Is Rappler really desperately in need of cash?

THERE it was, in all its obscenity, embedded between the headline and the main story about Rappler calling to task RJ Nieto, one of the co-hosts of the radio program “Karambola” aired on DWIZ, for asking on air presidential spokesman Harry Roque to throw hollow blocks at Rappler reporter Pia Ranada.

I only took notice because a friend of mine called my attention in our group chat, by posting a picture of the offending page.

It was an advertisement about a man promoting his sexual prowess to bored housewives, promising them 13 hours of non-stop sex. The language was obscene and unprintable.

John Nery would not have been pleased at all.

And when I called Rappler to task for being too conscious of the ethical misconduct of Nieto while not conscious of the ethical implications when it allows such obscene ads to pop up in its site, the yellow apologists descended on me like a horde of barbarians as if on cue.

First, they attacked me for my alleged ignorance and schooled me on their claim that Rappler has no control over these ads, and that they are governed by an algorithm that processes the lifestyle of every reader based on browsing history. And on the basis of unique to the reader are loaded in sites which avail of the Google AdSense facility and which the reader opens and visits.

And second, they shamed me, practically accusing me of being a pervert. Their argument is that since I can see those ads, then it means my browsing history outs me as a porn addict.

Typical of the yellows, these people focused on me, my ignorance, and my alleged perversion, ignoring the conduct of the owner of the site from where the offending ad popped up in my friend’s gadget.

And they have missed one important angle to the story.

It is not true that Rappler has no control over the ads popping up in its site. Prominently ap- pearing in the Google AdSense help facility is a discussion of how to block ads which site owners don’t want to see loaded in their pages. This would include ads from sensitive categories such as religion and politics, and those that refer to sex and sexuality. Thus, Rappler, had it chosen to, could have easily adjusted its account settings to block any offensive ad. Had it done so, then we would not have seen this obscene optics where a man advertising 13 hours of non-stop sex to bored housewives shows up in its newsfeed where Nieto is castigated for asking Harry Roque to throw hollow blocks at Pia Ranada.

And there is probably a good reason why Rappler did not opt to adjust its account settings to block ads from Google AdSense. This stems from the fact that, just like any site that accepts ad placements, Rappler receives a percentage of the revenue that Google earns from these ads. And blocking ads will mean lower revenues.

In fact, prominently highlighted in the primer on blocking ads is a reminder from Google which states: “Keep in mind that blocking any ad will lower your potential earnings, as it reduces competition for your ad space by removing advertiser bids from the auction. We suggest blocking only those ads that you feel are unsuitable for your users.”

Thus, Rappler had an option, which it did not take. It did not consider it prudent to anticipate that sex ads unsuitable to its users would show up in its pages.

Perhaps, Rappler was under the impression that only those that regularly visit porn sites will see these ads anyway. And it would have not minded enabling sex ads indicate they probably visit porn, if it meant higher earnings.

This then leads us to ask a critical question. Is Rappler so desperately in need of cash that it will compromise the moral compass it loves to drumbeat? fact that it allows ads containing obscenities to pop up in people’s gadgets or computer screens? Granted that these people would probably visit adult porn sites for their own private entertainment, some of them would still not appreciate their reading of public issues rudely interrupted by sex ads.