Regarding the new advertisement selling T-shirts on DU.

[Skinner]

Many of you are aware that earlier this week there was some controversy here on DU regarding the appropriateness of some products being advertised on our website. We had accepted advertising from a merchant who sold T-shirts, including a large proportion of shirts with inappropriate messages. We ended up removing the ad prematurely and refunding the advertiser's money.

Today we were given the option to run an advertisement for a different T-shirt company. In light of the recent controversy, we did not take the decision to accept their advertisement lightly. After reviewing some of their merchandise and discussing the issue at length among ourselves, we decided to accept the ad. You can check out the ad on our homepage or on the Forum Latest Page, and if you click on the ad you can visit their website and see it for yourself.

This merchant does sell some products that many of our members might consider inappropriate. Yet, we decided to accept the advertisement anyway. It is clear from the recent T-shirt controversy that Democratic Underground does have some responsibility to review the products that an advertiser makes available on their website. But we believe our responsibility only requires us to get an idea of the overall tenor of the website. Democratic Underground is not responsible for all of the products that our advertisers make available. In our discussions in the office, we have come to call this "The Bookstore Principle."

The idea is that if we accept an advertisement from a bookstore, we are not held responsible for all of the books that that store sells. We are not required to check their entire inventory to make sure that they don't carry some books that our members might find objectionable. In fact, we expect that any broad-based general-interest bookseller likely sells some items that our members would find objectionable.

However, if the bookstore is a specialty store primarily dedicated to selling materials that are highly objectionable to our members, we would have a responsibility to reject the ad.

Based on our cursory review of their products, it is our impression that a significant proportion of products for sale on the website of the current T-shirt advertiser are of interest to our members, and will not be considered objectionable to our members. We are aware that some of their products are not appropriate, but considering the overall tenor of the website we we feel that it was appropriate for us to accept the ad.

We understand that some members may not agree with our decision. But we wanted you to know how we came about it.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Coventina]

1. Sounds reasonable to me.

:thumbsup:

[northzax]

2. well, now that you've piqued my interest

I can't find the ad!

or is this all a ploy to drive up your clickthrough rates? hmmm...

[Skinner]

3. You can't see the ad?

Hmmm. Try refreshing the Latest Page or the Homepage.

[northzax]

9. ahh, that workedq

it just replaced the Constant Gardener. Which I find offensive, by the way, I'll be filing a complaint later :)

[Misunderestimator]

19. (Edited) Now can you save me the trouble of searching...

through the entire site for what you referred to that "might" be objectionable? I can't find anything objectionable there after a few minutes of clicking through it.... :think: ... I've been tricked into clicking through the site... x(

On edit... I found it!! And I agree with you that some stuff might be objectionable, however the main purpose of the site is admirable, and the objectionable stuff is far LESS objectionable than the other site. So, anyway... I can understand why you accepted their business.

[ulysses]

4. never mind - refresh worked.

Heh - seems like a perfectly reasonable pov to me, Skinner, but yeah, you might get some complaints. :)

[charlie]

6. On the left

T-Shirt Humor, you're not seeing it? Their Blog shirt is a hoot.

[Blue-Jay]

5. OK.

[msongs]

7. I find GW Bush objectionable but HE is allowed here....eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. I've refreshed, etc and still don't see it. It's on the DU home page?

It's not on mine. Do you have a link? Thanks!

[Skinner]

10. Try closing your browser and then re-starting.

I think that would do it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Thanks Skinner, problem already solved. :)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Ok, now this is weird. I was using AOL and it didn't show. I just used IE

and there it is!

[ChickMagic]

12. Skinner, you sound defensive

This is, after all, your site and your decisions stand. I have no problem with companies making a few bucks from both sides of the fence. In fact, it could draw people to this site who ordinarily wouldn't visit and a few eyes might be opened. Well done.

[Skinner]

16. I don't think I'm being defensive.

Considering that the last t-shirt controversy is still fresh in everyone's minds, we felt that it was important that we explain our position.

[ChickMagic]

18. That's cool

I have no problem with your position at all. ;)

[The Witch]

13. But the bigger question is:

Whose photoshop is better: theirs or mine?

:D

[Wickerman]

14. Ok, some are goofy, some are pretty funny

but seem to be in good liberal form for the most part. Some are plain stupid.

A none political one I like:

[Misunderestimator]

20. LOL!

now I have an earworm... thanks... x(

[TOhioLiberal]

22. I like...

...this one:



:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Ian David]

15. That works for me!

[Misunderestimator]

21. I like the site. Pretty funny stuff.

[intheflow]

23. This site is waaaaaaaaaay better!

Funny and goofy, not hostile. The bookstore principle seems to be a wise guide.

Thanks so much, Skinner/Admins/Mods! :grouphug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Speaking strictly for myself, I do not expect purity from your advertisers

although a few have accused me of such. However, if 90% of the products sold by your advertisers were witty and fun and 10% depicted black people with watermelons and nooses around their necks hanging from sycamore trees I would still object loudly to that 10%.

At that point, I would expect DU to either demand the advertiser remove those products to advertise here or reject their ads.

We can all be a little offended at a lot or a lot offended at a little. While policies are good in a general blanket manner, I know in my business I still have to consider some things on an individual basis.

A handful of progressive products can be negated by one extremely offensive product. So I guess I would say I don't think your responsibility as a progressive site ends quite with this statement :But we believe our responsibility only requires us to get an idea of the overall tenor of the website. Even though I would completely agree with the general rule that you can't please all the people all the time.

FWIW, I saw the ad this am, clicked on it and found their products to be quite cute and pretty harmless.