Revolt against revolting web content is working

Despite the seemingly endless stream of hateful, offensive content on various web platforms, there is cause for optimism about the online world.

In the past few weeks consumers and the media have called attention to ads from many reputable brands appearing, without their consent, on vile, extremist videos – with racist, anti-Semitic and misogynistic content – posted on YouTube. In response, many of the world's biggest brand names have pulled their marketing dollars out of Google, YouTube's owner.

The Australian government and Telstra have joined what has become a global advertiser boycott of YouTube. Telstra took action after its ads began running on a video published by a "men's rights activist" who attacked writer and Fairfax Media columnist Clementine Ford. Shortly before this, car makers Holden and Kia Australia pulled their ads off YouTube after they were found on a video that included misogynistic expletives directed at journalist Ita Buttrose.

The content of these videos is distressing and ignorant; it is disturbing such messages are appearing on popular content-sharing platforms. Some of these extreme videos are peddling hate and prejudice, others are scaremongering with misinformation and baseless claims. But with a few clicks and a swipe of the mouse any one of us, or our children, could be subjected to this offensive rubbish.

Google has apologised and promised to give advertisers greater control over where their ads appear, but has stopped short of putting limits on what appears online. The Age has long supported greater accountability from these channels, and social media in general, for the content they publish. YouTube, Google, Twitter, Instagram and other publishing outlets are happy to rake in money, but are far slower to act when offensive content is published, or to put in place stronger guidelines and practices to avoid this happening.

But what is cause for encouragement is the speed with which advertisers are now acting to withdraw their business. This direct action by advertisers is also having a swift impact on the finances of these platforms. After the British government pulled ads from YouTube in recent weeks, companies including Johnson & Johnson, AT&T;, Sainsbury's, Toyota, Volkswagen and the BBC followed. The market value of Google's parent company, Alphabet, fell $31 billion.

Brands are acutely sensitive to their public image. The recent examples of consumer boycotts and campaigns against offensive online content have made big companies painfully aware that they can expect a backlash if their practices online fall short of public standards.

Recently, Coopers Brewery felt the sting of a public backlash after it backed an ad featuring West Australian Liberal MP Andrew Hastie discussing his opposition to gay marriage, with his Victorian colleague, Tim Wilson. Coopers pulled the ad and apologised after a furious online reaction against it. Responses like these by Coopers, Telstra and others show us that brands are listening to the public and will respond to a show of online people power.

In the US, consumer groups such as Sleeping Giants have had success in lobbying brands to withdraw their ads from extremist websites including Breitbart News.

There is still a lot of offensive content online, and it is easy to feel overwhelmed, particularly given the damage such material can do. But the fast action by big name advertisers in recent weeks to refuse to be linked to hateful content is encouraging evidence that we the consumers do have some muscles, and that brands will take note when we flex them.