Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#2> "On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google."
It's a perfectly reasonable argument to make that many mainstream media outlets were downplaying the amount of rioting and looting going on relative to peaceful protests.
Yet somehow it's now WrongThink to even discuss how media may be shaping perceptions through biased reporting?
And now NBC's news-vigilantism unit can tattle to Google and shame them (and advertisers on the Google ad network) into pulling ads because two websites had the audacity to question NBC's narrative?
A healthy society functions best when there are checks and balances on all sides but unfortunately there are some who are using the recent protests and BLM to push Orwellian control of culture and media that is frankly quite disturbing.
As an aside, what exactly is "far-Right"? I've never seen any non Leftist publication described as "Right" so I'm not sure what adding "far" does other than function as a smear on anything Right of the mainstream Left.
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#3I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising.
If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-safety of their advertisers, they are pulling the ability for these sites to show ads that would make sense and be somewhat defensible... but are they simply saying these sites can still show Google ads but they cannot make money from the ads while Google still does? THAT would be different.
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#4> "On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google." It's a perfectly reasonable argument to make that many mainstream media outlets were downplaying the amount of rioting and looting going on relative…
The bigger question to ask here is where is the Google Adsense competitor? Google may have some favorite political inclination and being a private firm also has the right to deplatform anyone. But why has no Adsense alternative emerged even after so many years? Do people just enjoy Google's monopoly in advertising?
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#5> "On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google." It's a perfectly reasonable argument to make that many mainstream media outlets were downplaying the amount of rioting and looting going on relative…
The bigger question to ask here is where is the Google Adsense competitor? Google may have some favorite political inclination and being a private firm also has the right to deplatform anyone. But why has no Adsense alternative emerged even after so many years? Do people just enjoy Google's monopoly in advertising?
Monopolies are able to exist precisely because it's hard to challenge them.
That's why people saying "the free market will sort things out" with regard to free speech are deluding themselves. I'm not willing to wait 50 years for the free market to sort itself out while the ideal of free speech is torn asunder by private corporations.
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question to ask here is where is the Google Adsense competitor? Google may have some favorite political inclination and being a private firm also has the right to deplatform anyone. But why has no Adsense alternative emerged even after so many years? Do people just enjoy Google's monopoly in advertising?
Monopolies are able to exist precisely because it's hard to challenge them. That's why people saying "the free market will sort things out" with regard to free speech are deluding themselves. I'm not willing to wait 50 years for the free market to sort itself out while the ideal of free speech is torn asunder by private corporations.
It's actually quite easy to start a Google Ad Words competitor... it's even possible to make money. But when Google addresses the threat by offering a huge buy-out, saying "No" is very hard (and that's setting aside the question of possible investors taking the decision out of your hands).
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#7Yeah, okay this is definitely weird. I sort of get banning outright fake news and Zerohedge is a very shady website, sure.But the Federalist's article is not fake news. You can disagree with it, but it's part of a debate on the media coverage of the protests. People have always complained about media being unfair and biaised. Is it now promoting hate and misinformation to criticize the media? Or do we have to just trust NBC to judge if the media did adequately cover violence or not?
At this point we have moved from arguing for taking down false stories to taking down criticism in... A month? That's a little bit insane and scary
And I get that advertisers don't want to run their ads on controversial stories, but the Federalist is all about politics and it is to be expected that ads running there will be... Political, no?
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#8I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising. If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-…
Are conservative statements on, say, ending illegal immigration really any more controversial than leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration? Far more than half of America is against illegal immigration yet the AP, newsrooms across America, Universities, etc refuse to even use the term illegal immigration and recognize the problem for what it is, in spite of the majority of America's agreement on the seriousness of the problem.
It seems that in this case, and in many others, it's really the Leftist position that is "controversial" while the Rightist position is simply not popular among the Leftist elite.
The ones who dictate what is "controversial" or not are often just wielding that term as propaganda for whichever side they support.
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#9Yeah, okay this is definitely weird. I sort of get banning outright fake news and Zerohedge is a very shady website, sure.But the Federalist's article is not fake news. You can disagree with it, but it's part of a debate on the media coverage of the protests. People have always complained about media being unfair and biaised. Is it now promoting hate and misinformation to criticize the media? Or do we have to just tr…
They specifically said the protests were fake and the media was lying.
Let's not beat around the bush in terms of language they used.
Once again, we have a company choosing not to do business with another company and allowing it to advertise on its property.
Free market at work, move along.
Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles
#10I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising. If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-…
Banning something isn't very "liberal". But maybe in US people have a different understanding of what "liberal" entails.