Recall that the "Twitter incident" involved someone on Twitter complaining about question titles shown in the Hot Network Questions list that were arguably inappropriate. The title particularly called out was: "How do I tell students at a school I volunteer at to stop flirting with me?" This was considered so bad by SE that IPS was immediately dropped from the HNQ list, and various moderators who attempted to deal with the uproar were, well, maybe not criticized by SE (that's a whole debate on its own), but certainly not supported.

Now SE decides they want to show ads across all (or maybe most, I don't know offhand) sites and a bunch of highly inappropriate ads start showing up. Yes, the individual ads are removed (although sometimes they come back) and I understand that it's not as if SE is specifically choosing inappropriate ads or endorsing them when they do show up.

But really? A question about flirting is so inappropriate that it has be removed immediately and changes made so that it can't happen again, but pictures of breasts are shown in ads, or when ads for dating sites show up, there's no change to be made there? This is deliberate in the sense that SE is continuing to show ads even though they know their chosen providers sometimes include ones that are inappropriate

It seems to me that this violates both the new and old CoC: in what way is showing inappropriate ads "inclusive and respectful?"

It also seems to me like this is another indication that SE doesn't care that much about "the community" any more. There are two ways the Twitter incident showed that SE doesn't support the community:

• People in the community had been pointing out problems with the HNQ list for a long time but nothing was done. That they responded immediately to someone outside the community shows that they value that sort of feedback more.
• As I recall, an apology from SE for how they treated moderators who tried to deal with the incident was promised, but never delivered.

Now, when content is being shown that (IMO) is much worse than HNQ titles in the sidebar, and when the community is continually reporting that it's a problem, the company's response is "well, we're testing ads, this sort of thing seems to be inevitable, just live with it for a while."

Recall that the "Twitter incident" involved someone on Twitter complaining about question titles shown in the Hot Network Questions list that were arguably inappropriate. The title particularly called out was: "How do I tell students at a school I volunteer at to stop flirting with me?" This was considered so bad by SE that IPS was immediately dropped from the HNQ list, and various moderators who attempted to deal with the uproar were, well, maybe not criticized by SE (that's a whole debate on its own), but certainly not supported.

Now SE decides they want to show ads across all (or maybe most, I don't know offhand) sites and a bunch of highly inappropriate ads start showing up. Yes, the individual ads are removed (although sometimes they come back) and I understand that it's not as if SE is specifically choosing inappropriate ads or endorsing them when they do show up.

But really? A question about flirting is so inappropriate that it has be removed immediately and changes made so that it can't happen again, but pictures of breasts are shown in ads, or when ads for dating sites show up, there's no change to be made there? This is deliberate in the sense that SE is continuing to show ads even though they know their chosen providers sometimes include ones that are inappropriate

It seems to me that this violates both the new and old CoC: in what way is showing inappropriate ads "inclusive and respectful?"

It also seems to me like this is another indication that SE doesn't care that much about "the community" any more. There are two ways the Twitter incident showed that SE doesn't support the community:

• People in the community had been pointing out problems with the HNQ list for a long time but nothing was done. That they responded immediately to someone outside the community shows that they value that sort of feedback more.
• As I recall, an apology from SE for how they treated moderators who tried to deal with the incident was promised, but never delivered.

Now, when content is being shown that (IMO) is much worse than HNQ titles in the sidebar, and when the community is continually reporting that it's a problem, the company's response is "well, we're testing ads, this sort of thing seems to be inevitable, just live with it for a while."

Recall that the "Twitter incident" involved someone on Twitter complaining about question titles shown in the Hot Network Questions list that were arguably inappropriate. The title particularly called out was: "How do I tell students at a school I volunteer at to stop flirting with me?" This was considered so bad by SE that IPS was immediately dropped from the HNQ list, and various moderators who attempted to deal with the uproar were, well, maybe not criticized by SE (that's a whole debate on its own), but certainly not supported.

Now SE decides they want to show ads across all (or maybe most, I don't know offhand) sites and a bunch of highly inappropriate ads start showing up. Yes, the individual ads are removed (although sometimes they come back) and I understand that it's not as if SE is specifically choosing inappropriate ads or endorsing them when they do show up.

But really? A question about flirting is so inappropriate that it has be removed immediately and changes made so that it can't happen again, but pictures of breasts are shown in ads, or when ads for dating sites show up, there's no change to be made there? This is deliberate in the sense that SE is continuing to show ads even though they know their chosen providers sometimes include ones that are inappropriate

It seems to me that this violates both the new and old CoC: in what way is showing inappropriate ads "inclusive and respectful?"

It also seems to me like this is another indication that SE doesn't care that much about "the community" any more. There are two ways the Twitter incident showed that SE doesn't support the community:

• People in the community had been pointing out problems with the HNQ list for a long time but nothing was done. That they responded immediately to someone outside the community shows that they value that sort of feedback more.
• As I recall, an apology from SE for how they treated moderators who tried to deal with the incident was promised, but never delivered.

Now, when content is being shown that (IMO) is much worse than HNQ titles in the sidebar, and when the community is continually reporting that it's a problem, the company's response is "well, we're testing ads, this sort of thing seems to be inevitable, just live with it for a while."

Recall that the "Twitter incident" involved someone on Twitter complaining about question titles shown in the Hot Network Questions list that were arguably inappropriate. The title particularly called out was: "How do I tell students at a school I volunteer at to stop flirting with me?" This was considered so bad by SE that IPS was immediately dropped from the HNQ list, and various moderators who attempted to deal with the uproar were, well, maybe not criticized by SE (that's a whole debate on its own), but certainly not supported.

Now SE decides they want to show ads across all (or maybe most, I don't know offhand) sites and a bunch of highly inappropriate ads start showing up. Yes, the individual ads are removed (although sometimes they come back) and I understand that it's not as if SE is specifically choosing inappropriate ads or endorsing them when they do show up.

But really? A question about flirting is so inappropriate that it has be removed immediately and changes made so that it can't happen again, but pictures of breasts are shown in ads, or when ads for dating sites show up, there's no change to be made there? This is deliberate in the sense that SE is continuing to show ads even though they know their chosen providers sometimes include ones that are inappropriate

It seems to me that this violates both the new and old CoC: in what way is showing inappropriate ads "inclusive and respectful?"

It also seems to me like this is another indication that SE doesn't care that much about "the community" any more. There are two ways the Twitter incident showed that SE doesn't support the community:

• People in the community had been pointing out problems with the HNQ list for a long time but nothing was done. That they responded immediately to someone outside the community shows that they value that sort of feedback more.
• As I recall, an apology from SE for how they treated moderators who tried to deal with the incident was promised, but never delivered.

Now, when content is being shown that (IMO) is much worse than HNQ titles in the sidebar, and when the community is continually reporting that it's a problem, the company's response is "well, we're testing ads, this sort of thing seems to be inevitable, just live with it for a while."