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

41–50 of 53 posts

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

#41

Post by adrianmonk »

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?

YouTube definitely gets plenty of horrible comments as well. An important question is how well each site polices comments to remove ones that violate the rules.

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

#42

Post by leereeves »

supercanuck wrote: post #40
leereeves wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you do think people have the right to be outraged, I don't understand why you said: "Frame it like that and I think the problem becomes clear."

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

#43

Post by adrianmonk »

Can the HN title be changed to match the NBC one?

NBC's title says (emphasis mine), "Google bans website ZeroHedge from its ad platform over COMMENTS ON protest articles".

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the reason for the ban, with people discussing how the sites' articles themselves might or might not violate policy.

NBC makes it pretty clear that's not the reason when it says "over policy violations found in the comments section".

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

#44

Post by nickff »

adrianmonk wrote: post #41
leereeves wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

YouTube definitely gets plenty of horrible comments as well. An important question is how well each site polices comments to remove ones that violate the rules.

YouTube obviously isn't policing very well if all of us are seeing the horrible comments...

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

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

exolymph wrote: post #21
dragonwriter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Are you seriously contending that "leftist statements on encouraging illegal immigration" don't exist?

Not in any way symmetric conservative statements opposing illegal immigration. It's true that there are quite a lot of left-of-center statements opposing aspects the current regime of immigration restrictions, which are roughly parallel to the conservative rhetoric against illegal immigrants, but those statements are opposing illegal immigration from a different angle than the right is, not promoting illegal immigration.

> No extremists on your side, huh?

There are plenty of extrmists on the left, some of which are pro-immigrant.

But the real extremists on this issue tend to be against even the existence of the concept of illegal immigration, while the less extreme group tends to favor reform of the immigration system to better align the supply of legal immigration slots with demand for them and thus reduce the impetus for illegal immigration, and making it easier and more effective to focus enforcement efforts on immigrants that are individually undesirable (dangerous criminals, etc.) rather than merely supernumerary due to the arbitrary alotment of slots.

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

#46

Post by remarkEon »

adrianmonk wrote: post #43

Can the HN title be changed to match the NBC one? NBC's title says (emphasis mine), "Google bans website ZeroHedge from its ad platform over COMMENTS ON protest articles". There seems to be a lot of confusion over the reason for the ban, with people discussing how the sites' articles themselves might or might not violate policy. NBC makes it pretty clear that's not the reason when it says "over policy violations foun…

NBC's original article did not include the distinction that it was for "comments on" the protest articles, which honestly makes Google's decision more absurd (imo).

http://web.archive.org/web/20200616191520/https://www.nbcnew...

Original headline: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles.

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

#47

Post by adrianmonk »

remarkEon wrote: post #46
adrianmonk wrote: post #43

Can the HN title be changed to match the NBC one? NBC's title says (emphasis mine), "Google bans website ZeroHedge from its ad platform over COMMENTS ON protest articles". There seems to be a lot of confusion over the reason for the ban, with people discussing how the sites' articles themselves might or might not violate policy. NBC makes it pretty clear that's not the reason when it says "over policy violations foun…

NBC's original article did not include the distinction that it was for "comments on" the protest articles, which honestly makes Google's decision more absurd (imo). http://web.archive.org/web/20200616191520/https://www.nbcnew... Original headline: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles.

Yeah, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I think I even saw another version that came between what you linked to and the current version.

Whether it's better or worse is a whole other topic. Right now the world seems to be struggling with the question of who should police online behavior and how. That includes questions about how much responsibility a site has for user-generated content.

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

#48

Post by remarkEon »

adrianmonk wrote: post #47
remarkEon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NBC's original article did not include the distinction that it was for "comments on" the protest articles, which honestly makes Google's decision more absurd (imo). http://web.archive.org/web/20200616191520/https://www.nbcnew... Original headline: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles.

Yeah, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I think I even saw another version that came between what you linked to and the current version. Whether it's better or worse is a whole other topic. Right now the world seems to be struggling with the question of who should police online behavior and how. That includes questions about how much responsibility a site has for user-generated content.

>That includes questions about how much responsibility a site has for user-generated content.

That is absolutely a legitimate debate to be had. I'm not quite sure how I feel about Google setting the terms of that debate, however. Usual caveats about how Google is a "private" company apply, obviously, but it does seem like a problem when a tech company with a wholly different perspective on what's "allowable" online speech and conduct uses it's market power in ads to set the rules for others.

Maybe I'm being a little dense, but I've never really like the phrase "user-generated content". At least it's honest, I suppose, because it suggests that it's something that can be "monetized" (because it's "content"). I miss old paper newspapers, and "letters to the editor".

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

#49

Post by Rebelgecko »

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.

Interesting question.

Just to check that we're on the same page, it sounds like you're saying that the Federalist article is lying, because it accuses the press of lying without knowing whether their falsehoods were honest mistakes, as opposed to being malicious. So we should give the "the media" the benefit of the doubt and not accuse them of lying without proof of maliciousness.

I suppose the ironic argument one could make is that The Federalist deserves that same benefit of the doubt when they themselves make poorly substantiated remarks about the media lying. How do we know that their potentially false statement is being made with an intent to deceive? Kind of a lame argument, but I find the idea of it humorous.

However, I think it's reasonable to use the term "lying" without proving an intent to deceive. If a media outlet is willing to publish untruthful things that don't even stand up to the most cursory factchecking, I think it is fair to accuse them of lying. When you have such a cavalier (or perhaps even reckless) attitude towards the truth, I would place those falsehoods under the umbrella of lying.

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

#50

Post by 0xy »

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...

So NBC invented a false quote from Google's comms team to take out a competitor. That's what happened.
Post reply on HN