The Mormons are taking over?

[Six Billion of Spades]

Gaia's advertising for the Mormons now? Honestly, I don't think I've seen anything dumber in my life. Not even those glorious videos on YouTube can compete with this.

So how many users (and money) do you think Gaia will lose because of this?

While you're on that thought, go sign my petition to stop this nonsense.  

[candycane elf]

Its google thats advertising them, not gaia, gaia has a bundle package were they advertise on all pages. It doesnt bother me much, I usually mentally block all advertisements.

I dont know how many will leave, im not sure many people notice.
Ill sign your petition anyways though, couldnt hurt, maybe gaia will pass the petition along to google, like many have said in your petition, religion shouldnt be advertised, at all.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Google Ads look for keywords in the text of a webpage, usually a recurring phrase, and do a commercial search. The results are places as text ads in those banners. So basically, they try to appeal to whatever group accesses the page on a requent basis.  

[candycane elf]

ProjectOmicron88

Google Ads look for keywords in the text of a webpage, usually a recurring phrase, and do a commercial search. The results are places as text ads in those banners. So basically, they try to appeal to whatever group accesses the page on a requent basis.

LOL, so every time we talk about a religion the keywords make them place the banners here? IRONY rofl  

[God of lunchboxes]

And not a single banner for the flying spaghetti monster. I'm insulted.  

[Alexander Blair]

Your and idiot, read more into things before you start complaining about them.  

[Nopenname]

Gaia is a religiously neutral site IF the FSM people or the American Atheists paid to have an ad and it was PG-13 it would be allowed to be on the site. Period. The ad has been reported before, it apparently will not be removed since it is not a violation.

Personally I see no problems with the ad. I find the "I am not against religious people or religions I just CAN'T HANDLE SEEING THEM OMG IT PUTS ME INTO A RAGE" argument to be hypocritical.

Furthermore, people claiming the ad is offensive are mistaking their own personal offense to mean something is actually offensive. People used to be OFFENDED by people of a different color drinking from the same fountain as them. I can be offended by the color blue, however it does not MAKE the color blue innately offensive.  

[Theophrastus]

It's a shame that it is assumed that a negative response to the religious ads stems from some cloistered, self-delusional fear of terrible religion existing.

One mustn't be an anti-theist to wish these ads gone.

Imagine the parents raising their children in any religious or non-religious way; don't you think they'd be a little irked if the website their kid called home, the place they feel is safe for their youngster (c'mon, it's not the ebaumsworld crowd who visits Gaia) was solely endorsing one religion?

The issue is both the exclusivity of the religion being advertised and the fact that it's being aimed at very young minds.  

[Nopenname]

Theophrastus

It's a shame that it is assumed that a negative response to the religious ads stems from some cloistered, self-delusional fear of terrible religion existing.

One mustn't be an anti-theist to wish these ads gone.

Imagine the parents raising their children in any religious or non-religious way; don't you think they'd be a little irked if the website their kid called home, the place they feel is safe for their youngster (c'mon, it's not the ebaumsworld crowd who visits Gaia) was solely endorsing one religion?

The issue is both the exclusivity of the religion being advertised and the fact that it's being aimed at very young minds.

You seem to not be understanding what exactly is going on. Gaia is not exclusively advertising the church of LDS. The LDS is the only religion advertising. IF the catholic church was advertising and with Google those ads would be up too. The site as I stated is religiously nuetral. For instance it is not that Gaia is EXCLUSIVELY advertising sunrocket IP phones, but simply that Sunrocket is the only service contracted with Google. The same can be said for Monster (who is advertised) vs. Careerbuilder (who is not).

You are looking at it from the absolute incorrect way. It is not solely endorsing one to the exclusion of the others. It is simply the others are slacking when it comes to advertising. It is neither Gaia nor Google's job to make sure every religion has its s**t together when it comes to proper and frequent advertising opportunities.

Also I enjoy when people to tell me to imagine parents, and their children...Considering I spend a lot of my time imagining myself on a beach with a mai tai instead of cleaning up after my own. But either way, 1. being offended on other people's behalf is a joke. Period. If you can not muster enough arguments based on your own "offense" then it doesn't count. 2. Every encounter my children have with religion is a time for teaching, teaching and enforcing what I believe and why it is important that it is the right way to believe. If my children suddenly lose all their beliefs and morals when interacting with foreign beliefs and media I am a bad parent...and perhaps they should not be on the internet due to my own parental failing.  

[Theophrastus]

Did I sound rude or belittling in my last post? I'm sorry if that's the case - it seems you're pretty genuinely upset with me.

The reason I suggested imagining the scenario was simply to enforce my issue; that the appearance of exclusive religious endorsement has been given.

We're not here because we are unintelligent, weak-willed or thin-skinned, so while I'm not personally offended I just feel that if an entity wants to appear religiously neutral (by the way, I've never debated your assertion that Gaia is religiously neutral) they should be careful what impressions they allow advertisers to make about their support or lack thereof. If that means actually being aware of what will be promoted on their site, then I think Gaia should step up to that responsibility.  

[Nopenname]

Theophrastus

Did I sound rude or belittling in my last post? I'm sorry if that's the case - it seems you're pretty genuinely upset with me.

The reason I suggested imagining the scenario was simply to enforce my issue; that the appearance of exclusive religious endorsement has been given.

We're not here because we are unintelligent, weak-willed or thin-skinned, so while I'm not personally offended I just feel that if an entity wants to appear religiously neutral (by the way, I've never debated your assertion that Gaia is religiously neutral) they should be careful what impressions they allow advertisers to make about their support or lack thereof. If that means actually being aware of what will be promoted on their site, then I think Gaia should step up to that responsibility.

No I'm not upset. I am never ever upset about anything anyone says on the internet. xd I get this a lot. Tendency to capitalize words for emphasis and not using the rofl emoticon enough I guess.

Either way, then I suppose we are simply in disagreement. I do not believe at all and will not ever that the responsibility is Gaia's to bear that other people choose not to advertise. Then again overall I am not one for other people expecting me to raise their children and worry about what may offend me and them as I do not want them giving a s**t about mine and just let me raise them.

It is NICE if they do. Don't get me wrong. Just like it's NICE if schools teach sex ed. But, the truth being the public school system at the HEART of it is not responsible for those things.

It'd be NICE perhaps if Gaia spend the time making sure this and that thing were equally represented in their ads; however, it is not their responsibility. It is their responsibility to make sure that the ads are within their TOS. As this and likewise Christian or religious guilds, threads, and discussion are allowed there is absolutely no reason why the ads should be denied except for "personal offense" which simply I'm afraid does not equal "actually offensive."