I wish that commenters on the Internet generally, and HN in particular, would lay off "murder and jaywalking" arguments.
If Gandi advertised with lewds, well. People would complain and they would probably stop.
The "scummy actions and questionable security practices" are both necessary and sufficient to persuade the informed reader not to patronize their services. Bringing in additional minor peccadillos weakens the argument by bringing out everyone who likes tits in ads.
No one likes the kind of bad behavior GoDaddy is known for.
This comment might seem a bit out-of-place if you don't happen to use showdead.
To me, using women to sell a product reeks of a bygone era and a certain mentality we’re working to get away from. I think that alone is a perfectly acceptable reason to think a company sucks and not use their product. Voting for behaviors with your dollars is important.
I wonder if it is more dehumanizing to the affected woman to show an attractive woman, or to not show women at all.
I think to be consistent with the 'don't use women for ads' approach, you need to be opposed to use human-based or non-product-related human interest advertisement at all, which includes, but is probably not limited to men [1], children [2], the elderly [3], people of a certain demographic and/or sexual orientation and/or gender identity [4], or national rivalries [5][6] or stereotypes [7] or even the concepts of such. You would also have to have a stern look at the art scene, because sex also sells as sculpture, on canvas, as a particularly suggestive voice or on the screen - it may be part of the work, but it also has an advertising effect.
While this is of course reductive, my counterexample is cosmetics and women's fashion generally, I'm happy to agree where internet services are concerned.
So many companies run marketing campaigns that largely pay lip-service to whatever is trending lately, without actually changing their internal strategies to reflect this stance. I would much rather the companies put that money towards actions that might actually benefit the cause, rather than spending 99% of the budget trying to prove they're committed to solving $PROBLEM by donating the remaining 1% to some non-profit.
I totally recognize the counter-point; they didn't have to donate anything at all, and any amount is more than nothing. To me, the issue stems from the fact that companies are basically making money on the back of things that are actual issues. It's exploitation, plain and simple.
While I have mixed feelings about capitalism coopting lgbtq causes to make a quick buck, reducing lgbtq or pride to anal sex is some shameful bullshit.
Anal sex is what leftists base their political power around and yet try hard as shit to hide behind flags and "celebrations" because 97% of society is revolted by it. They will show a blurred murder footage on network tv any day of the week, but will never showed blurred gay anal sex. And, yes in a sense the gays are coming. Leftist scum came for our jobs, our paychecks, our homes. I for one applaud any advertiser who teams with beautiful prideful hetero women to display their bodies and celebrate beautiful hetero man-woman sex. At least they are not allied with hateful marxist political parties who have harmed millions.
If Gandi advertised with lewds, well. People would complain and they would probably stop.
The "scummy actions and questionable security practices" are both necessary and sufficient to persuade the informed reader not to patronize their services. Bringing in additional minor peccadillos weakens the argument by bringing out everyone who likes tits in ads.
No one likes the kind of bad behavior GoDaddy is known for.
This comment might seem a bit out-of-place if you don't happen to use showdead.