Several readers have noticed ex-gay ads appearing on the margins of the Ex-Gay Watch home page.
This web site does have the ability to filter out ads from specific sources — and I am inclined to do so until those sources agree to host gay-tolerant ads.
But before implementing such a policy, I welcome feedback.
I don’t see any reason why you should have any obligation to support just one side of the issue with advertising. Certainly if there is gay-tolerant advertising to create balance, so be it. But my impression was that XGW was about balance. The advertising should reflect that.
In my opinion [I do not speak for XGW] a commitment to balance and respect only extends to organizations which do not engage in hate speech, homophobia, and advocate discrimination. If such an ex-gay ministry actually existed I would not object if Mike accepted their ads. Newspapers have an obligation to provide balanced coverage but that obligation does not include printing letters-to-the-editor containing hate speech. On those same grounds I believe XGW has no obligation to tolerate accept ads from ministries advocating discrimination, a form of hate speech and other criteria as described above.
Balance is not achieved by simply giving a platform for “the other side” to say whatever they want– regardless of how false, rude or manipulative their activities are.Presenting those ads do not, IMO, help support the expressed aims of XGW. Ex-gays are, I understand, more than welcome to join in with everyone else. That permits a discussion, examination, rebuttal, whatever. Running adverts — from anyone — that continue to demonise people and misrepresent their lives or their motivations is not a path forward.Use your editorial control.Frankly, this wouldn’t even be an issue for debate if we were talking about any group other than gay men and lesbians. If we cannot be clear on that, how can we expect others to be?
Precisely my feeling. My suggestion: Down with the ex-gay ads.
Ads for so-called “ex-gay” services? Here? You’ve got to be kidding. You’ve allowed for comments, and people pimping ex-gay services have posted here.
And, yes, I used that rather harsh term intentionally.
Tried to post this the other day, but your server was throwing database errors…
On my site if an ad comes up for some opposing point of view, that’s fine. But if Google serves up an ad for white supremacists, reparative therapy, or any other hate group (which occasionally happens), I block the ad and report it to Google as it is a violation of their terms of service.
I don’t care if someone is selling pro-Bush bumper stickers or whatever. Frankly those ads potentially make money for me and cost money for them, so they’re fine. But when one of Pat Robertson’s ads comes up, it gets blocked. I am not about to assist him in raising money to support the blood diamond trade in Liberia with his business partner Charles Taylor, while skimming off the profits to pay for a Dominionist media empire whose sole purpose is to bring about the end of the world. Not that any of my readers would give money to him, but still.
I’d filter the ex-gay ads.
I’ve gone ahead and blocked a couple of known exgay advertisers — and gay dating services.
If a given exgay advertiser shows some balance and accuracy regarding opposing viewpoints; opposes discrimination; and supports freedom of speech and religion for all people (not just for fundamentalists), then my policy will be to not block it.
As for “dating” sites: Call me a prude if you must, but gay.com is gone for good.
Michael, I would not call you a prude for banning ads for gay.com I still have to figure out the dynamic here, but ads here for gay.com make no sense whatsoever. I’ve chatted there a bit, and it is primarily a way for straight (married w/children) men to hook up with gay guys who would fellate them, or for guys would try to trick out on their partners. The Boston chat room had some interesting political chat a couple of years ago but that has seemed to have gone by the wayside.
You might be encouraged to block all ads, but I don’t know what your financials are.
The ads pay for one-third to two-thirds of the $15-18 in monthly hosting and software fees.
In other words, neither the revenue nor the costs amount too much. But if I were to resume my own regular blogging, and recruit one or two volunteer writers, then I suspect the site traffic (and therefore the ad revenues) would rise substantially.
Whatever the revenue, I view the ads as a learning experience. It’s interesting (to me, a backoffice web content techie) to see how an ad company interprets the topic of a given page.
As for a dynamic at XGW… you thought there was a dynamic? 😀
If someone would like to see a dynamic at XGW, then I welcome specific feedback from them. I believe I might have a little time to clean up the site and write a bit, before too long. But barring some clear feedback, my own focus is likely be more annoyingly neutral and noncommittal than it’s been.
When I write posts that seem inconclusive or that fall short of obvious conclusions, some folks assume I’m being naive. But usually my goals include:
1) pointing out implicit self-contradictions in exgay propaganda, allowing readers to make their own conclusions, to connect their own dots;
2) maintaining what I consider a moderate tone, allowing commenters to expand on my posts in a variety of directions;
3) challenging those who react with unsubstantiated (or just plain indefensible) conclusions.