Google targets low-income US women with ads for anti-abortion pregnancy centers, study shows
Exclusive: Research by the Tech Transparency Project finds ads directing women in two cities to centers that do not offer abortions
Google isn’t targeting anyone. The advertisers are targeting people and using Google to do so.
Like advertisers (say, and just by chance, Sanofi is targeting the gullible who read the Guardian by advertising upon this piece) always do, use whatever tools there are to try to pay for ads to appear in front of likely buyers of their goods and or services.
The cavalry twill trousers always were advertised around the crossword in the Telegraph, not the book reviews in Tribune. Hair replacement was front page of the Evening Standard, not a two page splash in Vogue.
Low-income women in some cities are more likely than their wealthier counterparts to be targeted by Google ads promoting anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers when they search for abortion care, researchers at the Tech Transparency Project have found.
It’s the advertisers doing the targeting, as advertisers always do. Morons.
Back pages in the Standard, surely? Amongst the sports coverage. Graham Gooch and Shane Warne, was it?
EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS: American Women Encouraged NOT To Kill Their Own Babies.
The Guardian will maintain live updates on this shocking development.
So the low income women can’t afford to go out of the state to get an abortion. Thus the advert refers them to a crisis centre near them.
Lol, I love the uproar about “targetted” advertising on-line. Especially the Google/FB et al “scoop up all your data” so advertisers can target you more precisely. Stop them all immediately, I demand to see adverts for things I’d never buy.
They’re blaming Google because Google is an amenable authority, full of people who furiously hate Christians, conservatives and whites, and also a lot of people who are terrified of the first group.
Giving Big G some bad (i.e. unwoke) publicity in the progressive fanzine carries a better chance of prodding them into banning adverts “researchers” want banned than going after some Baptist church in Florida would.
Alinsky for dummies, innit.
Steve
Nope. They’re blaming Google because of the deep pockets theory…
I work in advertising and, yes, this is what we do everyday. Google allows you to target household income brackets, as well as people who visited a webpage or YouTube video. It’s called audience segmentation and it’s been a textbook part of advertising since advertising began.
Here’s another example of journalistic malfeasance:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/28/trump-2016-campaign-targeted-35m-black-americans-to-deter-them-from-voting
The Guardian tried to suggest that Trump was suppressing black voters in 2016, because he sent negative ads about Hillary to people who liked Hillary. The attack ad showed the clip of Hillary in the 90s talking about “super predators,” which really hurt her with racial issues. That’s literally what every political campaign does, on the left and right. They sow doubt with swing voters and those supporting the opponent. Otherwise there would be no point in campaigns or debates.
It was such a bad article, that the main arguments against Trump were:
1. “Well we all know black people like democrats, so he’s basically telling them to stay home, like a klansman.”
2. “Sure, Hillary said something that would end most politicians for good, but she apologized and the PR people at Black Lives Matter said it’s all better now. Because that’s how normal people earn your trust.”
3. “The NAACP, which has done virtually nothing for black people in the past 50 years, lied and said they only use voter records to push ‘nice’ political ads, but it’s the NAACP, so we’ll just say they’ve got a point there.”