Hulu and the Political Ads Issue (1 Viewer)

[glvsav37]

Hulu had an internal rule not to accept or run political ads. Polling subscribers since 2017, they heard that subscribers got fed up with the constant political ads running so often, and spreading that word everyone loves "disinformation," Hulu as a company and said to its subscribers, ok, no more political ads. 

Well, apparently one party now feels that Hulus reach and audience opportunity is too large of a pie not to bite into, that they started a Hulu boycott and smear campaign, claiming political censorship. 

Hulu’s “unwritten policy” on political censorship sparks backlash

...the Hulu community have complained about seeing the same political ads “1,000 times,” with some claiming they were repeatedly served ads from Republicans that spread misinformation. After President Biden was elected in 2020, others complained about “Democratic propaganda.” Many suggested Hulu wasn’t the place for political ads.

....by blocking more political ads. Democrats have claimed that Hulu blocked political ads discussing key party issues like abortion rights, gun control, and climate change, sparking an entirely different backlash and a Twitter rally cry to #BoycottHulu.

“Hulu’s censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country,” executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association told The Washington Post in a statement. “Voters have the right to know the facts about MAGA Republicans’ agenda on issues like abortion—and Hulu is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth about the GOP record or denying these issues from even being discussed.”

Hulu, being a streaming service, is not bound by the Communications Act of 1934, a law that requires broadcast television networks to provide politicians equal access to the airwaves. 

But their stance only lasted so long, b/c their parent company Disney, came in and has now forced them to change their policy and accept these ads. However the hypocrisy only extends so far as Disney's own streaming service, Disney+ has a similar policy about not accepting political ads to stay "family friendly" 

So which is it people? Do we respect the rights of a privately owned company to decide what it on their platform or not? And while, yes you can argue that Hulu is technically owned by Disney, the policy wasn't a problem until a certain party* couldn't benefit from it and started a Karen "I want to see the manager" screaming attack. 

again, let me point to the fact that the policy was enacted originally in part because "Hulu community have complained about seeing the same political ads “1,000 times,” with some claiming they were repeatedly served ads from Republicans that spread misinformation."

I got news for you..."Missinformation" is not just solely republican label. While the left has coopted it as its rally cry, you can't tell me that every single political ad, from either party is 100% truthful and transparent. We cant get the media to be truthful, but yet we will blindly believe everything that is said in a paid-for marketing spot solely targeted against a particular political opponent?? This is why we cant have nice things and IMO the best stance is to not try and decide what is factual or not, but just not have them at all, period.  

*if the republicans were championing this same fight, I would feel the exact same way. I am "pro-private businesses being free to make their own policy" 

 

[sho nuff]

Yeah...Hope Hulu sticks to it from two standpoints....its what their subscribers want and as a business they should get to make such a decision that affects their bottom line.

And I am thoroughly enjoying "Only Murders in the Building" and don't want to be inundated with political ads while I watch it.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm firmly against all ads - I don't care about any of them.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

their parent company Disney

"Because I said so."

 

[glvsav37]

"Because I said so."

...and I am still trying to make my Democratic base happy again. I wonder what the outcome would be if Ron DeSantis was the one looking to advertise? 

 

[The Commish]

Businesses are free to do as they choose.  The market will decide.  My position from day one.  Interested to see if the "sides" here are consistent though.  Somehow I have a feeling those upset with the "censorship" from twitter aren't all that concerned.  Are they really going to jump into bed with a company they claim to loathe in an effort to put the policy above the politics?  Maybe I'm wrong...let the flaming begin!!!!!!   

 

[massraider]

...and I am still trying to make my Democratic base happy again. I wonder what the outcome would be if Ron DeSantis was the one looking to advertise? 

The hypocrisy of this imaginary situation makes my blood boil. 

 

[moleculo]

Hulu had an internal rule not to accept or run political ads. Polling subscribers since 2017, they heard that subscribers got fed up with the constant political ads running so often, and spreading that word everyone loves "disinformation," Hulu as a company and said to its subscribers, ok, no more political ads. 

Well, apparently one party now feels that Hulus reach and audience opportunity is too large of a pie not to bite into, that they started a Hulu boycott and smear campaign, claiming political censorship. 

Hulu’s “unwritten policy” on political censorship sparks backlash

Hulu, being a streaming service, is not bound by the Communications Act of 1934, a law that requires broadcast television networks to provide politicians equal access to the airwaves. 

But their stance only lasted so long, b/c their parent company Disney, came in and has now forced them to change their policy and accept these ads. However the hypocrisy only extends so far as Disney's own streaming service, Disney+ has a similar policy about not accepting political ads to stay "family friendly" 

So which is it people? Do we respect the rights of a privately owned company to decide what it on their platform or not? And while, yes you can argue that Hulu is technically owned by Disney, the policy wasn't a problem until a certain party* couldn't benefit from it and started a Karen "I want to see the manager" screaming attack. 

again, let me point to the fact that the policy was enacted originally in part because "Hulu community have complained about seeing the same political ads “1,000 times,” with some claiming they were repeatedly served ads from Republicans that spread misinformation."

I got news for you..."Missinformation" is not just solely republican label. While the left has coopted it as its rally cry, you can't tell me that every single political ad, from either party is 100% truthful and transparent. We cant get the media to be truthful, but yet we will blindly believe everything that is said in a paid-for marketing spot solely targeted against a particular political opponent?? This is why we cant have nice things and IMO the best stance is to not try and decide what is factual or not, but just not have them at all, period.  

*if the republicans were championing this same fight, I would feel the exact same way. I am "pro-private businesses being free to make their own policy" 

Hulu had, and still has, the right to operate as they see fit.  The democrats whining about it does not at all infringe on that right.  

If the government was forcing Hulu to show their ads, hypothetically say by pulling decades-long development agreement, you would have a legitimate gripe.  But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. 

Just as Hulu can choose to operate as they see fit, consumers can choose to not use their services.  That choice may or may not impact Hulu's business decisions.

 

[glvsav37]

The hypocrisy of this imaginary situation makes my blood boil. 

bc it would be completely plausible for Disney swoop in to make Hulu change its policy if is it was desantis supporters screaming #boycottHulu

the hypocrisy of your denial of the political hackery we have today is funny. 

 

[Joe Schmo]

Ron DeSantis is punishing Disney for voicing political opinion, Hulu is allowing political opinion- which is preferable?

 

[glvsav37]

Businesses are free to do as they choose.  The market will decide.  My position from day one.  Interested to see if the "sides" here are consistent though.  Somehow I have a feeling those upset with the "censorship" from twitter aren't all that concerned.  Are they really going to jump into bed with a company they claim to loathe in an effort to put the policy above the politics?  Maybe I'm wrong...let the flaming begin!!!!!!   

the way I see it, is that those who where WERE OK with twitters censorship actions, are now the ones boycotting Hulu for their policy. But the funny part is that Hulus policy was simply no political ads at all. But the democrats are claiming that Hulu is discriminating against them specifically (and taking to Twitter to do it ironically). 

Legitimately, it wasn't until they realized the power of Hulu's reach that this is even an issue. 

 

[massraider]

bc it would be completely plausible for Disney swoop in to make Hulu change its policy if is it was desantis supporters screaming #boycottHulu

the hypocrisy of your denial of the political hackery we have today is funny. 

I'm going to point out every time I notice someone point out hypocrisy in a made up scenario.

It's weird, and becoming common here. 

 

[timschochet]

Democrats are behaving hypocritically here. (What else is new?) 

 

[massraider]

bc it would be completely plausible

Yeah....

 

[Rich Conway]

the way I see it, is that those who where WERE OK with twitters censorship actions, are now the ones boycotting Hulu for their policy. But the funny part is that Hulus policy was simply no political ads at all. But the democrats are claiming that Hulu is discriminating against them specifically (and taking to Twitter to do it ironically). 

Legitimately, it wasn't until they realized the power of Hulu's reach that this is even an issue. 

You do understand that advocating boycotts is not incompatible with a belief that businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions, right?

 

[djmich]

Ron DeSantis is punishing Disney for voicing political opinion, Hulu is allowing political opinion- which is preferable?

It would be preferable if Hulu remained consistent and either didn't allow political opinion (which it didn't when people complained about the conservative ads) or did (which now is apparently preferable since the democrats have lots of messages they want to convey).

 

[Rich Conway]

It would be preferable if Hulu remained consistent and either allowed political opinion (which it didn't when people complained about the conservative ads) or didn't (which now is apparently preferable since the democrats have lots of messages they want to convey).

Preferable to whom and why?  I thought we all want businesses to make their own decisions?

 

[timschochet]

You do understand that advocating boycotts is not incompatible with a belief that businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions, right?

It isn’t for me or you. But the Democratic Party doesn’t have a good history of making this distinction. 

 

[glvsav37]

Ron DeSantis is punishing Disney for voicing political opinion, Hulu is allowing political opinion- which is preferable?

depending on how you look at it, Disney's "political opinion" was misinformation b/c his stance was that the bill had noting to do with "dont say gay" and that phrase was created by opponents to demonize the bill.

Hulus stance was: we are not going to police what is factual or not politically, so we wont run any of it. 

Who's right and who's wrong? Obv our multi-page thread on that issue here proves that right or wrong is in the opinion of the camp you stand in. We went round and round w/o a clear winning opinion. So wit that, for the idea that Hulu is 1st and foremost an entertainment company to its customers, I would prefer the stance they had whereas no political advertising (geared at enraging one side or the other) would interrupt their customers enjoyment of the platform. 

and FTR, I said the same thing about Disney back when all the hubbub broke. Disney is an entertainment company 1st and their stance should have been along the lines of "inside our gates and in our entertainment offering is a welcoming place for everyone. We are not politicians and dont take stances on policy"

 

[Joe Schmo]

It would be preferable if Hulu remained consistent and either didn't allow political opinion (which it didn't when people complained about the conservative ads) or did (which now is apparently preferable since the democrats have lots of messages they want to convey).

Does the Hulu policy limit conservative ads in any way?

 

[The Commish]

the way I see it, is that those who where WERE OK with twitters censorship actions, are now the ones boycotting Hulu for their policy. But the funny part is that Hulus policy was simply no political ads at all. But the democrats are claiming that Hulu is discriminating against them specifically (and taking to Twitter to do it ironically). 

Legitimately, it wasn't until they realized the power of Hulu's reach that this is even an issue. 

probably true....two sides of the same coin trying desperately to ignore that reality.

 

[djmich]

Does the Hulu policy limit conservative ads in any way?

I don't know but I'd think it unlikely, just as I doubt it limited liberal ads back when it was not ok to show ads.  What changed?

 

[glvsav37]

Preferable to whom and why?  I thought we all want businesses to make their own decisions?

preferable by its customers who were the ones complaining about political ads since 2017, Including many democrats as I pointed out in my OP. So as a private company they decided no more political ads from any party.

But that was then, and this is now when the platform is needed to help get certain messages out there. 

 

 

[glvsav37]

Does the Hulu policy limit conservative ads in any way?

yes, the policy was no political ads at all. 

 

[Joe Schmo]

I don't know but I'd think it unlikely, just as I doubt it limited liberal ads back when it was not ok to show ads.  What changed?

The change is now political issue ads of either persuasion are allowed on Hulu.

 

[The Commish]

depending on how you look at it, Disney's "political opinion" was misinformation b/c his stance was that the bill had noting to do with "dont say gay" and that phrase was created by opponents to demonize the bill.

Hulus stance was: we are not going to police what is factual or not politically, so we wont run any of it. 

Who's right and who's wrong? Obv our multi-page thread on that issue here proves that right or wrong is in the opinion of the camp you stand in. We went round and round w/o a clear winning opinion. So wit that, for the idea that Hulu is 1st and foremost an entertainment company to its customers, I would prefer the stance they had whereas no political advertising (geared at enraging one side or the other) would interrupt their customers enjoyment of the platform. 

and FTR, I said the same thing about Disney back when all the hubbub broke. Disney is an entertainment company 1st and their stance should have been along the lines of "inside our gates and in our entertainment offering is a welcoming place for everyone. We are not politicians and dont take stances on policy"

And I'd challenge this too....you'll be hard pressed to find the large school districts here that aren't paralyzed in actions moving forward trying to avoid all the possible pitfalls of merely mentioning same sex topics given the vagueness of the bills and how poorly they are written.  Hours and hours and hours have been spent trying to figure out what they can/can't say....at least here in Central Florida.

 

[Rich Conway]

preferable by its customers who were the ones complaining about political ads since 2017, Including many democrats as I pointed out in my OP. So as a private company they decided no more political ads from any party.

But that was then, and this is now when the platform is needed to help get certain messages out there. 

The post to which I responded was arguing that it would be preferable if Hulu remained consistent rather than changing its policy based on which party intended to advertise heavily.  My questions apply to that assertion.

That's an entirely different issue than whether it would be preferable to the customers to receive or not receive political advertising.  I can certainly understand how such ads might annoy viewers (although I'm not that certain it's much different than seeing a Geico/Progressive/Liberty Mutual commercial for the 589th time this week).

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'm firmly against all ads - I don't care about any of them.

I am against most modern ads because they suck. But I can't get enough of the retro ads of the 20th century.

 

[glvsav37]

And I'd challenge this too....you'll be hard pressed to find the large school districts here that aren't paralyzed in actions moving forward trying to avoid all the possible pitfalls of merely mentioning same sex topics given the vagueness of the bills and how poorly they are written.  Hours and hours and hours have been spent trying to figure out what they can/can't say....at least here in Central Florida.

I cant speak on that b/c your a local and I'm not. M apologies as I didn't intend to use this thread to rehash that topic...we have a whole other thread for that. I was mearly using it as an example of "what if" 

 

[Joe Schmo]

yes, the policy was no political ads at all. 

The current policy makes no differentiation of affiliation for ads that I am aware of and it adheres to the current Disney cable channel ads policy:

Between the lines: Hulu has prohibited issue advertising for years, although it has accepted candidate advertising. But now that Disney has majority control over the streamer, it's moving to integrate Hulu's policies to match Disney's.

"After a thorough review of ad policies across its linear networks and streaming platforms over the last few months, Disney is now aligning Hulu’s political advertising policies to be consistent with the Company’s general entertainment and sports cable networks and ESPN+," Disney said.

"Hulu will now accept candidate and issue advertisements covering a wide spectrum of policy positions, but reserves the right to request edits or alternative creative, in alignment with industry standards."

 

[glvsav37]

The change is now political issue ads of either persuasion are allowed on Hulu.

too soon to tell, Disney onyl told to start accepting them this week. 

 

[The Commish]

I cant speak on that b/c your a local and I'm not. M apologies as I didn't intend to use this thread to rehash that topic...we have a whole other thread for that. I was mearly using it as an example of "what if" 

Understood GB 

This topic will likely see a complete 180 by both "sides" here.  As predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

 

[Dickies]

preferable by its customers who were the ones complaining about political ads since 2017, Including many democrats as I pointed out in my OP. So as a private company they decided no more political ads from any party.

But that was then, and this is now when the platform is needed to help get certain messages out there. 

 

Why do people always assume nefarious intent?  The more likely explanation is that they wanted the advertising money.

Hulu’s ads are annoying. I get bombarded with the same 3 pharmaceutical ads EVERY commercial break. 

 

[djmich]

Why do people always assume nefarious intent?  The more likely explanation is that they wanted the advertising money.

Hulu’s ads are annoying. I get bombarded with the same 3 pharmaceutical ads EVERY commercial break. 

Did advertising just become profitable?

Coincidence?....“Hulu’s censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country,” executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association told The Washington Post in a statement. “Voters have the right to know the facts about MAGA Republicans’ agenda on issues like abortion—and Hulu is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth about the GOP record or denying these issues from even being discussed.”

 

[Dickies]

Did advertising just become profitable?

Coincidence?....“Hulu’s censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country,” executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association told The Washington Post in a statement. “Voters have the right to know the facts about MAGA Republicans’ agenda on issues like abortion—and Hulu is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth about the GOP record or denying these issues from even being discussed.”

Democrats are being idiots here if they think anyone is going to boycott Hulu for not playing ads

 

[glvsav37]

Why do people always assume nefarious intent?  The more likely explanation is that they wanted the advertising money.

Hulu’s ads are annoying. I get bombarded with the same 3 pharmaceutical ads EVERY commercial break. 

quite the opposite....they turned down political ads for years. They chose revenue, but it was from their subscribers who complained about the political ads....from both sides. 

the real story here is the power of the targeting features of advertising on digital/streaming services. For the most part, you put on ad on TV, at best you could pick the time slot, but you were paying for everyone to see the ad. Now, social and digital targeting features have become so complex that savvy advertisers can drill a message into a very specific demographic. Thats what is a the root of all of this. Reading the article, the message that they are trying to drive is around abortion, gun control and MAGA missinformation. Each of those topics carries a specific demographic that they can target directly through Hulu's platform. If this was your local mom and pop newspaper declining political ads it would be a non-issue. But both sides are missing out on the overall power of the platform and its ability to reach very specific audiences. 

 

[matttyl]

Hulu’s annual revenue by year, 2010 to 2021, in $Bn

.2, .4, .6, 1.1, 1.6, 2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.5, 4.5, 7.2 (pandemic), 9.6.  

*Disney couldn’t have timed their purchase better, valuing Hulu at 15.8b in 2019.  

Hulus demographics - 17% gen z (age 10-25), 37% millennial (26-41), 27% gen x  (42-57).  So 54% are under age 42.  Skews female (which I personally found odd in that I have a Hulu account in my name, though my wife uses it far more), and half of the subscribers have income less than $50k.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

1.  They can do what they want, and I and others and choose if we want to give them money.  

2.  What ads?  Isn't Hulu a subscription service, or do they have tiers where they run ads with shows for less/month?

 

[Rich Conway]

2.  What ads?  Isn't Hulu a subscription service, or do they have tiers where they run ads with show for less/month?

The bolded, good sir.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The bolded, good sir.

Thanks.  Figured as much after I wrote that b/c I remember grumbling last night about Peacock for a similar reason.   My #1 still applies.  Annoying they are doing that, but it's their choice, and people can either stop using them or pony up a little bit more a month to not watch them if they love Hulu that much.  

 

[glvsav37]

1.  They can do what they want, and I and others and choose if we want to give them money.  

2.  What ads?  Isn't Hulu a subscription service, or do they have tiers where they run ads with show for less/month?

1. They were choosing what they wanted which was no political advocacy ads. You, I and others were choosing to give them money. The policy was specifically written b/c those who choose to give them their money wanted it that way, from both sides.

However now there is a perceived need by a certain party to get a message out to a specific demographic that just so happens to fit in Hulu's subscriber base and so the old policy has now been deemed "political censorship" by that party and in response those who live and die their party, subscriber or not, is climbing up Hulu's butthole so far that Daddy Disney had to swoop in an demand they eliminate the policy. 

edit: I know you posted above this one, and use the term "their choice" but I'll argue that why wasn't their "original choice" respected when it's been that way for so long? 

 

[Rich Conway]

1. They were choosing what they wanted which was no political advocacy ads. You, I and others were choosing to give them money. The policy was specifically written b/c those who choose to give them their money wanted it that way, from both sides.

However now there is a perceived need by a certain party to get a message out to a specific demographic that just so happens to fit in Hulu's subscriber base and so the old policy has now been deemed "political censorship" by that party and in response those who live and die their party, subscriber or not, is climbing up Hulu's butthole so far that Daddy Disney had to swoop in an demand they eliminate the policy. 

OK, and?  Should businesses be able to choose their policies or not?

 

[Joe Schmo]

1. They were choosing what they wanted which was no political advocacy ads. You, I and others were choosing to give them money. The policy was specifically written b/c those who choose to give them their money wanted it that way, from both sides.

However now there is a perceived need by a certain party to get a message out to a specific demographic that just so happens to fit in Hulu's subscriber base and so the old policy has now been deemed "political censorship" by that party and in response those who live and die their party, subscriber or not, is climbing up Hulu's butthole so far that Daddy Disney had to swoop in an demand they eliminate the policy. 

In addition, the current policy implemented does not discriminate between political party's and their issue ads so all are welcome to advertise on Hulu. Can't imagine any political group seeing this outreach to potential voters as a bad thing so the activists provided a valuable service to many candidates and their causes. Lobbying works which is why people do it to begin with.

 

[glvsav37]

OK, and?  Should businesses be able to choose their policies or not?

they already chose their policy.

“the company does not publicly disclose its advertising guidelines but that [it prohibits] advertising that takes a position on a controversial issue, regardless of whether it is a political ad. The ads are reviewed on a case-by-case basis"

But that wasn't acceptable by certain people right now. And before you say "well if it wasn't acceptable, then they are right to change it" 

the opponents of the policy–which has been in place for years–claimed 

“Hulu’s censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country,” executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association told The Washington Post in a statement. “Voters have the right to know the facts about MAGA Republicans’ agenda on issues like abortion—and Hulu is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth about the GOP record or denying these issues from even being discussed.”

1. "The Truth" is in the eye of the beholder on these topics. A simple scan of these boards alone will show that. 
2. In this instance, it is the "Democratic version of the truth" which will lead to ads about the "Conservative version of the truth" which will be counter to the Dem version and entering a cycle of "He Said/She Said" which is unproductive and exactly what Hulu was trying to avoid for their subscribers sake. 
3. They are being hyperbolic about "voters having rights to know the facts." Just b/c you cant spoon feed them your narrative,  does not mean that votes are prohibited from going out and doing their own research. And what are "the facts?" Democrat facts? Conservative views don't have facts?  The whole root of advertising is bending facts to gain trust in a potential consumer to go out and buy your product over your competitors. 
4. "Denying these issues from being discussed" is also a bit exaggerated. Discussion is a 2 way dialog, where differing ideas are exchanged.....advertising is 1 way. 
5. They go on to say: "The same ads ran without issue on platforms like YouTube and Facebook." Ok, so those platforms chose their policies, go advertise there. 
6. Buuuuuut: "They were hoping the ads would stream on Hulu, too, capturing the attention of Hulu subscribers ages 13 to 54, who are known to sit and binge shows for hours and overwhelmingly prioritize Hulu as a top form of entertainment above all else." Oh, so its really just about going where the eyeballs are, but the product that they choose to consume doesn't want you there, so now its time to go nuclear on them and make THEM the bad guy. 

hmmmmm let me think...I know there is a certain something coming up......like a vote or something,.....where one side is expected to....um...IDK....lose badly or something like that.  I wonder....really wonder why this policy is a problem....like right now?  Geee......I just cant put my finger on it?

tell me again who's actually "choosing" their policies?

 

[glvsav37]

In addition, the current policy implemented does not discriminate between political party's and their issue ads so all are welcome to advertise on Hulu. Can't imagine any political group seeing this outreach to potential voters as a bad thing so the activists provided a valuable service to many candidates and their causes. Lobbying works which is why people do it to begin with.

 your right....that is if your paying customers didnt already ask for this "outreach for potential voters" to NOT be there in the 1st place. 

how well, balanced and truthful is political advertising going over on the regular channels? Is all the truth really being shown in those ads? Or is it a collection of smear and over dramatic spots aimed at making "The other guy" look like the direct descendent of Satan? 

Be realistic, no political advertising is being truthful. Esp on these topics that they are pushing for, abortion, guns and MAGA policy. Everyone has different views of "the truth" when it comes to these topics. 

 

[Rich Conway]

they already chose their policy.

“the company does not publicly disclose its advertising guidelines but that [it prohibits] advertising that takes a position on a controversial issue, regardless of whether it is a political ad. The ads are reviewed on a case-by-case basis"

But that wasn't acceptable by certain people right now. And before you say "well if it wasn't acceptable, then they are right to change it" 

the opponents of the policy–which has been in place for years–claimed 

“Hulu’s censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country,” executive directors of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association told The Washington Post in a statement. “Voters have the right to know the facts about MAGA Republicans’ agenda on issues like abortion—and Hulu is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth about the GOP record or denying these issues from even being discussed.”

1. "The Truth" is in the eye of the beholder on these topics. A simple scan of these boards alone will show that. 
2. In this instance, it is the "Democratic version of the truth" which will lead to ads about the "Conservative version of the truth" which will be counter to the Dem version and entering a cycle of "He Said/She Said" which is unproductive and exactly what Hulu was trying to avoid for their subscribers sake. 
3. They are being hyperbolic about "voters having rights to know the facts." Just b/c you cant spoon feed them your narrative,  does not mean that votes are prohibited from going out and doing their own research. And what are "the facts?" Democrat facts? Conservative views don't have facts?  The whole root of advertising is bending facts to gain trust in a potential consumer to go out and buy your product over your competitors. 
4. "Denying these issues from being discussed" is also a bit exaggerated. Discussion is a 2 way dialog, where differing ideas are exchanged.....advertising is 1 way. 
5. They go on to say: "The same ads ran without issue on platforms like YouTube and Facebook." Ok, so those platforms chose their policies, go advertise there. 
6. Buuuuuut: "They were hoping the ads would stream on Hulu, too, capturing the attention of Hulu subscribers ages 13 to 54, who are known to sit and binge shows for hours and overwhelmingly prioritize Hulu as a top form of entertainment above all else." Oh, so its really just about going where the eyeballs are, but the product that they choose to consume doesn't want you there, so now its time to go nuclear on them and make THEM the bad guy. 

tell me again who's actually "choosing" their policies?

Sure sounds to me like Hulu (Disney) is choosing the policies.  Are you suggesting that the government imposed legislation that forced a specific policy?  Or are you suggesting that a policy, once chosen by a business, can never be changed?

 

[Stealthycat]

the ad's offend 

but the some of the show's on Hulu don't ??

 

[glvsav37]

Sure sounds to me like Hulu (Disney) is choosing the policies.  Are you suggesting that the government imposed legislation that forced a specific policy?  Or are you suggesting that a policy, once chosen by a business, can never be changed?

None of that was at all written in anything I posted. But since I need to spoon feed you, here goes

Sure sounds to me like Hulu (Disney) is choosing the policies. No....the policy was forced to be changed by the democratic party whining that they cant access the coveted subscriber base that Hulu has. So they whipped up their base and everyone blindly threatened a boycott, forcing Disney (who is overwhelmingly trying to pacify their Dem base) to step in and force Hulu to change their policy. Ironically, Disney+ has the same "no politics" policy, but thats not an issue b/c kids can't vote. 

Are you suggesting that the government imposed legislation that forced a specific policy? Nothing about any legislation was EVER mention in ANYTHING I posted. There is no legislation. Where in gods holy name did you get that???

Or are you suggesting that a policy, once chosen by a business, can never be changed? Of course It can be changed. But that should be the business' right based on what its customers want. In this case one party and its supporters is throwing its weight around and forcing this change, when its customers specifically requested that the "no political ads" policy be in place.  Not to "what about it" but everyone on the left was all about "but it's a private company" when twitter was enacting their policies on censoring certain individuals. Yet here, there is no censorship going on, just a policy to avoid any political issues overall. 

Unfortunately,  I edited my post while you were replying, to add a comment about the midterms and the expected Republican victory. If this policy was so egregious to the American voting public, where was the outrage when it was enacted back in 2017??? Because it wasnt, not until the party looking at historic losses is doing anything it can to save ground. 
 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

No political ads??  Maybe I need to sign up

 

[The Commish]

We can do songs and dances around this just like we did for Twitter but it's pretty much the same thing and I'll never understand it.  These companies appear to be pretty terrible at judging just how much bark and how little bite these "protester/boycotter" types are.  It's pretty pathetic to watch IMO.  That said, if these companies are fearful their bottom lines are going to be impacted in a major way, they are free to alter what they do and the decisions they make.  It's really not any more complicated than that.  Now the left is good with it and apparently the right isn't.  The opposite was true when Dixie Chicks decided they were going to take a stand.  It's all a calculation and I happen to believe that these companies need more batteries for their calculators because they don't seem to understand the human nature element at all.