After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

  • LePoisson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s not intentionally deceptive, they literally called it that because one of the founders admired the Quakers.

    • Reyali@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I mean, they wanted to cash in on the positive reputations Quakers had in business. While not being Quaker. And not implementing any of their business practices AFAIK. Plus their logo is of a traditional Puritan and has nothing to do with Quakers.

      I think “deceptive” is a fair word.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      qualities describing Quakers, such as integrity, honesty, and purity, were traits that he wanted customers to associate with the company’s product

      I dunno how else to describe that but intentionally deceptive.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I dunno how else to describe that but intentionally deceptive.

        Yeah, it IS part of marketing after all.