13 ms·

Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

52 points by fooey 6y ago

retortio 6y ago
> "On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google." It's a perfectly reasonable argument to make that many mainstream media outlets were downplaying the amount of rioting and looting going on relative to peaceful protests. Yet somehow it's now WrongThink to even discuss how media may be shaping perceptions through biased reporting? And now NBC's news-vigilantism unit can tattle to Google and shame them (and advertisers on the Google ad network) into pulling ads because two websites had the audacity to question NBC's narrative? A healthy society functions best when there are checks and balances on all sides but unfortunately there are some who are using the recent protests and BLM to push Orwellian control of culture and media that is frankly quite disturbing. As an aside, what exactly is "far-Right"? I've never seen any non Leftist publication described as "Right" so I'm not sure what adding "far" does other than function as a smear on anything Right of the mainstream Left.
- noble_pleb 6y ago
  The bigger question to ask here is where is the Google Adsense competitor? Google may have some favorite political inclination and being a private firm also has the right to deplatform anyone. But why has no Adsense alternative emerged even after so many years? Do people just enjoy Google's monopoly in advertising?
  - retortio 6y ago
    Monopolies are able to exist precisely because it's hard to challenge them. That's why people saying "the free market will sort things out" with regard to free speech are deluding themselves. I'm not willing to wait 50 years for the free market to sort itself out while the ideal of free speech is torn asunder by private corporations.
    - mikece 6y ago
      It's actually quite easy to start a Google Ad Words competitor... it's even possible to make money. But when Google addresses the threat by offering a huge buy-out, saying "No" is very hard (and that's setting aside the question of possible investors taking the decision out of your hands).
mikece 6y ago
I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising. If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-safety of their advertisers, they are pulling the ability for these sites to show ads that would make sense and be somewhat defensible... but are they simply saying these sites can still show Google ads but they cannot make money from the ads while Google still does? THAT would be different.
- retortio 6y ago
  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 seriousness of the problem. It seems that in this case, and in many others, it's really the Leftist position that is "controversial" while the Rightist position is simply not popular among the Leftist elite. The ones who dictate what is "controversial" or not are often just wielding that term as propaganda for whichever side they support.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > 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 it is, in spite of the majority of America's agreement on the seriousness of the problem. Even people who would agree if asked that “illegal immigration” is a problem don't necessarily prefer the term “illegal immigration”, and very often don't agree with other people who agree with that question as to what the nature of the problem is. After all, people who think that the main problem is the system that produces illegal status for people who should be allowed, or even encouraged, to immigrate and people who think that the system is perfect but for it's failure to actually exclude all the people to whom it denies legal status can both easily agree with the statement “illegal immigration is a problem”. It's a statement people can agree with with no agreement on substance.
mardifoufs 6y ago
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 trust NBC to judge if the media did adequately cover violence or not? At this point we have moved from arguing for taking down false stories to taking down criticism in... A month? That's a little bit insane and scary And I get that advertisers don't want to run their ads on controversial stories, but the Federalist is all about politics and it is to be expected that ads running there will be... Political, no?
- supercanuck 6y ago
  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.
  - mardifoufs 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federalist arguing anything like that.
    - supercanuck 6y ago
      Here you go: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-you-about-everything-including-the-riots/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
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.
- seesawtron 6y ago
  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.
remarkEon 6y ago
Odd, Google is now claiming The Federalist was never demonitized [1]. What is going on here? Did NBC spike a story too early? [1] https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352?s=20 https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352?...
- 0xy 6y ago
  NBC lied by inventing a false quote from Google to take out a competitor.
fooey 6y ago
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://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352 https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist-and.html https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist... https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zerohedge-the-federalist-blm-2020-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zer...
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  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.
- 0xy 6y ago
  So NBC invented a false quote from Google's comms team to take out a competitor. That's what happened.
adrianmonk 6y ago
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".
- remarkEon 6y ago
  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.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176 http://web.archive.org/web/20200616191520/https://www.nbcnew... Original headline: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles.
  - adrianmonk 6y ago
    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.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      >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".

52 points by fooey 6y ago

> "On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google." It's a perfectly reasonable argument to make that many mainstream media outlets were downplaying the amount of rioting and looting going on relative to peaceful protests. Yet somehow it's now WrongThink to even discuss how media may be shaping perceptions through biased reporting? And now NBC's news-vigilantism unit can tattle to Google and shame them (and advertisers on the Google ad network) into pulling ads because two websites had the audacity to question NBC's narrative? A healthy society functions best when there are checks and balances on all sides but unfortunately there are some who are using the recent protests and BLM to push Orwellian control of culture and media that is frankly quite disturbing. As an aside, what exactly is "far-Right"? I've never seen any non Leftist publication described as "Right" so I'm not sure what adding "far" does other than function as a smear on anything Right of the mainstream Left.

noble_pleb 6y ago
The bigger question to ask here is where is the Google Adsense competitor? Google may have some favorite political inclination and being a private firm also has the right to deplatform anyone. But why has no Adsense alternative emerged even after so many years? Do people just enjoy Google's monopoly in advertising?
- retortio 6y ago
  Monopolies are able to exist precisely because it's hard to challenge them. That's why people saying "the free market will sort things out" with regard to free speech are deluding themselves. I'm not willing to wait 50 years for the free market to sort itself out while the ideal of free speech is torn asunder by private corporations.
  - mikece 6y ago
    It's actually quite easy to start a Google Ad Words competitor... it's even possible to make money. But when Google addresses the threat by offering a huge buy-out, saying "No" is very hard (and that's setting aside the question of possible investors taking the decision out of your hands).

mikece 6y ago

I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising. If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-safety of their advertisers, they are pulling the ability for these sites to show ads that would make sense and be somewhat defensible... but are they simply saying these sites can still show Google ads but they cannot make money from the ads while Google still does? THAT would be different.

retortio 6y ago
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 seriousness of the problem. It seems that in this case, and in many others, it's really the Leftist position that is "controversial" while the Rightist position is simply not popular among the Leftist elite. The ones who dictate what is "controversial" or not are often just wielding that term as propaganda for whichever side they support.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > 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 it is, in spite of the majority of America's agreement on the seriousness of the problem. Even people who would agree if asked that “illegal immigration” is a problem don't necessarily prefer the term “illegal immigration”, and very often don't agree with other people who agree with that question as to what the nature of the problem is. After all, people who think that the main problem is the system that produces illegal status for people who should be allowed, or even encouraged, to immigrate and people who think that the system is perfect but for it's failure to actually exclude all the people to whom it denies legal status can both easily agree with the statement “illegal immigration is a problem”. It's a statement people can agree with with no agreement on substance.

mardifoufs 6y ago

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 trust NBC to judge if the media did adequately cover violence or not? At this point we have moved from arguing for taking down false stories to taking down criticism in... A month? That's a little bit insane and scary And I get that advertisers don't want to run their ads on controversial stories, but the Federalist is all about politics and it is to be expected that ads running there will be... Political, no?

supercanuck 6y ago
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.
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federalist arguing anything like that.
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    Here you go: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-you-about-everything-including-the-riots/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

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.

seesawtron 6y ago
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.

remarkEon 6y ago

Odd, Google is now claiming The Federalist was never demonitized [1]. What is going on here? Did NBC spike a story too early? [1] https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352?s=20 https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352?...

0xy 6y ago
NBC lied by inventing a false quote from Google to take out a competitor.

fooey 6y ago

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://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352 https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist-and.html https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist... https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zerohedge-the-federalist-blm-2020-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zer...

mardifoufs 6y ago
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.
0xy 6y ago
So NBC invented a false quote from Google's comms team to take out a competitor. That's what happened.

adrianmonk 6y ago

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".

remarkEon 6y ago
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.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176 http://web.archive.org/web/20200616191520/https://www.nbcnew... Original headline: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles.
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  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.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    >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".