Thread by @StopFundingHate

This week, the Daily Mail published an article sneering at "LGBTQWERTY+ rights" & lashing out at "ridiculous rainbow armbands" archive.ph/rOW7F

But when we went to the online version of the article to identify the advertisers, we discovered something interesting... /1

We found that all of the online ads had disappeared from this toxic article - despite the fact that the Mail is heavily financially reliant on advertising to turn a profit.

Then we learned something even more intriguing... /2

When @Plundermot checked the source code behind the Daily Mail's inflammatory article, they found that the Mail themselves had deliberately disabled all the advertising. /3

https://twitter.com/Plundermot/status/1595166902837514245

Then @the_pc_doc pointed out that *all* of this Daily Mail columnist's articles appeared to have had their advertising removed and been demonetised.

So what should we make of this? /4

https://twitter.com/the_pc_doc/status/1595175676071624704

By removing advertising from their most toxic online articles, the Mail reduces the risk that an advertiser will be spotted appearing next to "brand unsafe" content, and face public pressure to pull their ads from the whole Mail Online website. /5

https://twitter.com/catthekin/status/1595173761346859010

But this could also be seen as a tacit admission by the Mail that a whole swathe of their online content is just too toxic for many mainstream advertisers.

And by removing ads, they're no longer making money from this divisive content.

/6

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1595340672919281668

The fact that the Mail appears to have voluntarily removed advertising from these inflammatory articles is arguably also a sign of the change that #StopFundingHate supporters have helped to bring about.

Together we're making hate less profitable /7

https://twitter.com/the_pc_doc/status/1595175676071624704

Every toxic article that gets defunded is another step towards making hate unprofitable for good. But we need to keep up the pressure. The Mail may have removed advertising from some of their most divisive content, but they can easily switch it on again /8 stopfundinghate.info/2021/11/28/the…

This is actually not the first time we've seen adverts disappear from a whole swathe of the Daily Mail's most inflammatory content.

In 2018, a string of advertisers dropped the Mail following a homophobic article attacking the Olympic diver Tom Daley /9 attitude.co.uk/news/world/bra…

In 2018, days after Club Med, Center Parcs, and the Southbank Centre pulled their online advertising from the Mail over its attack on Tom Daley, online advertising disappeared from many of the paper's most controversial columnists /10
thegayuk.com/mail-online-re…

For a while the Daily Mail made efforts to move in a less toxic direction - as outlined here by @janemartinson

But at the end of last year, the Mail sacked their more moderate editor, & returned to a more extreme approach: prospectmagazine.co.uk/society-and-cu… /11

We've seen time & again how effective #StopFundingHate tactics can be, but it's clear that ongoing pressure is needed.

The more widely we can share knowledge & empower more people to use these tactics, the greater our collective impact will be: stopfundinghate.info/2021/11/28/the… /12

But here's an interesting thing... While it looks like the Mail has removed online advertising from some columnists, this article lambasting "the trans lobby" still has ads appearing: dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…

(@NinjaKitchenUK can fix this here: support.google.com/google-ads/ans…)
/13

Although the Mail has turned off online advertising from *some* anti-LGBTQ+ content, ads still appear on many other toxic articles.

The only way to keep your brand safe is to fully exclude DailyMail.co.uk from your online advertising: => support.google.com/google-ads/ans… /14