8 ms·
I 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 "b
by jdhn 6y ago
I 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.
- plerpin 6y agoAdvertisers have always chosen where they want their ads to be seen, and what types of content they don't want to be associated with. That's censorship, now?
- s1artibartfast 6y agoI just interpret censorship in this context to be equivalent of forbid or ban. It saves a lot of fighting over definitions. In that light, it is not the advertisers making the decision in this case. It is google refusing to place add for advertisers who presumably want to advertise on zerohedge.
- TrainedMonkey 6y agoI see this argument repeated many times, X is bad so we must never do X. Any company that does X is bad no matter what. This completely ignores the other side of the story. What is the consequence of not doing X? Censorship is incredibly dangerous tool, but that does not mean it must never be used. At some point the cost of inaction is too high. In this case not taking action could be construed as Google enabling systemic racism. Of course the above is simplistic. For one I don't know if alternative action existed that would not set a precedent of censorship.
- secondcoming 6y agoHow has it censored anything? Zerohedge still exists. Google isn't the only ad exchange out there.
- Barrin92 6y agoGoogle is free to be in the business of whatever it wants. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest Google should be obligated to participate in any business contract. Google can sell adspace or refuse to sell it to whomever they want or don't want. It's really astonishing how much of a facade the commitment to free enterprise on the political right was now that some conspiracy websites get the treatment they deserve
- rayiner 6y agoWe have 3,500 schools literally incorporating Marxist propaganda into their curriculums,[1] and we’re worried about some news sites receiving money from Russia? [1] https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory https://www.city-journal.org/1619-project-conspiracy-theory
- aaaxyz 6y agoI'm no propaganda expert but I think you're comparing apples (teaching about an ideology that a German living in Russia came up with a century ago) to oranges (receiving money from the current Russian state to push the stories they provide you)
- rayiner 6y agoThey’re not teaching “about Marxism.” They’re repeating lies that Marx came up with to explain away the undeniable prosperity of western capitalist countries. That should concern everyone a lot more than some fake news articles funded by Russia.
- mercer 6y agoWhat lies? I'm definitely biased but I've come to respect your comments and would honestly like to hear (or be directed to) more about this whole 1619-project and its veracity.
- nyolfen 6y agohttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians... > The letter refers to “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing’” and says the project reflected “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” Wilentz and his fellow signatories didn’t just dispute the Times Magazine’s interpretation of past events, but demanded corrections.
- eadmund 6y ago
- downerending 6y agoTraders love it, and traders are rich. They don't need Russian money.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 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.