It’s no secret that Google and Facebook found themselves in hot water when they started employing automated advertising targeted ads next to offensive content.

In one particular example, Vodafone, a British telecommunications company, declared this past summer that it will prevent its advertising from appearing next to alleged “fake news” stories and hate speech. The company claimed there is now a risk of its brand taking damage if it’s marketed in outlets that are “fundamentally at odds with [its] values and beliefs.” Vodafone clearly made this decision because of the growing concern that by advertising on these sites it was inadvertently funding disreputable organizations.

British Labour Party politician David Winnick referred to the amount of money made by ads next to provocative content as “commercial prostitution.”

To assure advertisers that they are doing what they can to protect their brands, both Facebook and Google claim they are taking extra measures to prevent ads from appearing in apps or sites containing content that is illegal, misleading or deceptive, including fake news. But it’s not clear that they can protect brands or that they should.

It’s A Matter Of Taste

Ads are served through digital auctions based on a viewer’s browsing patterns, purchase history, age, economic status, values, personality, attitudes, opinions and lifestyles. The user experience for online advertising is totally unique and individual for each person.

If a viewer sees an ad for a truck while browsing through sites that contain news items that are misleading, the ad was served more often on that site because of the viewer’s background or previous searches. So does it really make sense to complain about where the ad appeared? After all, the consumer chose to go to that site in the first place.

Since every screen can become a canvas, in the privacy of a consumer’s home, it doesn’t make sense to dictate what each individual viewer sees. There can be no real connection between the brand and the individual computer screen.