8 ms·

The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing.

by javery 10y ago

bitwize 10y ago
Unfortunately for the USA, we can't quash hate with the law, but we still can use social means.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Who gets to decide what 'hate' is? Breitbart claims it isn't: Breitbart responded saying it "has always and continues to condemn racism and bigotry in any form". The exchange refuses to say what triggered their action: "We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it," AppNexus's spokesman Joshua Zeitz told the BBC. "I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant." The article lists some headlines that they consider somewhat questionable, but you can easily google similar headlines focused on other groups from sites like the Huffington Post; e.g. "White People Are Too Dumb to Know They're Racist". Do you think we will see similar action taken against those such sites? Breitbart got its big start, I believe, from the atrocious hoaxes itperpetrated on ACORN, NPR, and other organizations to destroy their reputations unfairly. It has come a long way; it's now simply a very biased news organization that sometimes does decent reporting on undercovered topics. Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in? Do we want ad networks taking activist stances about news websites? Do we want everyone to have to pick a side? Do we want people's careers destroyed for holding relatively mainstream opinions that happen to contradict the majority opinion?
  - Bud 10y ago
    >Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in? Yes, this is the direction we as a society want to move in. The opposite direction from hate speech. A direction in which large commercial ad enterprises do not support neo-Nazi content and do not support neo-Nazis making a lot of money off said content; at least not on AppNexus' dime. This is precisely the direction we want to move in.
    - tomp 10y ago
      Can you cite any articles on Breitbart that are "hate speech"?
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      So all we have to do to silence someone is say they're a neo-nazi? Breitbart has strongly and repeatedly denied any association with hate, bigotry, neo-nazis, etc. Incidentally, Breitbart himself was Jewish, as is the CEO. Neo-nazi seems a particularly bizarre term to apply especially given for a site that was specifically started by Breitbart and Solov to be pro-Israel.
      - tomp 10y ago
        In addition, Milo, one of Breitbart's most famous journalists, is Jewish by ethnicity, gay, and self-reportedly loves "black dudes".
      - DasIch 10y ago
        Of course Breitbart claims that. Go to a prison and you'll see all the inmates claiming innocence. If this is the best argument you can up with I'd advice to not bring it up at all.
        striking 10y ago
        You're sure about that? 95% of federal convictions in 2004 were via guilty pleas. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=405 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=405
michaelmrose 10y ago
How about seeking alternative sources of revenue. Start your own ad exchange if you like.
_pmf_ 10y ago
> This doesn't seem like a good thing. Yes. You can stand towards Trump as you want, but he deconstructed the media in a textbook example of the Socratic method, for which we all should be a bit grateful.
Pfhreak 10y ago
White nationalism can still create and post content to the web. But there's no responsibility for other companies to financially support them. If a company like Breitbart cannot survive without Google's ad network, the onus is on them to figure out they can support themselves. Especially if supporting white nationalism undermines Google/Facebook's ability to hire and retain their own employees or impacts their reputation in a negative way.
- tomp 10y ago
  Isn't "fake news" and "white nationalism" mainly a smear used by the MSM (who are mostly on the loosing side of this election) against Breitbart?
  - exolymph 10y ago
    There is literally abundant fake news, primarily distributed through Facebook. Actual lies. [0] Whether Breitbart is abjectly white nationalist is more debatable, likely by design. [0] In the practitioners' own words: 1) https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.jxxn5nb49#.vwdbDb2E0 https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became... 2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?postshare=9591479391803912&tid=ss_tw https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11... 3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-j... 4) http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/ending-fed-trump-facebook.html http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/ending-fed-trump-facebook.h...
    - tomp 10y ago
      I was asking about fake news specifically on Breitbart. I know they exist online, even on "reputable" news sites like CNN (so probably Breitbart as well), but to claim Breitbart is infested with fake news is patently absurd.
superflyguy 10y ago
No, we're just staying in a world where if you want to benefit from other companies' infrastructure/investments you have to play by their rules.
kafkaesq 10y ago
The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing. Actually it's the world we've already been living in for quite some time. A world not flooded with pop-up ads for hardcore porn ads, for example (like the internet actually was, not too many years ago) -- but in which you're more than welcome to go to certain sites (whose names and URLs everyone knows) to blast your eyesockets with exactly those same images, 24x7, if that be your inclination. And it's not such a bad world, actually.

The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing.

by javery 10y ago

The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing.

bitwize 10y ago

Unfortunately for the USA, we can't quash hate with the law, but we still can use social means.

Amezarak 10y ago
Who gets to decide what 'hate' is? Breitbart claims it isn't: Breitbart responded saying it "has always and continues to condemn racism and bigotry in any form". The exchange refuses to say what triggered their action: "We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it," AppNexus's spokesman Joshua Zeitz told the BBC. "I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant." The article lists some headlines that they consider somewhat questionable, but you can easily google similar headlines focused on other groups from sites like the Huffington Post; e.g. "White People Are Too Dumb to Know They're Racist". Do you think we will see similar action taken against those such sites? Breitbart got its big start, I believe, from the atrocious hoaxes itperpetrated on ACORN, NPR, and other organizations to destroy their reputations unfairly. It has come a long way; it's now simply a very biased news organization that sometimes does decent reporting on undercovered topics. Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in? Do we want ad networks taking activist stances about news websites? Do we want everyone to have to pick a side? Do we want people's careers destroyed for holding relatively mainstream opinions that happen to contradict the majority opinion?
- Bud 10y ago
  >Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in? Yes, this is the direction we as a society want to move in. The opposite direction from hate speech. A direction in which large commercial ad enterprises do not support neo-Nazi content and do not support neo-Nazis making a lot of money off said content; at least not on AppNexus' dime. This is precisely the direction we want to move in.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Can you cite any articles on Breitbart that are "hate speech"?
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    So all we have to do to silence someone is say they're a neo-nazi? Breitbart has strongly and repeatedly denied any association with hate, bigotry, neo-nazis, etc. Incidentally, Breitbart himself was Jewish, as is the CEO. Neo-nazi seems a particularly bizarre term to apply especially given for a site that was specifically started by Breitbart and Solov to be pro-Israel.
    - tomp 10y ago
      In addition, Milo, one of Breitbart's most famous journalists, is Jewish by ethnicity, gay, and self-reportedly loves "black dudes".
    - DasIch 10y ago
      Of course Breitbart claims that. Go to a prison and you'll see all the inmates claiming innocence. If this is the best argument you can up with I'd advice to not bring it up at all.
      - striking 10y ago
        You're sure about that? 95% of federal convictions in 2004 were via guilty pleas. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=405 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=405

michaelmrose 10y ago

How about seeking alternative sources of revenue. Start your own ad exchange if you like.

_pmf_ 10y ago

> This doesn't seem like a good thing. Yes. You can stand towards Trump as you want, but he deconstructed the media in a textbook example of the Socratic method, for which we all should be a bit grateful.

Pfhreak 10y ago

White nationalism can still create and post content to the web. But there's no responsibility for other companies to financially support them. If a company like Breitbart cannot survive without Google's ad network, the onus is on them to figure out they can support themselves. Especially if supporting white nationalism undermines Google/Facebook's ability to hire and retain their own employees or impacts their reputation in a negative way.

tomp 10y ago
Isn't "fake news" and "white nationalism" mainly a smear used by the MSM (who are mostly on the loosing side of this election) against Breitbart?
- exolymph 10y ago
  There is literally abundant fake news, primarily distributed through Facebook. Actual lies. [0] Whether Breitbart is abjectly white nationalist is more debatable, likely by design. [0] In the practitioners' own words: 1) https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.jxxn5nb49#.vwdbDb2E0 https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became... 2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?postshare=9591479391803912&tid=ss_tw https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11... 3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-j... 4) http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/ending-fed-trump-facebook.html http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/ending-fed-trump-facebook.h...
  - tomp 10y ago
    I was asking about fake news specifically on Breitbart. I know they exist online, even on "reputable" news sites like CNN (so probably Breitbart as well), but to claim Breitbart is infested with fake news is patently absurd.

superflyguy 10y ago

No, we're just staying in a world where if you want to benefit from other companies' infrastructure/investments you have to play by their rules.

kafkaesq 10y ago

The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing. Actually it's the world we've already been living in for quite some time. A world not flooded with pop-up ads for hardcore porn ads, for example (like the internet actually was, not too many years ago) -- but in which you're more than welcome to go to certain sites (whose names and URLs everyone knows) to blast your eyesockets with exactly those same images, 24x7, if that be your inclination. And it's not such a bad world, actually.