Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#11

Post by mardifoufs »

supercanuck wrote: post #9
mardifoufs wrote: post #7

Yeah, 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.

I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federalist arguing anything like that.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#12

Post by dragonwriter »

retortio wrote: post #8
mikece wrote: post #3

I 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 seri…

> Are conservative statements on, say, ending illegal immigration really any more controversial than leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration?

How can something be compared to something that doesn't exist?

> 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.

Even people who would agree if asked that “illegal immigration” is a problem don't necessarily prefer the term “illegal immigration”, and very often don't agree with other people who agree with that question as to what the nature of the problem is.

After all, people who think that the main problem is the system that produces illegal status for people who should be allowed, or even encouraged, to immigrate and people who think that the system is perfect but for it's failure to actually exclude all the people to whom it denies legal status can both easily agree with the statement “illegal immigration is a problem”. It's a statement people can agree with with no agreement on substance.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#13

Post by ALittleLight »

supercanuck wrote: post #9
mardifoufs wrote: post #7

Yeah, 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.

People are perfectly free to comment on or criticize relationships or lack of relationships occurring within the "free market".

Google's dominant position in the online advertising industry is allowing them to influence political opinions and they are doing so in favor of mainstream media. That seems worth discussing to me.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#14

Post by supercanuck »

mardifoufs wrote: post #11
supercanuck wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federa…

Here you go:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#15

Post by supercanuck »

ALittleLight wrote: post #13
supercanuck wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are perfectly free to comment on or criticize relationships or lack of relationships occurring within the "free market". Google's dominant position in the online advertising industry is allowing them to influence political opinions and they are doing so in favor of mainstream media. That seems worth discussing to me.

People can choose to take their advertising business to Facebook who is choosing not to censor content.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#16

Post by seesawtron »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #10
mikece wrote: post #3

I 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.

Are you implying that nothing should be "banned" at all? There are examples of tons of things that have to be banned to keep the society sane at some level. For examples, things that are considered illegal by the publically elected governments and hence are banned to be shown on the internet or elsewhere or promoted in anyway. What matters more is how are the decisions made whether to ban or allow some content.

In the non-virtual world, there is a publically elected state that makes those decisions. In the virtual world, those decisions are made by private companies that own that part of the virtual world. Ever since the creating of the virtual world, there has been an ongoing tug-of-war between the state and the corporations for this exact control of authority. Now that our virtual and non-virtual worlds are so intertwined with each other, the state is still trying to catch up to understand, contain and secure the virtual world but they are still at loss.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#17

Post by mikestew »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #10
mikece wrote: post #3

I 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.

Or perhaps you would do well to identify those doing the banning first. Based on your response, I think you'll find that you have misread parent.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#18

Post by Rebelgecko »

supercanuck wrote: post #14
mardifoufs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federa…

Here you go: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...

Would you mind pointing out where the lie(s) are in the article? I just skimmed it and even though there's an obvious bias I didn't notice anything that seemed blatantly untrue

edit: To expand on that, a statement like "[The media] lied about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia in 2016." is going to be controversial. However because "the media" is such a big umbrella, I'm sure you could find a factually untrue article published about the collusion. It's a bit tautological: if one media source publishes an article saying collusion happened, and another publishes an article saying that collusion didn't happen, one of them has to be wrong. You can decide that without determining whether or not collusion actually happened.

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#19

Post by [deleted] »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #18
supercanuck wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...

Would you mind pointing out where the lie(s) are in the article? I just skimmed it and even though there's an obvious bias I didn't notice anything that seemed blatantly untrue edit: To expand on that, a statement like "[The media] lied about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia in 2016." is going to be controversial. However because "the media" is such a big umbrella, I'm sure you could find a factually untrue a…

[deleted]

Re: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

#20

Post by seesawtron »

mardifoufs wrote: post #7

Yeah, 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…

All being reasonably sensible and being aware and in agreement of the idea that big corporations indeed influence public and political opinions, directly or indirectly, what can someone do about it?

Chomsky always says, "Organize!". Organization requires mass involvement. Mass involvement comes when there are masses with same opinions. How would one go about finding masses with same opinions when the mainstream platforms won't allow such opinions to be posted in the first place that they oppose?

Post reply on HN