3 ms·

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 protes

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".

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".