Should we be concerned about this? Or just let it slide?

In the margin of the QQ site today, under "ads by Google" I found:   

 

"Stop Amnesty for Illegals Send a Free FaxGram to Congress to Say "No" to Obama's Amnesty Plan" along with a link to send such a fax to Congress. 

 

Is it OK to accept having such material on the QQ site, in order to have free or inexpensive Web hosting?   Others may disagree, but in my view this is an objectionable as it would have been during the early 1800s for a Quaker magazine to cover its printing costs by selling advertising space to a pro-slavery group. 

 

Is there a way for QQ to be what it is, without accepting the placement of ads on the QQ web site, which we cannot control? 

 

 

 

 

Views: 84

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi David: QuakerQuaker is moving away from Google Ads. They are being replaced by the recently-launched Quaker Ad Network (a joint project with Friends Journal). Please check it out and let Friends in your area know about it. This is a concrete way you can support next-generation Quaker publishing and help Friends share information of products and services they can offer one another. The more Quaker Ads we sell, the fewer Google Ads will display. Right now about 22% of the ads are QuakerQuaker-sold ads. You can specify particular geographic regions, making Quaker Ads a good choice for Friends School, retreat centers, and local meeting outreach projects like Quaker Quest.

In the meantime, Google Ads are a mix of site content and your own browsing habit. I would guess immigration reform is something you follow. Google knows that and serves up these ads to you. I myself get ads for Zappos, Friends Journal and Quaker Oats products.
How peculiar

Thank you for the explanation.

A majority of the political Google Ads displaying on my system are anathema to me. Either someone at Google has a bent sense of humor, or obnoxious and destructive groups have far more to spend than their humane opponents.

David
I think the same thing happens on Facebook. Many of the "like" recommendations which show up for me are contrary to my opinion. Either I am targeted to "correct" my ways (not going to happen) or "obnoxious and destructive groups have far more to spend than their humane opponents" and everyone is targeted by their "ads."

I don't think "we let it slide," but I trust that there may be a way to "combat" this as Martin describes. I am beginning to feel more and more that there is a "battle" that must be "fought" with Love and Truth against Hate and Ignorance. The "Lamb's War?"
The libertarian in me says that they have the right to be as obnoxious as they want to be. Besides, I don't think it is safe to assume consensus on any of these issues simply by virtue of belonging to a particular group. As there were slave-owning Friends, I imagine there are Friends who agree with that rhetoric as well.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

William F Rushby replied to William F Rushby's discussion '*The Question of God*'
"Thanks, David.  I hope that I don't go speechless!"
7 hours ago
David Keel replied to William F Rushby's discussion '*The Question of God*'
"I bet that's a bit deep  ?    Good on you for attempting to read it. …"
19 hours ago
David Carter updated their profile
3rd day (Tue)
William F Rushby replied to William F Rushby's discussion '*The Question of God*'
"Armand Nicholi, Free Press; 27823rd edition (August 7, 2003). This book is a dialogue constructed…"
2nd day (Mon)
William F Rushby posted a discussion
2nd day (Mon)
Marcia P Roberts replied to N. Jeanne Burns's discussion 'Quote Game' in the group Diversity (Race, Class, Gender, etc.)
"This information and follow up posts from Isabel Penrath answer so many questions. Quaker history…"
1st month 19
Kirby Urner commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"Methinks "mental illness" (vs. "physical illness" -- hard to part them) is…"
1st month 18
Kirby Urner commented on Rainer Möller's blog post 'Quakers unto the Civil War'
"The research I've done suggests many middle class antebellum Quakers were annoyed by…"
1st month 18

© 2021   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service