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

31–40 of 53 posts

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

#31

Post by ihumanable »

leereeves wrote: post #26
supercanuck wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's Fox News photoshopping coverage about CHAZ, they have had to issue an apology over it

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-...

Someone had to open the images in photoshop, alter them, and then upload them to a website. This isn't a simple lie of omission or a mistake, this is manufactured content to push a right-wing narrative.

Fox News consistently pushed the right-wing line that Coronavirus is a hoax until they were threatened with a lawsuit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA

While they were publicly telling their viewers that the virus was a hoax, internally they were implementing remote work and disease control.

Here's a giant list of the ways they've supported conservative political goals while actively working against the left, with citations and source material in the footnotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

leereeves wrote: post #27
rsynnott wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by supercanuck »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #28
supercanuck wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Federalist is a media company paying google money to advertise digital billboards that its competitor media companies are liars.

Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property.

Does Google have the right not to accept The Federalists money?

Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear.

Edit: I have this backwards, I think my point still stands but I was wrong on the transactional aspect

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

#35

Post by leereeves »

ihumanable wrote: post #31
leereeves wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's Fox News photoshopping coverage about CHAZ, they have had to issue an apology over it https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-... Someone had to open the images in photoshop, alter them, and then upload them to a website. This isn't a simple lie of omission or a mistake, this is manufactured content to push a right-wing narrative. Fox News consistently pushed the right-wing line that Corona…

Alright, so Fox is lying in favor of the right. That isn't evidence against The Federalist's contention that the rest of the media is lying in favor of the left.

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

#36

Post by leereeves »

supercanuck wrote: post #33
eveningcoffee wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Federalist is a media company paying google money to advertise digital billboards that its competitor media companies are liars. Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. Does Google have the right not to accept The Federalists money? Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear. Edit: I have this backwards, I think my point…

> Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property.

That's factually incorrect. You have it backwards: Google was giving The Federalist money to advertise digital billboards on The Federalist.

Do they have the legal right to do so? Perhaps, at least until they're declared a utility and regulated, but this probably requires a lawyer to answer, because in some cases political opinions are protected in California.

Now a question for you: do people have the right to be outraged about it, and frightened by the threat Google poses to free communication and thus democracy?

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

#37

Post by fooey »

Looks like NBCNews got this story wrong.

Google is saying they never demonetized the sites, but instead worked with them to address issues in their comment sections

https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352

https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist...

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zer...

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

#38

Post by eveningcoffee »

supercanuck wrote: post #33
eveningcoffee wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Federalist is a media company paying google money to advertise digital billboards that its competitor media companies are liars. Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. Does Google have the right not to accept The Federalists money? Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear. Edit: I have this backwards, I think my point…

You can frame it like this but this was not what happened.

It was not Google that came up with this idea. It was one media outlet that is opposing another media outlet. Google is just a tool in this case.

You are clearly not balanced in your opinion in this matter and you are looking for excuses how to make it look right.

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

#39

Post by mardifoufs »

fooey wrote: post #37

Looks like NBCNews got this story wrong. Google is saying they never demonetized the sites, but instead worked with them to address issues in their comment sections https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352 https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist... https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zer...

Yeah the whole story didn't make sense, it really would have been an unprecedented act from Google and I don't see them setting that precedent. Ironically, it shows how NBC... lied to us? The joke kind of writes itself at this point.

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

#40

Post by supercanuck »

leereeves wrote: post #36
supercanuck wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist is a media company paying google money to advertise digital billboards that its competitor media companies are liars. Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. Does Google have the right not to accept The Federalists money? Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear. Edit: I have this backwards, I think my point…

> Google is choosing to not take the Federalists money and doesn’t want to put up Federalists billboards on its property. That's factually incorrect. You have it backwards: Google was giving The Federalist money to advertise digital billboards on The Federalist. Do they have the legal right to do so? Perhaps, at least until they're declared a utility and regulated, but this probably requires a lawyer to answer, becau…

I was wrong on the details.

To your other point, yes I most certainly do.

Post reply on HN