5 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
Afaiu the user comments (not the articles) on the federalist were unacceptable for advertisers.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Right, 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 ago
    Google 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 ago
      It 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 ago
        Well, 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.
        jeffdavis 6y ago
        Isn't that one of the major problems with censorship[1]: that it's hard to apply these vague policies in a way that's consistent, useful, and ethical? It all seems fine when the people making the decisions seem to be aligned with your values. But people in power are often not driven by lasting values so much as favorable media coverage[2]. When the media consensus on what's good and what's bad changes, they are going to turn, as well. [1] I know it's not really "censorship" in the government sense, but that's not relevant to the point and I don't know a better word to use. [2] Honestly, who wants bad media coverage? It just makes you feel bad and takes you down a few pegs in social status. If you're rich and powerful already, that's probably in your top five fears.
        NotSammyHagar 6y ago
        So google is "censoring" these two pubs by saying we won't pay you anymore by allowing our ad networks to be on your site because we don't like what people say there. Up thread someone says google is less than half internet advertising. So is it still censorship? If 3M doesn't like something in the WSJ, is it censorship if they stop advertising there? I get the point, that someone exerted force on them but is stopping giving money censorship?
  - macintux 6y ago
    Refusing to advertise on a site is not censorship.
    - kofejnik 6y ago
      refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not discrimination?
      - macintux 6y ago
        If you can present an argument that your analogy is meaningful, I’ll consider a response.
      - empath75 6y ago
        Advertising is an endorsement of the content. Baking a cake is not.
        BrandonMarc 6y ago
        Tell that to the baker.
        Sylamore 6y ago
        Unless the ad was manually placed there by the advertiser, in what way can an automatically ad-network placed ad be remotely considered an endorsement?
      - austhrow743 6y ago
        Nope. It isn't.
TylerE 6y ago
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/
pishpash 6y ago
Wait, why do you get to decide what is crazy?
xxpor 6y ago
If they're so legitimate, why won't they say who funds them? Say what you will about the NYT, Wapo, NBC, etc. But they're either public companies or in Wapo's case everyone is well aware who owns it. If nothing else having this transparency is important for news orgs so we know when there's a conflict of interest.
ewzimm 6y ago
According to The Federalist, it was actually NBC that got them defunded to remove competition. https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/federalist-co-founder-sean-davis-responds-to-nbc-google-deplatforming-attempt/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/federalist-co-founder-s...
- tedunangst 6y ago
  If The Federalist folds, those readers are expected to go to NBC?
  - ewzimm 6y ago
    Most probably already get some news from NBC, but I think the implication is that some journalists are also activists and don’t consider attempts to demonetize other journalists to be unethical if their views don’t align. Of course, now they’ve drawn more attention to them instead.
zaroth 6y ago
> Sure ban ZeroHedge, they're crazy Please, please no. A bedrock ideal of our society is that we should not seek to humiliate or ruin people simply because they look different or think ideas that are different from our own. That is not to say we grant license to speak or wrote just anything, but I think over the last ~240 years we’ve stuck a fairly decent balance. It doesn’t include mob rule calling for firings, de-platforming, and de-monetization based on politics ideology. ZH is not crazy. They are neither always right nor always wrong. They have no greater or less or claim to Truth than anyone below God.
- qtplatypus 6y ago
  The idea that what you say has consequences is a long held aspect of society.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Of course everyone will be judged by those around them based on how they act. The question is how far should we go in attacking, stigmatizing, humiliating, or financially damaging those around us for voicing an idea that perhaps we don’t agree with? I totally agree that it’s OK to hold people accountable. Answering speech you disagree with by voicing your disagreement and making the best counter-argument you can make. If someone says something that’s beyond the pale / beyond debate and just shameful, you can express your distaste and ask for an apology. Maybe someone says something you think is wrong and you take the time to see if you can teach them something new. Every disagreement has two people who both think the other person is wrong. But it’s a mob mentality that the most organized or radicalized side should be able to inflict the most pain on the “others”. There will obviously be the very exceptional case where an irredeemable idea meets an unrelenting bigot and perhaps such people must be ostracized for it. I’ve been fortunate enough to perhaps never have met such a person in my life.
    - qtplatypus 6y ago
      I have encountered people who I have needed to shun and remove from my life. Google is free to shun people, indeed due to their size and reach they are much more likely to encounter people who must be shunned then you or me.

The 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 ago

Afaiu the user comments (not the articles) on the federalist were unacceptable for advertisers.

mlindner 6y ago
Right, 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 ago
  Google 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 ago
    It 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 ago
      Well, 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.
      - jeffdavis 6y ago
        Isn't that one of the major problems with censorship[1]: that it's hard to apply these vague policies in a way that's consistent, useful, and ethical? It all seems fine when the people making the decisions seem to be aligned with your values. But people in power are often not driven by lasting values so much as favorable media coverage[2]. When the media consensus on what's good and what's bad changes, they are going to turn, as well. [1] I know it's not really "censorship" in the government sense, but that's not relevant to the point and I don't know a better word to use. [2] Honestly, who wants bad media coverage? It just makes you feel bad and takes you down a few pegs in social status. If you're rich and powerful already, that's probably in your top five fears.
        NotSammyHagar 6y ago
        So google is "censoring" these two pubs by saying we won't pay you anymore by allowing our ad networks to be on your site because we don't like what people say there. Up thread someone says google is less than half internet advertising. So is it still censorship? If 3M doesn't like something in the WSJ, is it censorship if they stop advertising there? I get the point, that someone exerted force on them but is stopping giving money censorship?
- macintux 6y ago
  Refusing to advertise on a site is not censorship.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not discrimination?
    - macintux 6y ago
      If you can present an argument that your analogy is meaningful, I’ll consider a response.
    - empath75 6y ago
      Advertising is an endorsement of the content. Baking a cake is not.
      - BrandonMarc 6y ago
        Tell that to the baker.
      - Sylamore 6y ago
        Unless the ad was manually placed there by the advertiser, in what way can an automatically ad-network placed ad be remotely considered an endorsement?
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      Nope. It isn't.

TylerE 6y ago

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

pishpash 6y ago

Wait, why do you get to decide what is crazy?

xxpor 6y ago

If they're so legitimate, why won't they say who funds them? Say what you will about the NYT, Wapo, NBC, etc. But they're either public companies or in Wapo's case everyone is well aware who owns it. If nothing else having this transparency is important for news orgs so we know when there's a conflict of interest.

ewzimm 6y ago

According to The Federalist, it was actually NBC that got them defunded to remove competition. https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/federalist-co-founder-sean-davis-responds-to-nbc-google-deplatforming-attempt/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/federalist-co-founder-s...

tedunangst 6y ago
If The Federalist folds, those readers are expected to go to NBC?
- ewzimm 6y ago
  Most probably already get some news from NBC, but I think the implication is that some journalists are also activists and don’t consider attempts to demonetize other journalists to be unethical if their views don’t align. Of course, now they’ve drawn more attention to them instead.

zaroth 6y ago

> Sure ban ZeroHedge, they're crazy Please, please no. A bedrock ideal of our society is that we should not seek to humiliate or ruin people simply because they look different or think ideas that are different from our own. That is not to say we grant license to speak or wrote just anything, but I think over the last ~240 years we’ve stuck a fairly decent balance. It doesn’t include mob rule calling for firings, de-platforming, and de-monetization based on politics ideology. ZH is not crazy. They are neither always right nor always wrong. They have no greater or less or claim to Truth than anyone below God.

qtplatypus 6y ago
The idea that what you say has consequences is a long held aspect of society.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Of course everyone will be judged by those around them based on how they act. The question is how far should we go in attacking, stigmatizing, humiliating, or financially damaging those around us for voicing an idea that perhaps we don’t agree with? I totally agree that it’s OK to hold people accountable. Answering speech you disagree with by voicing your disagreement and making the best counter-argument you can make. If someone says something that’s beyond the pale / beyond debate and just shameful, you can express your distaste and ask for an apology. Maybe someone says something you think is wrong and you take the time to see if you can teach them something new. Every disagreement has two people who both think the other person is wrong. But it’s a mob mentality that the most organized or radicalized side should be able to inflict the most pain on the “others”. There will obviously be the very exceptional case where an irredeemable idea meets an unrelenting bigot and perhaps such people must be ostracized for it. I’ve been fortunate enough to perhaps never have met such a person in my life.
  - qtplatypus 6y ago
    I have encountered people who I have needed to shun and remove from my life. Google is free to shun people, indeed due to their size and reach they are much more likely to encounter people who must be shunned then you or me.