to hating on Clintons.

up
Voting closed 0