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

21–30 of 53 posts

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

#21

Post by exolymph »

dragonwriter wrote: post #12
retortio wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you seriously contending that "leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration" don't exist? Like at all? No extremists on your side, huh? Pull the other one, man.

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

#22

Post by hanselot »

seesawtron wrote: post #20
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 platf…

gab i guess

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

#23

Post by supercanuck »

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…

I'm curious to know what would change your mind?

The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a falsehood vs lying are very different.

So maybe try to be your own devil's advocate, and see if you could see how The Federalist could be accused of lying and be unwelcome on someone else' platform.

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

#24

Post by commandlinefan »

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.

They're actually trying to use their monopoly to control U.S. elections. This is far worse than any monopolist has ever been accused of in the past: this is not going to help their case if they're actually facing a forced AT&T-style break-up.

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

#25

Post by rsynnott »

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…

However, advertisers will generally not want their ads served beside false and inflammatory content. Google Ads is, ultimately, a platform for advertisers, and they've always avoided certain subjects. If you're an advertiser who _does_ want your ads alongside porn, conspiracy theories, warez, multilevel marketing scams, and so forth, there are platforms out there, but Google Ads probably isn't your best venue.

Or, indeed, more esoteric stuff. For instance, if you want your ads to appear alongside the sale of tigers or fake sneakers, you should look to another network. Google's one of the stricter ones.

In this case, per the article, the issue was the comments. You can imagine how abhorrent the comments on The Federalist are likely to be.

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

#26

Post by leereeves »

supercanuck wrote: post #23
Rebelgecko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm curious to know what would change your mind? The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a falsehood vs lying are very different. So maybe try to be your own devil's advocate, and see if you could see how The Federalist could be accused of lying and be unwelcome on someone else' platform.

If the media were simply repeatedly mistaken, with no bias or intent to deceive, their errors would tend to happen in both directions.

The Federalist cited quite a few falsehoods that favored the left. Perhaps you could cite some that favored the right?

Edit: Excluding the few right-wing media outlets, because it's quite obvious to everyone that The Federalist wasn't talking about them here.

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

#27

Post by leereeves »

rsynnott wrote: post #25
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…

However, advertisers will generally not want their ads served beside false and inflammatory content. Google Ads is, ultimately, a platform for advertisers, and they've always avoided certain subjects. If you're an advertiser who _does_ want your ads alongside porn, conspiracy theories, warez, multilevel marketing scams, and so forth, there are platforms out there, but Google Ads probably isn't your best venue. Or, in…

They're unlikely to be any worse than YouTube comments. Aren't those served by the same ad network?

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

#28

Post by eveningcoffee »

supercanuck wrote: post #23
Rebelgecko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm curious to know what would change your mind? The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a falsehood vs lying are very different. So maybe try to be your own devil's advocate, and see if you could see how The Federalist could be accused of lying and be unwelcome on someone else' platform.

This is just a comment of a bystander (from EU).

The media (at least in US) appears to be heavily biased.

What I understand this heavily biased post is saying is that the opposing media is so heavily biased that it feels like lying to them.

Is it wrong to say this?

I do not see it right that one media outlet has the power to shut down opposing media outlets.

This is not cool. This is very dangerous.

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

#29

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

I find it troubling. Ignore for a second the discussion over why, whether Google can or should do that.

It is not a one random decision. It is a concerted effort to silence dissenting voices. I am not sure how anyone can cheer here.

It just encourages even worse polarization and further entrenchment. It does not lead anywhere good.

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

#30

Post by seesawtron »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #29

I find it troubling. Ignore for a second the discussion over why, whether Google can or should do that. It is not a one random decision. It is a concerted effort to silence dissenting voices. I am not sure how anyone can cheer here. It just encourages even worse polarization and further entrenchment. It does not lead anywhere good.

Welcome to the realization that private corporations have too much control over the world and the worldview and governments that are publically elected rely on those corporations and their resources and their platforms to stay in power. I just have one question that I struggle with: what should one do about it?

Chomsky said "Organize and create mass movements". Does that still work today? The mass movements created uproar which led to an impeachment trial of a said individual but nothing came out of it. How would one go about to dismantle and re-structure a world where states and private firms co-depend on each other? Sadly I am at loss.

Post reply on HN