8 ms·

Breitbart news site blocked by ad exchange

57 points by mark_edward 10y ago

mixedCase 10y ago
>"I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant." Well surely that's a great idea that will discourage the accusations of bias.
- awinder 10y ago
  There's 4 examples of headlines that might just display the kind of speech that a company really doesn't want to be associated with. To wit: the free speech clause of the first amendment is designed to forbid the government from passing laws that abridge free speech. It's human nature and literally unenforcable for that to mean that people must be tolerable of all forms of speech, and that companies must provide equal footing to all forms of speech. Even if this ad network was "biased", it's a function of the downpressure on crazy speech that people be allowed to not associate themselves with speech that's unrepresentative of their views
  - zappo2938 10y ago
    It is sad so many people cry First Amendment right free speech but have zero idea what it is.
jijji 10y ago
ad exchange is owned by NewsCorp
- hga 10y ago
  Well, it says in part. News Corp is of course facing threats to its very existence, and Breitbart is certainly part of that threat.
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  Ad exchange is a generic term for a bunch of different products from different companies. If you mean AppNexus specifically took an investment from News Corp, then sure.
honksillet 10y ago
This is outrageous.
- codecamper 10y ago
  this is awesome. geeks are humans only chance against hopelessness & despair. fixing global warming, improving democracy, transportation, space travel... are all here because of us geeks. Rise up & be proud. We have a voice. A strong voice. (& in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court)
  - ddorian43 10y ago
    Pretty sure the one who decided wasn't a geek/programmer/etc.
  - apocalypstyx 10y ago
    Can we please not go into ubermensch territory. We (the geeks) also created atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, built electric chairs, designed Auschwitz, and as we speak are hooking together a system of globalised mass surveillance... And to quote Adorno: It is by no means clear precisely how the fetishization of technology establishes itself within the individual psychology of particular people, or where the threshold lies between a rational relationship to technology and the overvaluation that finally leads to the point where one who cleverly devises a train system that brings the victims to Auschwitz as quickly and smoothly as possible forgets about what happens to them there. We should not defend our interests by claiming them humanity's saving grace. Making new widgets is fine. Sometimes it's even interesting. But (say) getting everyone in the world on the internet, or running railways to the ends of the Earth, or getting a computer in every home, doesn't automatically make the world better. humans only chance against hopelessness & despair Or is everything actually hopeless (in the sense the universe will end one way or the other and humanity has as much chance of finding a solution to that as finding god (though both can be combined, in which case you get Asimov's The Last Question, which would explain its popularity among certain technophiles). fixing global warming We can't effectively seed clouds to make it rain. And there's no exit if we (say) overcompensate and create a new slush-ball Earth. And making any other place to live (Mars?) wouldn't be accomplishable until after climate change's worst had already happened on Earth (and that's betting on technology that doesn't exist and that we don't know can exist). improving democracy Is technology ideologically neutral? If so, it can equally be employed for negative ends (in the sense of a utility monster, say). If not, technophiles have no defense for their proclivities, and then ideas can be argued to be subject to regulatory control, among other things. And if it is a matter of how it's used, then it's just as easy not to use it all and obtain the same result simpler. transportation, space travel Because the universe will not be complete without a McDonalds in Jovian orbit. I doubt this is about saving the human race so much as about saving a certain culture and its associated ideologies. in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court The problem with "expert rule" is that it is inherently anti-democratic. Why should I get "your" input if "I'm" the expert? Stalinism, is the perfect example here: Stalin is the expert, he has the answers, anything that conflicts with that must be removed. And it circles round to the very problems that are behind those situations that result in scenarios such as this article describes: the danger is that its gradual disappearance will create the need for some new (racist or expert-rule) form of hierarchy, directly founded in individual qualities, and thus canceling even the “formal” bourgeois equality and freedom. In short, insofar as the determining factor of social power be in/exclusion from the privilege set (of access to knowledge, control, etc.), we can expect an increase in various forms of exclusion, up to downright racism.
sandworm101 10y ago
They may be on the wrong side of history on this. Fake news and hate speech are on the rise, and by 'on the rise' I mean now popular amongst double-digit percentages of the population. Networks can try to step above, but that will only cede ground to other ad networks. The people want to see this stuff and advertisers want enthusiastic young eyeballs.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  AppNexus has nothing to do with Google, it seems.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    my bad. Some part of my head wants to always write 'google' when talking about ad netowrks.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      I find it ironic that in a discussion that touches on censorship, fake news and hate speech you edited your comment to hide the fact that you were hating on Google, despite them not even being mentioned in the article ... one might call what you were doing "fake".
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        No. I corrected a typo. My sentiment is towards whatever business is involve. AS I said, some part of my brain writes in google when discussing ads. And if my opinion sounds like "hate" I suggest spending some time on brietbart for perspective on that word.
- mtkd 10y ago
  who defines 'fake news' and 'hate speech' when it comes to mass-media? - I don't invoke Orwell lightly - but there seems to be no consideration of how such concepts could be (mis)used in 4 or 14 years time - against the very people who think they are on the side rightfulness today
tomohawk 10y ago
Totalitarians cannot tolerate any dissenting information or ideas. They can't just run an ad business, they also have to use their business to squelch ideas they disagree with. The accusations of racism, etc, are just a cover for what they've wanted to do for a while. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of such racism. I can't help but think that this just points to the fact that they must not have much confidence in their ideas that they feel they must muzzle others. Edit: yep - bots are definitely out in force
- mark_edward 10y ago
  You think AppNexus ceasing to do business with Breitbart is a sign of a totalitarian society? And you're not being hyperbolic? Genuine question, not trying be clever. Arguably it's a sign of a free society, free association and all that. What would a society where people and firms weren't free to boycott and disassociate from firms they didn't like be like?
  - tomohawk 10y ago
    They're not just ceasing to do business. They're making baseless accusations. A totalitarian world view is one in which someone no longer feels obliged to just offer their services or goods in free exchange, but to also insist that those they do business with also subscribe to their way of thinking. These things are rarely related.
    - tedajax 10y ago
      So now you want to force businesses to associate with businesses they don't want to associate with and you're calling them totalitarian?
      - tomohawk 10y ago
        Of course not. But cutting ties and making baseless accusations? This is false shaming and participating in a false narrative. This is exactly how totalitarianism takes hold.
Clanan 10y ago
This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, reddit and the like - places that claim to advocate diversity and openness, yet struggle to do so in the face of conflict. I hope this spawns a renewed push for education into why things like freedom of speech and tolerance are so important. It all goes back to people being people. For us humans it's too easy to break the rules because we think we know what's best, etc. As the saying goes, history too easily repeats itself. Castro's passing is perhaps ironic in the timing.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  You seem to be reading a lot into a simple business decision. Most advertisers probably don't want their brand advertised alongside (and thus associated with) highly controversial content, including racist content. Thus most ad networks have general policies against hate speech and the like. Same reason you can't monetize videos about war on youtube. It's not a conspiracy by google to stop people from making videos about war (which you are still free to do), advertisers just don't want their valuable brands becoming mentally associated with horrifying footage of human slaughter.
- exabrial 10y ago
  My thoughts exactly.
- bonaldi 10y ago
  Unfortunately reality has a well-known liberal bias. Let's not mistake disinterest and impartiality for unquestioning support of "all sides".
  - Clanan 10y ago
    Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.
kelukelugames 10y ago
If real news can't make money then how long will fake news be able to? Fabricating stories are easier than investigative reporting so I predict the race to the bottom will be even faster.
- iends 10y ago
  The type of people reading fake news are the kind of people who click random banner ads, who install toolbars, etc. I imagine fake news is a lot more lucrative than real news because you're market is generally a less sophisticated internet user.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelukelugames 10y ago
    Right, but the barrier to entry is lower. I bet I can start a popular fake news site.
sndean 10y ago
Previous discussion (two days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13023954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13023954
- _delirium 10y ago
  Looks like the automated dupe-catcher missed it because of bbc.com vs. bbc.co.uk; maybe needs to be aliased.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
whoopdedo 10y ago
Which is the ad network that keeps serving the full-screen popup "your computer may be infected with a virus! call this number" ads? Show me you can tell the difference between real and fake ads first. Then I'll trust you to tell me the difference between real and fake news.
pkd 10y ago
I am frankly shocked by the reaction to this on HN. It seems like I am in the Breitbart forums. If you think Breitbart is a news organisation, then you have either never read any of their articles or are kidding yourself. It is a propaganda organisation. It doesn't report news, it serves opinions. Here is an extract from a recent article[0] about Justin Trudeau mourning the death of Fidel Castro. "Castro’s Cuban regime was notorious for imprisoning dissenters, including homosexuals, journalists, and political opponents, and nearly brought nuclear war to the United States, one of Canada’s closest allies." The problem with that statement is that it is written like either of those things were against the US ideology. US has still not completely accepted homosexuality and it brought nuclear war upon itself by taking its weapons to Russia's neighbourhood. Here's another absolute rubbish article[1] about why there should be a cap on the number of women who are allowed to take up STEM majors. Breitbart's whole history is like this. In 2009, Andrew Breitbart heavily pushed the ACORN Video Scandal[2] which later turned out to be a series of heavily edited and misleading videos which lead to the closure of ACORN, an NGO which helped people from low to middle income groups. Another one was the "Friends of Hamas" story that turned out to be a case of complete and utter bullshit but Breitbart couldn't own up to it.[3] Breitbart has never been a media organisation and I for one am extremely happy to see it being boycotted like this. The headlines I have outlined are not even the more horrific ones they post. Go have a look yourself if you want. They purposefully spread misinformation and decline to accept their fault when proven wrong while always being on their toes to point out the slip ups in the more liberal media coverage of events. In my part of the world, we call it hypocrisy. [0] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/26/canadian-pm-trudeau-praises-dictator-castro/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/26/canadian-pm-trude... [1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_c... [3] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/friends-of-hamas-and-andrew-breitbarts-legacy http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/friends-of-hamas-and...
- mtkd 10y ago
  dude, you're a critical thinker - I liked the text classifier post, I'll have a proper read when I'm next on a train - Milo is a first class troll - Breibart has perspective on some current topics - there are no longterm gains from censoring that
brokentone 10y ago
Obviously this ad network can do what they want. They can work with or not work with any website they desire. But I do worry about companies who control money becoming vigilantes attempting to support points of view they agree with and squash points of view they disagree with. I would be more interested in these networks dropping clickbait and known fake news websites (maybe they do, I just haven't seen the equivalent news story on that).

57 points by mark_edward 10y ago

>"I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant." Well surely that's a great idea that will discourage the accusations of bias.

awinder 10y ago
There's 4 examples of headlines that might just display the kind of speech that a company really doesn't want to be associated with. To wit: the free speech clause of the first amendment is designed to forbid the government from passing laws that abridge free speech. It's human nature and literally unenforcable for that to mean that people must be tolerable of all forms of speech, and that companies must provide equal footing to all forms of speech. Even if this ad network was "biased", it's a function of the downpressure on crazy speech that people be allowed to not associate themselves with speech that's unrepresentative of their views
- zappo2938 10y ago
  It is sad so many people cry First Amendment right free speech but have zero idea what it is.

jijji 10y ago

ad exchange is owned by NewsCorp

hga 10y ago
Well, it says in part. News Corp is of course facing threats to its very existence, and Breitbart is certainly part of that threat.
cmrdporcupine 10y ago
Ad exchange is a generic term for a bunch of different products from different companies. If you mean AppNexus specifically took an investment from News Corp, then sure.

honksillet 10y ago

This is outrageous.

codecamper 10y ago
this is awesome. geeks are humans only chance against hopelessness & despair. fixing global warming, improving democracy, transportation, space travel... are all here because of us geeks. Rise up & be proud. We have a voice. A strong voice. (& in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court)
- ddorian43 10y ago
  Pretty sure the one who decided wasn't a geek/programmer/etc.
- apocalypstyx 10y ago
  Can we please not go into ubermensch territory. We (the geeks) also created atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, built electric chairs, designed Auschwitz, and as we speak are hooking together a system of globalised mass surveillance... And to quote Adorno: It is by no means clear precisely how the fetishization of technology establishes itself within the individual psychology of particular people, or where the threshold lies between a rational relationship to technology and the overvaluation that finally leads to the point where one who cleverly devises a train system that brings the victims to Auschwitz as quickly and smoothly as possible forgets about what happens to them there. We should not defend our interests by claiming them humanity's saving grace. Making new widgets is fine. Sometimes it's even interesting. But (say) getting everyone in the world on the internet, or running railways to the ends of the Earth, or getting a computer in every home, doesn't automatically make the world better. humans only chance against hopelessness & despair Or is everything actually hopeless (in the sense the universe will end one way or the other and humanity has as much chance of finding a solution to that as finding god (though both can be combined, in which case you get Asimov's The Last Question, which would explain its popularity among certain technophiles). fixing global warming We can't effectively seed clouds to make it rain. And there's no exit if we (say) overcompensate and create a new slush-ball Earth. And making any other place to live (Mars?) wouldn't be accomplishable until after climate change's worst had already happened on Earth (and that's betting on technology that doesn't exist and that we don't know can exist). improving democracy Is technology ideologically neutral? If so, it can equally be employed for negative ends (in the sense of a utility monster, say). If not, technophiles have no defense for their proclivities, and then ideas can be argued to be subject to regulatory control, among other things. And if it is a matter of how it's used, then it's just as easy not to use it all and obtain the same result simpler. transportation, space travel Because the universe will not be complete without a McDonalds in Jovian orbit. I doubt this is about saving the human race so much as about saving a certain culture and its associated ideologies. in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court The problem with "expert rule" is that it is inherently anti-democratic. Why should I get "your" input if "I'm" the expert? Stalinism, is the perfect example here: Stalin is the expert, he has the answers, anything that conflicts with that must be removed. And it circles round to the very problems that are behind those situations that result in scenarios such as this article describes: the danger is that its gradual disappearance will create the need for some new (racist or expert-rule) form of hierarchy, directly founded in individual qualities, and thus canceling even the “formal” bourgeois equality and freedom. In short, insofar as the determining factor of social power be in/exclusion from the privilege set (of access to knowledge, control, etc.), we can expect an increase in various forms of exclusion, up to downright racism.

sandworm101 10y ago

They may be on the wrong side of history on this. Fake news and hate speech are on the rise, and by 'on the rise' I mean now popular amongst double-digit percentages of the population. Networks can try to step above, but that will only cede ground to other ad networks. The people want to see this stuff and advertisers want enthusiastic young eyeballs.

zigzigzag 10y ago
AppNexus has nothing to do with Google, it seems.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  my bad. Some part of my head wants to always write 'google' when talking about ad netowrks.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    I find it ironic that in a discussion that touches on censorship, fake news and hate speech you edited your comment to hide the fact that you were hating on Google, despite them not even being mentioned in the article ... one might call what you were doing "fake".
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      No. I corrected a typo. My sentiment is towards whatever business is involve. AS I said, some part of my brain writes in google when discussing ads. And if my opinion sounds like "hate" I suggest spending some time on brietbart for perspective on that word.
mtkd 10y ago
who defines 'fake news' and 'hate speech' when it comes to mass-media? - I don't invoke Orwell lightly - but there seems to be no consideration of how such concepts could be (mis)used in 4 or 14 years time - against the very people who think they are on the side rightfulness today

tomohawk 10y ago

Totalitarians cannot tolerate any dissenting information or ideas. They can't just run an ad business, they also have to use their business to squelch ideas they disagree with. The accusations of racism, etc, are just a cover for what they've wanted to do for a while. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of such racism. I can't help but think that this just points to the fact that they must not have much confidence in their ideas that they feel they must muzzle others. Edit: yep - bots are definitely out in force

mark_edward 10y ago
You think AppNexus ceasing to do business with Breitbart is a sign of a totalitarian society? And you're not being hyperbolic? Genuine question, not trying be clever. Arguably it's a sign of a free society, free association and all that. What would a society where people and firms weren't free to boycott and disassociate from firms they didn't like be like?
- tomohawk 10y ago
  They're not just ceasing to do business. They're making baseless accusations. A totalitarian world view is one in which someone no longer feels obliged to just offer their services or goods in free exchange, but to also insist that those they do business with also subscribe to their way of thinking. These things are rarely related.
  - tedajax 10y ago
    So now you want to force businesses to associate with businesses they don't want to associate with and you're calling them totalitarian?
    - tomohawk 10y ago
      Of course not. But cutting ties and making baseless accusations? This is false shaming and participating in a false narrative. This is exactly how totalitarianism takes hold.

Clanan 10y ago

This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, reddit and the like - places that claim to advocate diversity and openness, yet struggle to do so in the face of conflict. I hope this spawns a renewed push for education into why things like freedom of speech and tolerance are so important. It all goes back to people being people. For us humans it's too easy to break the rules because we think we know what's best, etc. As the saying goes, history too easily repeats itself. Castro's passing is perhaps ironic in the timing.

jaredklewis 10y ago
You seem to be reading a lot into a simple business decision. Most advertisers probably don't want their brand advertised alongside (and thus associated with) highly controversial content, including racist content. Thus most ad networks have general policies against hate speech and the like. Same reason you can't monetize videos about war on youtube. It's not a conspiracy by google to stop people from making videos about war (which you are still free to do), advertisers just don't want their valuable brands becoming mentally associated with horrifying footage of human slaughter.
exabrial 10y ago
My thoughts exactly.
bonaldi 10y ago
Unfortunately reality has a well-known liberal bias. Let's not mistake disinterest and impartiality for unquestioning support of "all sides".
- Clanan 10y ago
  Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.

kelukelugames 10y ago

If real news can't make money then how long will fake news be able to? Fabricating stories are easier than investigative reporting so I predict the race to the bottom will be even faster.

iends 10y ago
The type of people reading fake news are the kind of people who click random banner ads, who install toolbars, etc. I imagine fake news is a lot more lucrative than real news because you're market is generally a less sophisticated internet user.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  Right, but the barrier to entry is lower. I bet I can start a popular fake news site.

sndean 10y ago

Previous discussion (two days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13023954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13023954

_delirium 10y ago
Looks like the automated dupe-catcher missed it because of bbc.com vs. bbc.co.uk; maybe needs to be aliased.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

whoopdedo 10y ago

Which is the ad network that keeps serving the full-screen popup "your computer may be infected with a virus! call this number" ads? Show me you can tell the difference between real and fake ads first. Then I'll trust you to tell me the difference between real and fake news.

pkd 10y ago

I am frankly shocked by the reaction to this on HN. It seems like I am in the Breitbart forums. If you think Breitbart is a news organisation, then you have either never read any of their articles or are kidding yourself. It is a propaganda organisation. It doesn't report news, it serves opinions. Here is an extract from a recent article[0] about Justin Trudeau mourning the death of Fidel Castro. "Castro’s Cuban regime was notorious for imprisoning dissenters, including homosexuals, journalists, and political opponents, and nearly brought nuclear war to the United States, one of Canada’s closest allies." The problem with that statement is that it is written like either of those things were against the US ideology. US has still not completely accepted homosexuality and it brought nuclear war upon itself by taking its weapons to Russia's neighbourhood. Here's another absolute rubbish article[1] about why there should be a cap on the number of women who are allowed to take up STEM majors. Breitbart's whole history is like this. In 2009, Andrew Breitbart heavily pushed the ACORN Video Scandal[2] which later turned out to be a series of heavily edited and misleading videos which lead to the closure of ACORN, an NGO which helped people from low to middle income groups. Another one was the "Friends of Hamas" story that turned out to be a case of complete and utter bullshit but Breitbart couldn't own up to it.[3] Breitbart has never been a media organisation and I for one am extremely happy to see it being boycotted like this. The headlines I have outlined are not even the more horrific ones they post. Go have a look yourself if you want. They purposefully spread misinformation and decline to accept their fault when proven wrong while always being on their toes to point out the slip ups in the more liberal media coverage of events. In my part of the world, we call it hypocrisy. [0] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/26/canadian-pm-trudeau-praises-dictator-castro/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/26/canadian-pm-trude... [1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_c... [3] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/friends-of-hamas-and-andrew-breitbarts-legacy http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/friends-of-hamas-and...

mtkd 10y ago
dude, you're a critical thinker - I liked the text classifier post, I'll have a proper read when I'm next on a train - Milo is a first class troll - Breibart has perspective on some current topics - there are no longterm gains from censoring that

brokentone 10y ago

Obviously this ad network can do what they want. They can work with or not work with any website they desire. But I do worry about companies who control money becoming vigilantes attempting to support points of view they agree with and squash points of view they disagree with. I would be more interested in these networks dropping clickbait and known fake news websites (maybe they do, I just haven't seen the equivalent news story on that).