3 ms·

> AppNexus has not given examples. > But a spokesman said a "human audit" of Breitbart had flagged several articles that had caused it concern because of the l

by tenpies 10y ago

> AppNexus has not given examples. > But a spokesman said a "human audit" of Breitbart had flagged several articles that had caused it concern because of the language they had featured. I'm not even a Breitbart reader but this strikes me as a ridiculously dangerous standard to use. "Human audit" is also my new favourite term for forming an opinion.

Bud 10y ago
This is not dangerous in any way. This is not a free speech issue. Commercial enterprises are entirely free to support business activity that they agree with, and refuse to support activity that they do not agree with. For those who are improperly conflating this issue with free speech or First Amendment rights in any way, you probably need a reminder: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- FoxHound56 10y ago
  It is not legally a free speech issue. Sure. But it is in fact very, very dangerous. The amount of power that huge tech companies such as Google and Facebook have over people these days is not very far off from the power a government has over people. If they are using that power to silence people they disagree with then that is extremely dangerous. Even if you happen to agree with them this time, you might not in the future. The fact that they are not a government is irrelevant to how dangerous these actions are, considering they have the power to silence millions of people. It is not in any meaningful way comparable to a restaurant owner showing you the door, considering the scale of these networks.
- striking 10y ago
  History suggests otherwise, and so does the SCOTUS and ACLU. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/
smsm42 10y ago
But you see, if you call it "my personal opinion", it sounds small and unimportant, but if you call it "human audit", it sounds like a cutting-age scientific technology to evaluate content. So it's clear which one should be chosen.

by tenpies 10y ago

Bud 10y ago

This is not dangerous in any way. This is not a free speech issue. Commercial enterprises are entirely free to support business activity that they agree with, and refuse to support activity that they do not agree with. For those who are improperly conflating this issue with free speech or First Amendment rights in any way, you probably need a reminder: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

FoxHound56 10y ago
It is not legally a free speech issue. Sure. But it is in fact very, very dangerous. The amount of power that huge tech companies such as Google and Facebook have over people these days is not very far off from the power a government has over people. If they are using that power to silence people they disagree with then that is extremely dangerous. Even if you happen to agree with them this time, you might not in the future. The fact that they are not a government is irrelevant to how dangerous these actions are, considering they have the power to silence millions of people. It is not in any meaningful way comparable to a restaurant owner showing you the door, considering the scale of these networks.
striking 10y ago
History suggests otherwise, and so does the SCOTUS and ACLU. http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/ http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/

smsm42 10y ago

But you see, if you call it "my personal opinion", it sounds small and unimportant, but if you call it "human audit", it sounds like a cutting-age scientific technology to evaluate content. So it's clear which one should be chosen.