Twitter allows adverts alongside pictures of animal cruelty and injuries whereas Google does not

Twitter has different policies to Google AdSense on the images and videos which they say are acceptable. And Twitter is a platform for advertisers. Fundamentally there is no difference between Twitter and any other website. There is content in the form of words, images and videos alongside advertising. That applies to all websites with advertising.

Twitter allows adverts alongside pictures of animal cruelty and injuries whereas Google does not. Image: MikeB

Update: In the Times today, it reports that advertising revenue on Twitter is about 50% less than it was before Musk's buyout and that's partly due to a lack of moderation of tweets as advertisers don't want their adverts to be alongside crappy tweets. Point made.

So why the huge difference in policy between Google AdSense and Twitter? Twitter allows almost anything on animal cruelty. There is too much of it for animal advocates. Certainly, for me. It is horrible. But their advertisers don't complain. There are some really horrendous images which would certainly be in breach of Google AdSense policies on content alongside their adverts.

To be clear: Google won't allow images and videos of animal cruelty and grizzly images of injured animals of the kind you see on Twitter as they are in breach of their policy.

I don't have the answer as to why their policies are so different. Someone has made the better decision but I don't which of the two it is. Perhaps both are wrong.

In order to fight animal cruelty there needs to be some imagery of cruelty against animals to help get the message across. But it is needs to be moderated. Perhaps Google is too strict and Twitter too liberal.

Comments welcome. Sorry, this is so short and inconclusive.

Update: News from The Guardian newspaper:

Twitter faces a landmark legal challenge after the social media giant failed to remove a series of hate-filled tweets reported by users in what could be a turning point in establishing new standards of scrutiny regarding online antisemitism.

Same issue really: unregulated or not moderated adequately. This may be due to Musk sacking thousands of Twitter employees as the business was failing dramatically when he bought it (by mistake!). 

The reason why website readers really must accept adverts

A lot of people find the adverts on my websites and other sites irritating. One visitor said that she found the website hard to read because of the adverts which was a distinct exaggeration. However, it is a point, and it needs to be discussed. I will tell you why adverts are essential and why visitors to websites 'must' accept them and even click on them.

Google Ads are a force for good in one way. The support the 'independent websites' which provide a valuable contribution to the internet. Image: Google.

On a personal level, I have spent tens of thousands of hours and spent many thousands of pounds and dollars in running PoC and ancillary websites like this one. I don't get paid a penny but if I was paid the minimum wage, I would have earned tens of thousands of pounds.

The overall cost over the 15 years of the websites would be somewhere around £250,000+ at a rough calculation if you add in the minimum wage payment. The Google adverts bring in a relatively small income. Nowadays it is around £500-£900 per month. The company which hosts the site charge £80 per month.

So those are the raw facts. Without the adverts I'd have to take a massive loss payable out of my savings or charge a visitation fee. If I charged a fee to visit the site's viewing figures would drop pretty dramatically because no one else is charging except the large news media companies. 

All PoC traffic would go elsewhere to websites like Wikipedia. So, adverts help to keep independent website alive. By 'independent' websites I mean those owned and managed by a person and not a group or a business.

Without ads there would be no websites owned and run by single individuals working alone. I think that would be a big loss to the internet. I would not continue if there were no ads. In fact, I would not have started.

Do you want the internet to be dominated by big corporations who charge for entry to their sites?

Visitors should payback what they have learned from visiting these independent sites by clicking on an advert. You don't have to buy anything. Just click on the ad and see the product. You may make a purchase and at the same time the website owner earns a tiny bit of money (around 10 pence).

It is a small price, and the inconvenience of ads are also a small price to pay for free information. The ad blocker businesses are wrong. They are predatory and damaging to the internet. I know Google and other businesses make pots of dosh from ads but that's the nature of capitalism. 

I believe that all internet users should support the independent websites as it supports free speech and it helps to provide checks and balances against the corporations who, for me. are often unconcerned about animal welfare.

YouTube video makers are staging kitten rescues for money

I've been watching some cat and kitten rescues on YouTube. I thought I would catch up with what's going on in that marketplace. Immediately I smelled trouble; the two videos I saw made me doubt their veracity. They both appear to be staged. 

It is as of the film maker planned the whole thing like a mini-movie. Particularly the one on this page. It shows a kitten with a piece of cast-iron drainpipe around her body. This is a heavy piece of iron. The video maker walks up to the kitten who is struggling in what appears to be a part of a farm near some abandoned machinery. 

The filmmaker very, very slowly removes the cast-iron drainpipe from the kitten. It is done in the most elaborate and theatrical way. The moment is teased out over several minutes. It is quite ridiculous and it is shameful. The person uses one hand while the other holds the bloody camcorder! Shit. It is so crappy.

There is no way this kitten would end up with a piece of cast-iron drainpipe around her body unless it was put there by somebody. And I allege with complete conviction that it was put there by the filmmaker. Why would a kitten push their body through a piece of tight drainpipe like that? What was at the other end of it? What reward was there for the kitten to do it? How did the kitten manage to do it? They are all so unlikely as to be impossible to envisage.

If I'm correct, and I am convinced that I am correct,  this is shameful behaviour. This filmmaker is conning YouTube into believing that they are involved in genuine kitten rescue. They are conning Google AdSense who are paying them for adverts on their video. And they are conning the advertisers who want to place their adverts on their video. Finally, they are conning the public into believing it is genuine.

YouTube need to investigate this sort of thing because I believe that it is more widespread than people believe. The comments under the video indicate that those who have watched it don't understand what is going on. Nobody is asking the common sense question as to how this happened. As I said, it is likely that the only way it could happen is if it was staged.