29 ms·
Google bans ZeroHedge and The Federalist from its ad platform
- throwawaysea 6y agoIn yet another sign of the big tech platforms having too much power, Google has chosen to demonetize ZeroHedge and The Federalist. Twitter recently reinstated ZeroHedge and admitted that its action to suspend ZeroHedge in January 2020 was a mistake. Per this article, the reason The Federalist was demonetized was because "The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests". Personally I think this is a completely valid topic to write an article about. I've seen local politicians gaslight constituents by claiming "white supremacists" were engaging in rioting and looting when videos undeniably showed numerous non-whites participating, and often comprising the majority of the looters in some cities. Regardless of where you stand on this topic, shouldn't this kind of discussion be totally valid to hold? Are people not allowed to criticize the BLM movement or the media or politicians unless it aligns with a progressive worldview? Should Google be in the business of responding to activist pressure at all, instead of just remaining a neutral carrier of information?
- caseysoftware 6y agoAccording to Google, The Federalist was going to be demonetized (hadn't been yet) over comments not even an article.
- jdhn 6y agoI haven't read Zerohedge since 2011/2012, but at the same time this is kind of worrisome. I really don't like the idea of a corporation deciding that news is "bad", and therefore should be punished.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- secondcoming 6y agoZerohedge was clearly getting money from Russian propaganda sources, especially during the invasion of Ukraine and the nerve agent attacks in the UK, it had a hard-on for Putin. It attracts all sorts of nutters, the comments are 100% cancer... just don't even bother. I'm not surprised Google kicked them off. It does occassionally have quite good articles related to actual financial issues though. You just have to wade through a lot of crap first. Jack Dorsey himself follows it on twatter. Edit: it used regularly regurgitate articles from this crowd: https://www.strategic-culture.org https://www.strategic-culture.org
- RachelF 6y agoIt doesn't matter whether it is crap or not, whether it is true or BS, whether we like their opinion or not; Google should not be in the business of censoring sites, given its monopoly on advertising.
- rajup 6y agoI'm sorry but this censoring argument is getting more and more detached from reality. So now not letting ads run on a website (mind you the advertisers themselves have strong opinions on where they want their ads to run) is censoring?
- joefkelley 6y agoI'm with you 100%. I thought censorship meant "not allowing you to speak". I guess now it means "not actively helping you profit from your speech".
- non-entity 6y agoAccording to much of HN, any moderation is censorship.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoWhen you have monopolistic power it is.
- lightgreen 6y agoIt’s not Google’s money, it’s advertisers money. Advertisers do not want to pay for their ads on the websites with unacceptable content and trust Google to do the moderation. Because the advertisement may even have a negative effect for them when published on certain websites. There are advertising networks (like those used on porn sites for an extreme example) which have weaker rules, but the websites get smaller profits.
- Mirioron 6y agoThis is one of those situations where regulation of some sorts could help the business being regulated. If the government decreed that they're not allowed to pick and choose based on the content then the ad buyers couldn't do anything. It's unlikely this would ever happen though.
- lightgreen 6y agoThese regulations would greatly harm the ads industry: Google will be forced to place their ads on trash websites. AFAIU Google is not yet the monopoly among the ad networks (it holds less than a half), so it’s too early to regulate.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago>Advertisers do not want to pay for their ads on the websites with unacceptable content and trust Google to do the moderation. Are advertisers really choosing to "trust google to do the moderation" or is the reality that Google is a virtual monopoly and advertisers don't have much of a choice?
- lightgreen 6y agoGoogle is not a monopoly in ads networks, it has less than a half of ads networks market share.
- zaroth 6y agoGoogle is banning even advertisers which want to be on ZeroHedge from using their [dominant] platform to place those ads. I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that Google’s platform doesn’t provide advertisers the ability to mark specific domains which they do not want their ads to be shown on? I believe this feature is readily available under the Placements > Exclusions page.
- cwojno 6y agoYea. Choosing to not do business with another business is fair game, IMO
- koheripbal 6y agoUnless you're so big that you are nearly a public utility.
- Thomas812 6y agoFunny how they claim to demonetize things that promote discrimination based on race but won't do so if said thing is left leaning. Where is the demonetization of Ivy league universities that literally punish Asian applicants and give bonuses to Black ones? And all the institutions that have so called positive discrimination recruitment rules? They're liars and propaganda actors themselves
- rpiguy 6y agoThey will never censor leftwing sites that are clearly anti-Semitic. It is terrible.
- Proven 6y ago> promote discrimination based on race URL? In the case you've actually bothered to understand this news you would have realized its news because it's fake news: Google terminated them for political reasons.
- klyrs 6y agoWell, there was this: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demonetization-ads-algorithm https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demo...
- lightgreen 6y agoLooks like it is a fake news https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352 https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352
- DuskStar 6y agoOh, so they just pressured a news site into removing comments with the threat of demonitization - that's so much better.
- lightgreen 6y agoI’m not sure. That’s understandable: the advertisers do not want to see their ads next to death treats or something comparable. Anyway, even if Google is still bad, it’s not an excuse for false news.
- psweber 6y ago> We worked with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section. > As the comment section has now been removed, we consider this matter resolved and no action will be taken. wow
- gniv 6y ago> Oh, so they just pressured a news site into removing comments with the threat of demonization - that's so much better. Just wanted to save your freudian slip.
- DuskStar 6y agoOh, wow - that's a fun one!
- sukilot 6y agoComments sections don't belong on news sites. They belong on discussion sites.
- hedora 6y ago
- refurb 6y agoI love Zerohedge, but let me explain why before you condemn me. What I like about Zerohedge is that I actually hear about things before the major media covers it. If I go to CNN, Foxnews or other networks, they all cover the exact same thing. And they are also slow. It's not unusual for Zerohedge to cover something half a day before the big boys. Now, when I read Zerohedge, I put on my filters. They love to interpret news in the worst possible and highly-conspiratorial light. Gold price drops? Must be an international cabal led by Elon Musk or some other nonsense.
- svaha1728 6y agoYup. The first story they had on Covid-19 was January 2, and it was followed by a series of alarmist headlines with great photos and videos every week. That said, it was real. It took a while before it was headline news elsewhere.
- jliptzin 6y agoIt’s easy to be right about a pandemic when you’re alarmist about everything
- bobthepanda 6y agoA broken clock is right twice a day. See: TMZ and Michael Jackson
- travmatt 6y agoMy favorite saying about zerohedge: “They’ve predicted 8 of the last 3 downturns.”
- snowwrestler 6y agoAgreed. I'm astounded by all the comments in this thread that are like "ZH is usually wrong and often crazy, but the few times they're right, they're really right." Reminds me of the joke, "60% of the time, it works every time." Or the saying, "a stopped watch is still right twice a day."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mlindner 6y agoThe Federalist?? That's a legitimate news site with good articles. What the heck are you doing Google. Sure ban ZeroHedge, they're crazy, but The Federalist is a mainstream right-leaning site.
- lightgreen 6y agoAfaiu the user comments (not the articles) on the federalist were unacceptable for advertisers.
- mlindner 6y agoRight, so they're trying to censor users on third party sites now. This is when you know that Google needs to get broken up as they have too much power and are too willing to use it.
- lightgreen 6y agoGoogle does not want to lose advertisement money which is almost all of Google revenue. It’s just business, I would not call that censorship.
- jeffdavis 6y agoIt looks like the move was pushed by the "Center for Countering Digital Hate". I don't see how that's just business, it seems more like a political move. Which is pretty disturbing, if you ask me.
- lightgreen 6y agoWell, it’s entirely possible that some SJW raised the issue with the website. But whoever raised the issue, Google had no other option than follow it’s own rules https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6008942?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6008942?hl=en-GB quoting: “”” We value diversity and respect for others, and we strive to avoid offending users, so we don’t allow ads or destinations that display shocking content or promote hatred, intolerance, discrimination or violence. Examples of inappropriate or offensive content: bullying or intimidation of an individual or group, racial discrimination, hate group paraphernalia, graphic crime scene or accident images, cruelty to animals, murder, self-harm, extortion or blackmail, sale or trade of endangered species, ads using profane language. “”” Note these rules apply to both ads and destinations.
- IdontRememberIt 6y agoYou search for Pampers on a website. You go on ZeroHedge and you get Diaper advertising. Google does not provide anymore Google Ads product which targets the actual page content (Except on search result pages). ZH, surely, has something to fix. But Google AdSense also (I am not specifically speaking about this case, but on the fact that the user is tracked and Google AdSense carries his past search wherever he goes).
- thanatropism 6y agoZero Hedge is not exactly user-submitted, but it's not heavily editorialized either. It doesn't have a clear line, it's a thousand voices -- many republished from personal blogs, etc. I never expected it to become the litmus test on where we stand on freedom of expression.
- pram 6y agoPractically all traders read Zerohedge. It's larded with fringe shit for sure, but it's an invaluable source of information if you're involved in any kind of active trading. First place I heard about COVID was ZH.
- koheripbal 6y agoSame. ZH was screaming about it while HN and Reddit were telling everyone that it's just the flu and that masks don't work.
- motohagiography 6y agoReading into the details, the rationale was because Zerohedge allegedly failed to manage their comment section to Google's standards for what other companies do. In a parliamentary system, if you want to know what a government is doing, you listen to the opposition. They are almost always a bunch of clowns slinging mud, but when it sticks, they are miles ahead of the courtiers who populate the press gallery and newsrooms. ZH is one of the fastest news reaction sites on the web, with no pretense of objectivity other than as a reliable opposition party to the sanctimonious tone that has come to characterize the recent mainstream. I haven't seen that comment section in years, but it was so terrible it looked like people trying to plant things in it to discredit the site. ZH itself has always been farcically provocative, and at least %90 useless, but when they get it right, they really get it right. They are also to financial literacy for younger generations what punk was to music. This reflects more on Google (and previously, Twitter) and whoever else piles on than it does on ZH.
- bmarquez 6y ago> the rationale was because Zerohedge allegedly failed to manage their comment section to Google's standards for what other companies do Out of curiosity, is there a precedent for YouTube banning channels based on the channel comments and not the channel video? Sounds like ZH is being punished for the actions of third parties. As someone who follows finance, I like ZH. There is a ton of noise and little signal, but when they're right, they're right. I remember ZH commenters giving away free bitcoin back in 2013 calling it the next big thing.
- duskwuff 6y ago> Out of curiosity, is there a precedent for YouTube banning channels based on the channel comments and not the channel video? Sort of. They've disabled comments on whole swaths of videos, like videos featuring children. I wouldn't be surprised if they've disabled comments for other problematic channels. I'm not aware of any specific situations where they've banned channels outright as a result of problematic comment activity, but it wouldn't surprise me if it'd happened.
- seven4 6y agoAs someone who has worked in finance and specifically a trading floor - i can confirm that it is widely read by traders/market-makers/risk-takers in those spaces. It's not that those people are inherently bearish or expect the world and financial markets to "go to zero"; but they understand that informed decisions and fair market pricing arises from a matrix of ideas. Zero hedge takes an extreme starting point for most of its commentary/coverage but as long as you know that slant exists it can become a useful input into thinking about the "bear scenario" or the "tail scenario". Knowing that it has reached a critical mass and that other traders read it - it becomes a harder to ignore point of information.
- jevgeni 6y agoI worked in derivatives trading. ZH was mostly laughed at. At least lately, when it became a more racist RT.
- koheripbal 6y agoI'm not sure if you're really in derivatives trading, because ZH has become a f*ing hero on our trading floor as if drove many positions to the short side in Feb because of their early coverage of the covid crisis. They published a number of warning indicators that we just didn't see anywhere else.
- linuxftw 6y agoThe problem with all trading is overcoming the HFT and market movers. If they see enough shorts, they shake you out. Even if I 100% know a company is going to go down, shorts always seemed to get squeezed, and it's completely rigged IMO. You need to have super deep pockets to avoid margin calls and a complete lack of fear to avoid total ruin.
- jevgeni 6y agoMostly structured products, like credit correlation in Europe.
- koheripbal 6y ago
- elektor 6y agoFor context, ZeroHedge [1] has an estimated 36 million monthly visits. The Federalist has 7 million. They could probably run off donations with that sort of traffic. They have a blogpost on this event and they end it with a donation link so it'd be interesting to see if this pushes them to be self-sufficient. [1]https://www.similarweb.com/website/zerohedge.com https://www.similarweb.com/website/zerohedge.com
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago>They could probably run off donations with that sort of traffic If they pivot to donations, I'll give it a fortnight before major payment processors such as Paypal deplatform them also.
- elektor 6y agoThey are currently using a service calling PayoLee: https://www.payolee.com/checkout/5ed7f0febebae https://www.payolee.com/checkout/5ed7f0febebae
- Mountain_Skies 6y agoSounds large enough that they could manage and sell their own ads, cutting Google out of the loop, while ending up with advertisers more in line with their content. Handling one's own ads is a significant burden for smaller sites so paying the Google tax is worthwhile but larger sites like ZeroHedge likely can do better than with Google if they put in the effort. In many ways Google is coasting on inertia and relying on most sites not bothering with building and managing their own ad content.
- mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE 6y agoThey don't need donation, they get enough money from the Russian government.
- pochamago 6y agoIt strikes me as awfully hypocritical for the owners of YouTube to condemn someone for their comments section.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 082349872349872 6y agoA few years ago I went on a non-anglophone[1] YouTube kick; my anecdote is that the comments sections were generally less toxic. [1] YouTube's filter bubble seems to lag a few days to a week on searches, so moving it around takes patience, but is possible.
- wslack 6y agoThis is not the first time Google has done this, for what its worth - simply the first time there's been widespread attention on it.
- kypro 6y agoZeroHedge isn't the best news source if you're looking for high quality, well sourced reporting, but if you're looking for hot takes on breaking news, ZeroHedge is a great site. As a trader, I use it quite a bit primarily because they're not afraid to get things wrong and tend to have different (and even controversial) takes on current events. The stance Twitter, and now Google have taken against ZeroHedge I suspect will come to define how tech companies will treat the media (and the public) in the years to come. It's become very easy for companies to convince the public that they're taking these actions for the public's own good, especially when the main stream media are more than willing to paint these stories in a positive light to help bury any competition. Who knows, perhaps these trillion dollar companies will curate the news in our interest. Perhaps it's true that we can't be trusted to decide fact from fiction. Perhaps we need Twitter to restrict tweets and tell us when the president of the US says something they don't agree with. More and more this seems to be the narrative I'm hearing. A decade ago I used to have so much hope that internet would be liberating for humanity. That seems laughably naive today.
- RhodesianHunter 6y ago> Perhaps it's true that we can't be trusted to decide fact from fiction. A lot of us have seen friends and family lose their minds to the conspiratorial "news" like Zero hedge, Fox, etc. I too thought the internet, and all of humanity's knowledge at your fingertips, would be liberating. Instead it has enabled the ignorant to believe their conspiracies over expert opinions. I for one welcome these sort of moves. Zero Hedge has every right to spread their nonsense and Google/Twitter have every right to refuse to support it.
- siculars 6y agoWhich experts? Galileo was a heretic at one time. So slippery I'm finding it hard to tap this out.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- im3w1l 6y agoThe American electoral system leads to a two-party system, it's not a written down rule, but it's an emergent feature. So it seems that the internet economy leads to One Opinion. The side who manages to get sufficiently many companies on board can use deplatforming to strong the rest of em, and through the companies, every person.
- jevgeni 6y agoSee, saying that BLM is fake isn’t really an opinion. It’s a lie.
- 082349872349872 6y ago"American electoral system" was properly qualified. "Ad-supported internet economy" was missing a qualifier.
- im3w1l 6y agoNo it's not just the ad-supported parts. App stores, patreon and paypal are cutting people off even though it's based on taking a percentage rather than ads.
- 082349872349872 6y agoSorry, being from the pre-Canter & Siegel days, and not being exposed to any of those funding sources in my surfing now, I missed them. How does "directly-financed internet economy" sound?
- objektif 6y agoI have to say ZH comment section is the most toxic content I have seen on the internet.
- downerending 6y agoYou must be new here. Head over to 4chan (and 8chan?).
- wyclif 6y agoOr...YouTube. Another reason why this deplatforming reeks of hypocrisy.
- hedora 6y agoNever heard of ZeroHedge, but skimming it, it looks... less bad than most right wing sites? Any idea what articles they were banned over? Th first current one that has something to do with the protests: “No we’re not all together” is on page 2: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/no-were-not-all-together https://www.zerohedge.com/political/no-were-not-all-together The premise is that there’s one set of COVID rules for the rich and the protesters, and another set for religious groups and “normal” people. The article’s tone is a bit offensive (and outside HN decorum), but it’s reasonably well-researched, and not obviously incorrect.
- perl4ever 6y ago"there’s one set of COVID rules for the rich and the protesters, and another set for religious groups and “normal” people" I feel like comparing the anti-lockdown protests with BLM is a talking point that was distributed from some central source, because all of a sudden a whole bunch of people popped up and started hammering away at it, including on HN. It raises all sorts of questions, none of which are answered by yet another article pretending it's a compelling original thought people need to be informed of. I personally am not 100% sure it's Russian propaganda, but it's blatantly someone's manipulative party line, and it makes a paranoid person wonder what influence the source has with any of the protesters, right or left.
- hedora 6y agoI see your point (and don’t disagree that BLM isn’t the same as anti-lockdown protesting), but the article cites egregious examples on both sides. One example is rich folk flying around the world to second houses because they’re annoyed with their spouses. Another example involved people being banned from small religious ceremonies (like funerals, probably, though I only skimmed it), and then not being able to protest about losing their right to religious assembly. Contrast this to Fox News, which hasn’t been deplatformed, but falsified photographic evidence against the CHAZ BLM people, and then ran headline stories about events that didn’t happen. Again, I’m not seeing why ZeroHedge got the ban hammer when most right wing sites are much, much worse.
- dang 6y agoAlso https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23542864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23542864
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoPornhub is calling...
- coffeemug 6y agoNote: this report was either a mistake or a "stylized fact". Google never did this. See their comms for details: https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352 https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352
- s1artibartfast 6y agoSomewhat ironically, the CNBC article is not accurate and ZeroHedge has different take[1]. Also, there seems to be no shortage of adds on the page. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-he...
- jl2718 6y agoZerohedge hasn’t been popular since the last financial crisis. Barbara Streisand effect incoming...
- olivermarks 6y agoI look at ZeroHedge at least a couple of times a day. I typically look at the FT and then ZH when I get up in the morning, along with various other financial sites. I never look at the ZH comments but I do think it an outrage Google having the power to crack down on free speech and that anti trust action and Section 230 review is long overdue. We are at a dangerous tipping point where free speech is being cancelled, other super wealthy thanks to section 230 firms (ie Twitter) have the temerity to editorialize and 'fact check' (ie provide a 'correct' opinion on) posts of users they don't like. BigTech has greatly overstepped the mark and I look forward to them being reigned in.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoThe incredibly irony here is that Google is crucifying ZeroHedge for content its users post, whilst Google disclaims any responsibility for bad behavior on their platforms by using Section 230 as a shield: "We aren't responsible for what our users post." The fact that Google will both exploit Section 230 while attacking other sites which expect the same immunity is absolutely golden, and a clear demonstration of why it needs to be stripped of the privilege.
- olivermarks 6y agoThe irony certainly isn't lost on me - I find it enraging. I'm also annoyed by @NBC_VC being framed as a self titled Orwellian 'news' 'verification' outfit when they are clearly highly partisan and intent on closing down anyone they don't agree with. I pay little attention to NBC or MSFTNBC but this is making me actively dislike them
- qtplatypus 6y agoGoogle will remove or demonetise videos that violate their terms of service. Also Section 230 protects you from legal action, it doesn't protect you from things that are not court based.
- jonahbenton 6y agoThis is not a "free speech" issue. At all. The FBI didn't show up and shut down the ZH domain. ZH has not been removed from Google's search index. Tyler Durden's fingers were not amputated. Nobody's speech is being prevented. No business is entitled to any other business' monetization. No store has to sell every product. The store doesn't even have to give a reason. Anyway, ZH has MANY other monetization strategies. It is read enough by traders that subscription would be a good option. Have a nice day.
- BrandonMarc 6y agoSounds like bullying to me. Giant entrenched mainstream entity teams up with nonprofit to financially take out a competitor. For the purpose of removing diversity from public discourse. Doesn't sound so high minded when you put it that way.
- throw9876112344 6y agoSince Google now so carefully curates its ad platform, it should now be liable for all ads it shows and all the sites it runs ads on. Get malware from a site that runs Google ads or from an ad, Google is liable. Get scammed from a Google ad, Google is liable.
- sukilot 6y agoThis CNBC article was debunked with much evidence: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-he...
- 0xy 6y agoThe original lie came from NBC. They made up a false quote from Google's comms team to fit their narrative -- presumably to go after a news competitor.
- divbzero 6y agoI would characterize that link simply as ZeroHedge’s “response”. Their response contains embedded tweets but not much evidence.
- troughway 6y agoThe ZH take - https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-he...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- reilly3000 6y agoZH has a very wealthy audience. They can do just fine without AdX revenue with contributions and membership, and can probably juice this Google slap pretty hard.
- throwawaysea 6y agoSome people have pointed out that The Federalist was not demonetized after all, since they caved into Google’s demands to delete their comment section. But if The Federalist can be held responsible for its comment section then why should Google themselves enjoy Section 230 protection from their user’s contributions? I know there’s probably a legal distinction since Google is private but on principle this is clearly unacceptable.
- qtplatypus 6y agoBecause it would be a violation of the principles of freedom to force people to provide goods and services to people that they don't wish to (apart from protected classes which the Federalist is).
- mtgp1000 6y agoAt this point I'd rather read ZH with scrutiny than watch anything on cable news, or anything "reputable" online. At least ZH doesn't lie to you. The facts are presented, the narrative is painted, but in a manner that is open to questioning. It's pure speculation, and that's ok, because that's how and where investigations start. By the time reputable spots pick it up it's usually months old.
- jevgeni 6y agoZH has become a propaganda outlet. I’m not sure how you can come to the conclusion of “it doesn’t lie to you”. If you don’t know who the owner of the news outlet is and you are not actively paying for your news, you probably shouldn’t trust it.
- mtgp1000 6y agoThe fact that there is propaganda on ZH doesn't mean there isn't also factual information on there. That's the scrutiny I'm talking about. You and Google both are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- jevgeni 6y agoYou can be completely factual, but still do propaganda by selectively presenting facts, choosing the order and context of how you present those facts and supplementing those with a healthy dose of speculative non-falsifiable questions ("Would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation benefit from putting nanochips into everyone? Possibly!1"). This is called "framing" in psychology and it's an intrinsic part of passive measures. Thinking that one is immune to it, while discarding other sources of information is a bit naive, IMO.
- 082349872349872 6y agoI would not be surprised if it turns out the ratio of factual information to false information is higher in propaganda outlets than in ad-sponsored outlets. (ad-sponsored media measure what ratio of advertising to editorial maximizes their profit. Propagandists do the same; if you want eyeballs on the propaganda, you need plenty of straight content in between) Linebarger, "Psychological Warfare" (1948) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm "The intelligence that goes into the making of propaganda must compete for attention with the home newspaper of the enemy. It must therefore be up-to-date, well put, authentic. ... Even if exaggerations or nonsense appear in the commercial press of his own country, the propagandist must realize that he is Honorary G-2 to the enemy—a G-2 whose function consists of transmitting news the ultimate effect of which should be bad but which should go forth with each separate item newsworthy and palatable. ... The Japanese who obediently hated the Americans when it was their duty to do so nevertheless could not help looking at maps that showed where the Americans actually were. Nazis who despised us and everything we stood for nevertheless studied the photographs of our new light bombers. The appeal of credible fact is universal; propaganda does not consist of doctoring the fact with moralistic blather, but of selecting that fact which is correct, interesting, and bad for the enemy to know." Note that in 2020, double-checking credible fact has become easier than it was in 1950.
- neil_s 6y agoI'm surprised by all the negative top-level comments. I wasn't familiar with ZeroHedge before, but I just looked it up on Snopes.com and there are numerous results where ZH articles were marked false or mostly false. I followed a few links and didn't find any retractions. Clearly, this is a site that is OK publishing demonstrably false news for the eyeballs and ad dollars. An advertising platform is well within its rights to stop showing their ads on this website, especially since most major corporates would not want their brand associated with funding such false news. Admittedly, as a moderate/progressive, I'm biased against extreme-right hate-peddling.
- greendestiny_re 6y ago>I just looked it up on Snopes.com and there are numerous results where ZH articles were marked false or mostly false Have you actually read any of those Snopes articles? Snopes is notorious for putting a big, red X and "FALSE" on the very top of its articles but the article body itself concedes that the claim being debunked is actually true. It does that because it knows from its metrics most visitors spend a couple seconds on the articles, scan the page for the rating and move on. Take this Snopes article debunking ZeroHedge's claim that water conservation measures in California will make it so residents won't be able to shower and do laundry on the same day [1]. The article admits that there are water conservation measures the two bills put into place, though they aren't slated to come into effect until 2022, meaning the only part of ZH's claim that is false is the word "now". The final paragraph is just glorious and actually tries to downplay the restrictions, the same one the headline portrayed as "mostly false". >Given that the average shower uses about 17.2 gallons of water, while most high-efficiency clothes washers use only 15 to 30 gallons of water per load, most California residents (depending upon their personal habits and the efficiency of their home appliances and water fixtures) shouldn’t find it too difficult to accommodate a daily shower and a daily laundry load while staying within the 55 gallons per person per day guideline. But either way, nothing in either legislative bill specifically levies fines against customers who do laundry and shower on the same day. Its article research is most often solid and Snopes articles are worth a read but the ratings and headlines are, ironically, mostly false. 1 - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-sho...
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Jimmc414 6y agoThanks for destroying comments on the internet, Google.
- jb775 6y agoI can't wait until all this Silicon Valley censorship virtue signaling comes back to bite them in the ass. My prediction is it will come in the form of expedited monopolistic practice inquiries and significantly harsher penalties.
- deepakhj 6y agoEven if they were split apart that still won’t block their ad unit from dropping Zerohedge.
- jb775 6y agoHow would you know? It would likely be under different leadership with different decision makers. And they would have to worry about a viable competitor that could steal away customers that get upset by blatant censorship in America.
- AaronFriel 6y agoIt only took a few clicks to get from a zerohedge article to learning about how to join the fight in the coming "race war", so I don't think I feel too bad for them. I'm not at all being hyperbolic, but it seems not at all dissimilar from 4chan's comment sections.
- koheripbal 6y agoNo one is arguing that there isn't garbage content on ZH. The point is that there is also very valuable content on ZH, if you are willing to sift through the garbage. They were easily a fill MONTH ahead of the curve on Covid-19.
- AaronFriel 6y agoI don't think they were, do you have any evidence for that assertion? Reuters wire service reported an outbreak of an unknown pneumonia causing disease in Wuhan in December of 2019: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/reuters-america-chinese-officials-investigate-cause-of-pneumonia-outbreak-in-wuhan.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/reuters-america-chinese-offi... So did AFP, which resulted in sites like Yahoo covering it. The only two articles on Zero Hedge to reference pneumonia between Nov 1 2019 and Jan 1 2020 are a link about two people caught the plague (which was never eradicated) in Beijing (not Wuhan): https://www.zerohedge.com/health/fears-pneumonic-plague-outbreak-after-2-diagnosed-china-hospital-lockdown https://www.zerohedge.com/health/fears-pneumonic-plague-outb... And an unrelated article about superbugs, antibiotic resistant bacteria.
- da-x 6y agoBack a year and a half ago when Tesla short sellers were thriving on twitter, it often happened that links to ZeroHedge started a negative newscycle regarding various rumors. I wonder if the operators of ZeroHedge are part of this short-sellers community.
- drtillberg 6y agoOnly the operators know for sure, but the site is so extremely contrarian one cannot always read a negative ZH headline and infer an intent that traders sell, or a positive headline and infer an intent that traders buy. Often the intent seems to be just the opposite, i.e., sentiment is awful, trade accordingly.
- huonpine 6y agoCan ZH stop google from displaying or indexing any of their content?
- forgingahead 6y agoLots of top comments talking about ZeroHedge, but what about the Federalist? Other than being slandered as "white nationalist" by the usual suspects in the corporate media, why is their comment section considered more representative of the site/owners than any others on the internet? Youtube included? This is a very dangerous step, but a consistent one in how the big monopoly players of the modern web have been behaving. We should all prepare and push for more decentralised alternatives wherever possible.
- alkibiades 6y agohave they seen youtube comments?
- penussies 6y agoEditorializing the perception of racism. Is this what an election is worth? It's not like I'm going to just let corporations or even the arm chair pundits of a twitter doxxing pogrom force its religious incantations on me. You tell me to praise Jesus, and I'll worship Satan every time. If Jesus actually cared about who I offer my personal sacrifice to, he would reveal himself to me in the most obvious of ways. I'll adopt silence as my preferred method of sadism and sociopathy, if that's how you choose interpret it.
- tibbydudeza 6y agoSo I had a look and ZH esp the comment section is a racist cesspool for the boogaloo club ... moderate or just turn it off.
- koheripbal 6y agoNo one even looks at the comments - they are collapsed by default.
- alexpetralia 6y agoHere is the actual Zerohedge response: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-he... > The reason presented to us for this decision is far more mundane than what has been disclosed by NBC: we are currently appealing it, and expect to remedy it. That said, we were surprised by the framing of the suspension by the NBC article, which disturbingly appears to be another attempt at activist targeting of inconvenient media outlets, especially since the core argument presented by the NBC employee is different than what Google actually has said. In fact, half the NBC article just happens to be dead wrong.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoI never read ZeroHedge, and I have the Federalist bookmarked but never go there. Now, I'm going to start reading both, out of intense curiosity, because of both Google's questionable actions and the interesting discussion here on HN. The Streisand effect is still a thing.
- mesozoic 6y agoThese sites must be getting really good now if they're attacking them this directly. Thanks for the heads up on sites to keep checking out.
- tmaly 6y agoZH is just loaded with depressing news. The comments section is mostly reserved for tinfoil hats. I think Google should tread lightly here because they are a monopoly in search. This would not help their case at all if the government decides to come after them.
- duxup 6y agoIf Google banned ZeroHedge for it's own content and not its comments ... would that be different? While I'm willing to 'forgive' or not associate a site with it's comments to some extent, I do think that if the comments are largely of a particular type... at some point if the site isn't moderating them I feel like they are ok with them to some extent. And it sounds like ZH has a great deal of control over those comments / who comments / isn't just leaving them to their own devices. I'm asking less about ZH itself and more along the lines of "Can you hold a site to some level of responsibility (even if not legally, maybe just morally) for the content they choose to host?"
- DeonPenny 6y agoI think things like this very obviously points to a problem with these monopolistic internet utilities. The push out competition, then get protections under article 230, and are policing speech on their platform. I think they obviously have to pick 2. You can't be the only game in town, be unsueable, and police speech, thats far to much power for a un-electected corporation with clear bias
- chockablock 6y ago> [Google is] policing speech on their platform Howso? Zerohedge and Federalist publish their content on their own websites. Should Google be forced to serve ads to their readers and cut them checks every month? (I would say no). Is anyone stopping these publishers from cutting their own deals with advertisers? (I think the answer is no).
- lliamander 6y agoA policy like that may be fine in and of itself but I think a number of factors make the action suspect: * does Google have a monopoly in the online advertising space? Is their content policy only feasible because of that monopoly power? * does Google apply that policy fairly across all of it's customers, or is there selective enforcement with a political bias? * does Google hold it's own content platforms (like YouTube) to the same standard?
- DeonPenny 6y agoThey could but just like we don't just have this same sentiment towards electrical companies. Where we don't say hey use a smaller utility company because its so difficult to bifurcate a natural monopoly like that. Also you'd also need to remove article 230 because they need to explain why they are doing this if they are actively doing it to make sure its not prejudice. I feel like the democrats politicians and the super left people are ok with it now but this opens the door for them to be effected in the same way if this isn't monitored, but they are thinking short sighted.
- deepakhj 6y agoSounds like nbc was wrong. https://twitter.com/google_comms/status/1272997425821540352?s=21 https://twitter.com/google_comms/status/1272997425821540352?... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200616/14390744730/no-google-didnt-demonetize-federalist.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200616/14390744730/no-go...