It’s not often that the left-wing, liberal, progressive campaign to dominate what we think and how we interact is unmasked quite so blatantly. I suppose we should thank Keith Weed of Unilever for doing so.
Unilever is threatening to pull back its advertising from popular tech platforms, including YouTube and Facebook Inc., if they don’t do more to combat the spread of fake news, hate speech and divisive content.
“Unilever will not invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate,” Unilever Chief Marketing Officer Keith Weed is expected to say Monday during the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s annual leadership meeting in Palm Desert, Calif.
“We will prioritize investing only in responsible platforms that are committed to creating a positive impact in society,” he will say, according to prepared remarks.
Unilever, one of the world’s largest advertisers, is leveraging its spending power to push the digital media industry to weed out content that funds terrorism, exploits children, spreads false news or supports racist and sexist views. The consumer-products giant spent more than $9 billion marketing its brands such as Lipton, Dove and Knorr last year, according to the company’s annual report.
. . .
This is about “having a positive impact on society and whether we as a company want to engage with companies that are not committed to making a positive impact,” Mr. Weed said in an interview.
. . .
Mr. Weed said that consumers … care about “fake news” and “Russians influencing the U.S. election,” he added.
Rather than issue a public list of demands, Mr. Weed said he wants to work privately with the tech companies to come up with solutions. Unilever said it has already held discussions with companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter Inc., Snap Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. to share ideas about what each can do to improve.
. . .
Mr. Weed said that advertisers need to be outspoken about issues on tech platforms, since they are almost entirely supported by billions of ad dollars.
“One can start by not putting ads on content we do not want to encourage,” he said.
There’s more at the link.
It’s Orwellian, isn’t it? Just look at the buzzwords – code words to cognoscenti who know exactly what he’s talking about. “Fake news”, “hate speech”, “divisive conduct”, “protect our children”, “responsible platforms”, “positive impact”, “racist or sexist views”, “Russians influencing the US election” . . . the list goes on and on and on. The only problem is, those views are entirely subjective. What’s “hate speech” to one side of the aisle is nothing more than freedom of speech and religion to the other (e.g. a Christian pastor giving a sermon on homosexuality from the perspective of traditional Biblical morality). What’s racist to one person is nothing more than common sense to another (e.g. “Black lives matter” versus “all lives matter”). Again, the list could go on and on.
We don’t just have to worry about the corridors of power in Washington. SJW’s, progressives and their ilk have infested the corridors of corporate America too, and they’re using its financial muscle to impose their views and their will on the rest of us, whether we like it or not. Unlike politicians, whom we can vote out of office if we choose, we have no recourse against the corporate crusaders except to boycott their products if we disagree with their views – but some consumers may find that impossible, for various reasons. The bald fact remains that if Unilever, or any other large advertiser, decides that my views and outlook on life fall on the wrong side of their judgment scale, and use their advertising muscle to affect companies and platforms that I patronize, I lose.
What’s the solution? Personally, I vote with my wallet. Others may disagree. Please let us know your view in Comments.