Advertising Company AppNexus Bans Breitbart News Over Hate Speech (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson quotes a report from BetaNews: Right-wing website Breitbart -- the darling of the so-called alt-right movement (which it defines as being "younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist [and] terribly anti-establishment") -- has been blocked by a leading ad exchange. The site, home to Milo Yiannopoulos (also known as @Nero and banned from Twitter) will no longer be permitted to sell ad space via AppNexus. The move comes after an audit by AppNexus found that Breitbart was in violation of its policies on hate speech and incitement to violence. AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "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. 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." Bloomberg, which was the first publication to report on the news, noted that AppNexus' investors included Microsoft, News Corp and Sir Martin Sorrell's WPP.

Comments

Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Anonymous Coward]

So much hate everywhere on the internet. This isn't what the founders thought open communication would lead to. Very sad.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Alain Williams]

Most of what traverses the Internet is benign; but that is not newsworthy. Would you also complain about the clothing industry as crooks also wear trousers ?

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Joce640k]

They won't care much.

Donald Trump just hired their CEO for his personal staff.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Joce640k]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[hey!]

Historically, successful boycotts are economically unsuccessful. That is to say they don't force companies to comply because profits go down. Companies cave because the people who run them don't want to be associated with the target of the boycott.

One South African businessman remarked to me shortly after Apartheid was lifted that suddenly it was OK, maybe even cool to be South African. It was a tremendous relief not to have to have a defense ready whenever anyone asked him where he was from.

So by all means target Slate and HuffPo. But remember that what matters in a boycott is shame. If you can convince people it's more shameful to be associated with Slate than it is with Breitbart, you win. If not, you'll lose.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[CaptainDork]

You seem to have free speech down; need work on criminal activity.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[phantomfive]

So much hate everywhere on the internet. This isn't what the founders thought open communication would lead to.

I'll bet they thought about it. Fulvia stabbing the tongue of Cicero is surely something they knew about. The level of hate we see is not historically high.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[MightyMartian]

They are a noisy little sliver, perhaps, but they have mastered the way of making a lot of noise.

Part of me wants Trump to succeed, because the last thing the world needs is a really shitty president. The other part of me wants him to fail, because his fall would pretty much kill the Alt-right.

What will likely happen, of course, is something in between. He'll evolve into a typical president, not as bad as the worst, almost certainly not as good as the best. People bitch about "elites" and about the "old guard" and such, but any student of history understands the pressures of governance remain largely the same regardless of the team jersey that government is wearing. There have been a few times when leaders have been able to make transformative changes, but while there have been some examples of how that has lead to great good (like the Glorious Revolution and the American War of Independence), they have just as often lead to great ills (like Mao and Hitler).

As to the Alt-right, whether they like it or not, it looks like their primary channels of communication are beginning to react to the criticism that they allowed the lunatics to run the asylum. Without Facebook and Twitter, they really will lose their primary means of spreading their word. Whatever peoples' feeling on the mainstream media, I see no indication that Breitbarts and the like are becoming the new voice of the people. They remain largely niche players, echo chambers for the Alt-right, and not places to broadcast a message that will outcompete the rest.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[king neckbeard]

The traitors are the people Snowden and Manning exposed. Neither did anything to harm national security, as our national security was already compromised to the point that it was a net negative.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Cederic]

They aren't banning them for hate speech though. They can't provide any examples and they aren't banning 5000 other websites that post comparable or more hateful articles.

So they're lying, they're pushing a hidden agenda and they're demonstrating that they can't be trusted in a business relationship.

I hope they fail.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[jedidiah]

Don't kid yourself. This is exactly what they thought it would lead to and they actually had no problems with it. It's the current crop of liberal snowflakes that think the world needs to be censored.

The old school liberals had more sense.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[ClickOnThis]

No matter what you think of Snowden or Manning, they are not traitors. Criminals perhaps, but not traitors.

Treason can only be committed by aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. That hasn't happened since 1942.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

They can't provide any examples and they aren't banning 5000 other websites that post comparable or more hateful articles.

I'm sure they "can" provide examples, they just choose not to.

Since they acted after receiving a complaint about Breitbart and conducted an audit, how about you report some of those 5000 other hate web-sites you believe they're running advertisements on. See what happens.

So they're lying, they're pushing a hidden agenda

You have zero evidence to support those conclusions.

For example, maybe they just aren't interested in having a never ending debate with the alt-right nutter brigade about what constitutes hate speech, and simply wish to disassociate themselves from a group of people promoting hate, bigotry, and misogyny to avoid potential backlashes from advertisers who don't want to be associated with that sort of filth.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[rtb61]

All that is happening is main stream media is attempting to shut down all competing independent media sites by cutting off advertising, so you can get doubleclick will not be far behind. Problem is independent media is a lot cheaper to produce and can quite simply out last main stream media. Although main stream media will get the majority of corporate controlled advertising dollars, they have a shrinking audience and their advertisers will not be pleased to spend money on fuck all and will be forced use independent advertising agencies that work the the independent media organisation. So main stream media with billions in costs, paying wildly ego bloated individuals ludicrous amounts of money, will all of it sudden find collapsing revenues and being unable to pay to keep those bloated organisations going and collapse into bankruptcy, leaving nothing left but independent media organisations. Keep in mind those independents can shrink back to part time without much different and quite a few already have substantive media war chests.

All the bullshit about RT and Sputnik, is just that bullshit to smear over the attack on independent media, that RT and Sputnik reach out to independent media as viable sources, is the only reason they are attacked. Although RT wants to pretend they are under threat, they know it is all pretty much just camouflage for censorship targeted at, ALL, independent media sources.

People find independent media, only because they are actively looking for it, except of course when the idiots at main stream media want to attack independent media sources and give them tons of free advertising and their own disaffected viewers. Those viewers who sought out independent media will not go back to main stream, they will simply seek out other independent media channels.

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[Barsteward]

unfortunately empty vessels make the most noise of the irritating kind

Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list.

[andyteleco]

Completely agree. It's the same "male privilege" arguments that feminists use to justify passing more and more misandric laws. Nowadays being a straight white male puts you in the lowest rung (unless you're rich of course) as you can't use the "racism", "sexism" or "homophobia" cards in your defense.

Of Course

[Kunedog]

Restricting free speech is what the "hate speech" designation is all about.

Re:Of Course

[K. S. Kyosuke]

This is not a free speech restriction. According to right-wingers, companies should have great freedom in deciding what commercial transactions they would engage in. This is nothing more than one company deciding not to engage in a commercial transaction with another company.

Re: Of Course

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's pretty much been 100% about suppressing dissenting political speech in every single instance, in every single culture since humans started writing. But go ahead, and believe that suppressing political speech is good, because only the opposition has "hate speech".

Re:Of Course

[RobinH]

The only argument that can support a hate speech law is one that blocks "incitement of violence" similar to the idea that shouting fire in a crowded theater is an action you took to harm people, not expressing an idea. If the law blocks someone from saying "I hate Christian/Muslim people" then the law is wrong and over-reaching - that should be covered under freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If the law stops you from saying, "Join with me! Let's go round up Christians/Muslims and string them up!" then the law is reasonable and justified.

The fact is that an ad company isn't a government organization and can make whatever rules about content that they want. It doesn't make or enforce laws. If they want to use a "3rd party" blah blah blah, then that's their choice.

Re:Of Course

[Xyrus]

Sure it is. Just keep telling yourself that whitey.

Regardless, freedom of speech has no bearing here. This is a private company. They can do whatever they want, including banning alt-right hate sites like Breitbart.

Re: Of Course

[jmac_the_man]

This is nothing more than one company deciding not to engage in a commercial transaction with another company.

Good thing Milo isn't getting married, or we (and more importantly, the government) would have to chase AppNexus out of business.

Re:Of Course

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. There is no equivalence here.

A business has no more right to deny service to a gay person any more than they do for someone of color. It's not an "ideology" issue, it's an issue of hate.

A business does have the right not to do business with organizations who peddle hate speech. That is an ideology issue.

The right wingers today have such a persecution complex and cry about "hypocrisy" when you really simply have no clue.

Re:Of Course

[msauve]

Sure, they have a right to do business with whoever they want. Well, except all those laws which say you can't discriminate. And whatever contractual relationship was already in place between the parties.

But they should at least be honest about it, instead of trying to spin it as some righteous, objective, morally justified action instead of the political one it is.

Re:Of Course

[hey!]

The key element of hate speech is threat. Consider the difference between defacing someone's wall with your graffiti tag and defacing it with a swastika when the owner of that wall is Jew. They are not the same crime because the intent is different.

So in this case people may claim that it is "hate speech" that is inciting the ban, but more likely it is merely hateful speech, which is not illegal. It is not illegal to say you hate blacks. It is illegal to burn crosses on their lawn. It is certainly not illegal to express hateful opinions of Muslims, otherwise we'd have jails overflowing.

All of this is moot because we're talking about a private company that has it's own reasons. So really what you should be talking about is whether hateful speech should enjoy legal protection from private discrimination, like religious opinion does.

Re:Of Course

[s.petry]

Breitbart is a media site with numerous articles by numerous reporters with numerous slants. Claims like "alt-right" have become tools of silencing people with a different agenda than the primarily Liberal/Leftist/Progressive MSM is what they see as a threat. This article is linked on Breitbart, which MSM originally reported on the "Hate Crime" but not so much on the finding of false accusation. It did not fit their agenda but does fit a Republican, and quite frankly should be "news" for everyone.

False accusations abound against Republicans, Trump supporters, and white males. You can find at least 2 other cases which were reported by MSM as hate crimes and anti-Trump supporters which where the original claimant is being charged with falsifying a police report. One for a robbery which never occurred, and another for a beating which never occurred. Meanwhile, there are actual murders and beatings of Trump supporters which MSM happens to ignore.

Hate speech is being used as a broad way of stifling dissent, and people really should be appalled.

Re:Of Course

[Bing Tsher E]

And, thus, private bakeries can choose who they will make cakes for, correct?

Re:Of Course

[amiga3D]

They're only appalled by that whicy they disagree with.

Re:Of Course

[hey!]

Well, I don't disagree that there are false narratives all around, which is why I often find myself in the role of wet blanket among my fellow left-wingers. The truth is bad enough.

But if you only see the falsehoods perpetrated against *your* side, then it's a fair bet that the falsehoods perpetrated *by your side are doing their job.

Re:Of Course

[CaptainDork]

This.

That's how they got Paula Deen.

She had signed an agreement that said, essentially, "You fuck with our revenue stream, you're fired."

She is not in jail; there is no court date; she was not assessed a fine; she is not on probation.

To this day, she is free to continue saying that which she had been saying.

Her freedom of speech is preserved.

The single purpose of a business is to create profits that are upwardly asymptotic.

Re:Of Course

[penguinoid]

Yes, it is about free speech. The only free speech is anonymous speech, because only then are there no consequences. For non-anonymous speech, the more people fear consequences, the more they will self-censor. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for speech, only pointing out that such consequences make people less free to speak their minds.

Re: Of Course

[MightyMartian]

I doubt AppNexus gives a flying fuck about a few cranky alt-right goons.

Re:Of Course

[MightyMartian]

Because denying business to a gay man is totally the same as refusing business to a news aggregator site.

Re: Of Course

[MightyMartian]

Is Breitbart a protected class? By what definition? If I refuse to sell advertising in Breitbart I'm violating Breitbart's civil liberties, is that what you're trying to say?

The scope of civil rights legislation is pretty narrow; it deals with traditionally disadvantaged or persecuted groups of people based on identifiable characteristics like skin color, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. How could it ever include one business deciding to terminate a business relationship with another business?

Again and again, we see how the Alt-right seem to believe that the intent of civil liberties is to remove consequences, not in fact to assure equality. The alt-right wants to argue that the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment, not only confer freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of speech.

As to businesses being forced by statute not to discriminate, the Supreme Court upheld both Civil Rights Acts a long time ago, so whether you agree with it or not, it has well over half of a century of jurisprudence behind it. Yes, governments can make certain groups protected where that group can be demonstrated to have been historically disadvantaged. I guess you can try to argue that your Nazi buddies are a disadvantaged group, but the notion of unfair disadvantage isn't just that people hate your fucking guts and don't want to be in the same room with you, but also that they hate your fucking guts unfairly. There's not unfair about being biased against Nazis.

Re:Of Course

[LynnwoodRooster]

I find your hatred of Islam to be troubling. After all, Allah calls for his followers to shun and even kill all homosexuals - and you refuse to allow people of the Islamic faith to exercise their religious rights to avoid homosexuals. Or Jews. Or people who converted from Islam to other religions.

Re: Of Course

[AmiMoJo]

There was a "gay cake" case in Ireland recently. The judges pointed out that the baker could have refused if the shop had advertised itself as a Christian bakery. There are exceptions for religions that allow them to discriminate, e.g. women aren't allowed to do certain jobs in most branches of Christianity and that is legal in the EU, which is where the Irish equality rules are derived from.

Is the same thing applicable in the US?

Re:Of Course

[s.petry]

And exactly what "right wing" false claims are you talking about? That Open Borders being pandered by the Progressives is bad for the country as a whole (security, economics, social welfare)? Perhaps the claim that we should be vetting immigrants from Syria and blocking those we can't is a false claim? Those two items alone are getting people on the Republican side labelled xenophobic, islamophobic, and anti-Hispanic.

So what false claims can you show me that the Republicans are perpetrating against the Progressive left? I won't hold my breath for answers, but you should consider holding yours while you actually find some (and it must be a real claim, not "jo schmo is a nazi bigot" like we are constantly hearing").

Re: Of Course

[s.petry]

Those are 2 who are being prosecuted for falsifying police reports, most are claimed to be false and seem to lend themselves to a Leftist agenda. You people on the left would claim that there are no facts on any other case, so I gave the 3 immediately found which are provably false.

Re: Of Course

[MightyMartian]

Because your theory worked so well in the Jim Crow south. Oddly enough the the Thirteenth Amendment and the defeat of the Confederacy didn't suddenly make an extremely disadvantaged group magically equal in fact.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant of American history, and not actually one of the current batch of American Nazis trying to white wash (pun intended) bigotry.

Re:Of Course

[Cederic]

No, discrimination does not require a power imbalance. Stop talking utter fucking shit.

Not to mention your inherent contradiction: "The media [...] have little to no power" means you're staying that Breitbart has little to no power. Even under your fucked up interpretation of discrimination it would count.

Summary: go and get an education before posting such nonsense in the future

Re: Of Course

[Cederic]

Is cupcake meant to be an insult?

I think it's a compliment. Who wouldn't want to be thought a fluffy self contained treat that's sweet and the ladies find tasty?

Count me in!

Re:Of Course

[hey!]

If you can't see it, I won't play that game with you. There is no argument or evidence that trumps desire to believe.

But if you ever want to be truly free, learn to be critical of information that is "good".

Re:Of Course

[jedidiah]

I'm not sure if it's the "fascists" or the "communists" that are more willing to use the corporate label as an excuse to ignore an ideal. The Bill of Rights expresses not just limitations on the federal government but also an ideal that a lot of people clearly don't believe in.

That's probably why the founding states insisted on their inclusion.

Re: Of Course

[lgw]

Keep telling yourself that; keep dismissing a third or so of America as sexist, racist, and unimportant. That's the surefire way we get Trump 2020.

Re:Of Course

[lgw]

Yes, denying access to a leftwing political agitator is totally the same as denying access to a rightwing political agitator. What's your point?

Re: Of Course

[Miguelito]

Because your theory worked so well in the Jim Crow south.

I love when people bring up Jim Crow in these cases about the free market.. Jim Crow laws were the antithesis of freedom, they were gov't forced segregation. Ironically, put into place by the Democratic party.

Re:Of Course

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Restricting free speech is what the "hate speech" designation is all about.

Whose speech was "restricted"? This particular advertising network simply decided they no longer wish to sponsor this specific speech given the possibility that other advertisers would refuse to purchase ads through their network so as to avoid being associated with this sort of filth.

Yet if you load up Breitbart.com tonight, their hate speech is still blaring away, going strong. So no speech has, in fact, been restricted--someone just told a group of obnoxious braying jackasses they're no longer willing to sponsor their braying.

Seems fine to me.

Re: Of Course

[Raenex]

Again and again, we see how the Alt-right seem to believe that the intent of civil liberties is to remove consequences, not in fact to assure equality.

Again and again, we see the Ctl-left seem to believe that the intent of civil liberties is to impose their views on others, not in fact to assure equality.

Re:Of Course

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I agree that this is a good reasoning for protection of anonymity when people desire to exercise it.

Re:Of Course

[Xest]

"And exactly what "right wing" false claims are you talking about?"

All of them I imagine.

Re:Of Course

[strikethree]

But if you only see the falsehoods perpetrated against *your* side, then it's a fair bet that the falsehoods perpetrated *by your side are doing their job.

I think I found the +6 insightful comment for this year.

Why don't people reverse their conclusions and see if they still make sense the other way? *sigh*

Each person is the center of the universe.

Re:Of Course

[s.petry]

Notice that none are provided.

Re:Of Course

[Xest]

So let me get this straight, you're a "Senior Systems Engineer/Architect", and you can't use Google or news websites, therefore you believe none exist?

Seriously?

How have you not been fired yet if you're that stupid and that incompetent?

GP is right, you're so far into the propaganda zone that you believe the insanely ridiculous idea that no right wing lies exist? That's astoundingly ignorant, I doubt you'll heed it, but hear this in case there's some dwindling hope for you, I'm telling you now; with a comment so obviously nonsensical you're so far into your self-created echo chamber that you have an astoundingly distorted view of the world, and desperately need to take a step back and consider that you might be wrong about some things, that you might have been misled about somethings, and that you've become an unquestioning mindless zealot for your cause.

Good luck, you'll need it stuck that far in the propaganda machine - and that applies to anyone in your situation, whether right or left, this aint a partisan issue, it's an issue of folks like you being screwed up with propaganda to the point of utter absurdity where even someone making a balanced non-partisan argument is "the enemy" like the GP was. Politics isn't broken because of the politicians, it's broken because voters like you put tribalism over rationality.

Re:Of Course

[s.petry]

Since you can provide no examples of a vast right wing conspiracy, you are simply a shitty troll. Exemplified by the fact that instead of doing work to provide any example you spent 5 minutes ranting out a personal attack.

Thanks for showing who you are, you useless shill.

Re:Of Course

[Xest]

It really only takes a few seconds to view any number of fact checkers that highlight precisely why you're wrong, and that can evidence any number of right wing falsehoods being peddled. There is no conspiracy, just malace and a will to push political ideas through lies, because people just don't like what you're selling when you try and sell it based on the facts of your argument.

The fact you didn't do that, and spent longer writing a response is precisely why you'll always be stuck in your ignorant echo chamber, unable to accept even the most moderate of arguments, bound to extremism through your wilful ignorance.

You no doubt hate people passionately like those in ISIS, and yet there you are, a victim to the exact same kind of brainwashing from the other side of the fence. If only you saw the irony of your position, yet doing so would conversely mean you were smart enough to just not be in that position in the first place. If you want to know how anyone ends up in an organisation as sick as ISIS, then you only have to look at the fact your first response was to try and attack me back, rather than to actually do even the simplest bit of research into right wing lies.

Call me a troll or shill or whatever all you will, it wont change the fact you're wrong. Unfortunately for you, reality denial doesn't actually change reality.

Re: Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

remember a decade ago when the anti-American progressives were chanting "dissent is patriotic"? Funny now that they're in panic mode and desperate to suppress dissent.

Narrative Pushing

[Kunedog]

Can't admit that HIllary lost because of real news (like her rigging the primary) reported by Wikileaks, and that CNN/etc exposed themselves as fake news outlets by trying to bury that story (and a hundred others).

Re:Narrative Pushing

[EmeraldBot]

Can't admit that HIllary lost because of real news (like her rigging the primary) reported by Wikileaks, and that CNN/etc exposed themselves as fake news outlets by trying to bury that story (and a hundred others).

While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point). There's a very good reason we don't allow news services that kind of power, and while I'm glad we finally got confirmation about it, let's not cheer it on to the point where this becomes normal.

Almost all the rest of Wikileak's news on the election was absolute garbage too, and one great scoop doesn't excuse months of lies, outright lies, stories we already knew, and some plainly pure bullshit.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[klingens]

While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point).

Wrong. Whoever hacked the democrats, did so illegally. Wikileaks itself didn't do anything illegal by receiving the resulting data. Otherwise. Otherwise all the News Services like CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. would all be criminally liable as well when they released the Snowden Papers, the files from Manning, even back to the Pentagon papers etc.
When it helped the media and served their political narrative, they welcomed wikileaks. Now that they don't like what is leaked they, and you condemn it. Hypocrites.

Wikileaks didn't change, the media did, even when Assange has an obvious agenda: he always did.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[Anonymous Coward]

Project Veritas proved that to such a standard that the DNC may be charged under RICO under the next administration.

They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years.

But as a liberal, you are immune to logic and evidence, so enjoy your false reality while it lasts.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[EmeraldBot]

While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point).

Wrong. Whoever hacked the democrats, did so illegally. Wikileaks itself didn't do anything illegal by receiving the resulting data. Otherwise. Otherwise all the News Services like CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. would all be criminally liable as well when they released the Snowden Papers, the files from Manning, even back to the Pentagon papers etc. When it helped the media and served their political narrative, they welcomed wikileaks. Now that they don't like what is leaked they, and you condemn it. Hypocrites.

Wikileaks didn't change, the media did, even when Assange has an obvious agenda: he always did.

The problem with Wikileaks is the line between editor and submitter is extremely blurred. Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks - it's the difference between CNN receiving an anonymous leak and actually hacking someone themselves and then claiming it was anonymous. If CNN actively worked with and helped to coordinate said hack, I'd hold them the same way I hold wikileaks.

As to wikileaks, no, not really. Early on, they did some really good work, especially with Snowdan's leaks in particular. They kicked off a massive debate about an issue of genuine importance, and they took a risk that no one else would. They took careful steps to ensure no one unnecessarily got hurt, including retracting unimportant info and keeping out the actually strategically important docs. Now, however, they clearly held onto this story for a long time, and they didn't release it because they thought he world needed to know - they did it because they wanted Clinton's ratings to drop. They didn't take info from a leaker and vet it, they dumped documents from shady people tied to a foreign government that were either of no importance or blatant propaganda, with only one major exception. I lost my respect for them because of shady journaling and no interest in their core mission goal, not because I disagree (or even agree) with their political views.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[peragrin]

The hate against hillary is strong. she is unlikable,and not a nice person either. I think most of the stories againist her are false and misleading, but I still don't like her. haven't liked since 1996. Still would rather have her and 4 more years as things are then Trump who will be building concentration work camps to house illegals and trashing the us government so hard financially it will take 2 generations to repair it.

Think about it this way. Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million people but soundly lost the electoral vote. Trump is a racist hateful bigot Who waited until after the election to try and pretend to denouce the alt-right hateful bigot. You know the ones are now running around the country going hail trump hail victory? (by denouce only his campaign denouced those people he himself never did before the election)

So many people would rather have Hitler than Hillary. that Hillary could only win the popular vote by 2 million. Hell I can't stand hillary but she is at least a politician.

Hopefully she finally realizes the only people who like her are her family and stops trying to be a policitian.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[EmeraldBot]

Project Veritas proved that to such a standard that the DNC may be charged under RICO under the next administration.

They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years.

But as a liberal, you are immune to logic and evidence, so enjoy your false reality while it lasts.

You are bullshit, they never bussed people around, and if you want to try that line then you better have a citation for it. But she did engage in some really shady practices around Bernie's campaign, in particular, working with the DNC to limit Bernie's debate time, and giving her an advantage before them. That was a story I thought was worth knowing about, even when we suspected it, it was important for it to be confirmed - and we know she did these because, well, they're preserved by email.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[johanw]

Trump is grateful the democrats pushed very hard the only candidate that he would be able to defeat.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[ArchieBunker]

Maybe not her but when the head of the DNC wanted to call out Bernie Sanders for being Jewish. Then after resigning guess whose campaign hired her...

Re:Narrative Pushing

[mrclevesque]

"They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years"

"But as a liberal, you ..."

"to such a standard"

What standard?

Re:Narrative Pushing

[guruevi]

Most sources for true journalists are "illegal", pretty much every company and government agency has policies against talking about anything going on internally.

Watergate-Deepthroat: Illegal to own in the US
Information on the Iraq war: Illegal to own in the US
Information on Guantanamo Bay: Illegal to own in the US

If you only want information available through official government channels, we wouldn't need news, we'd just wait for the next government approved message.

Re: Narrative Pushing

[Anonymous Coward]

You bought the fake news. Point me towards a racist thing trump has said in the last 20'years. You can't, because it's fake news. When you look at his actual statements, you will see a populist platform, not racism. He said deport illegals. That's not racism. He said to vet Muslim immigrants for terrorism ties before letting them into the country. That's not racism. The bowl of skittles? He said a few, not a large fraction. Keep digging through what he said, vice what's been reported, and you'll see who the consumers of fake news are.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[Bing Tsher E]

Godwin is out of style now, eh?

Re:Narrative Pushing

[rholtzjr]

Wow, your explanation doesn't even mention that this was the same tactic that brought down Nixon and the MSM of the time had no qualms using that information. Gotta call bullshit on the "obtained illegally" defense.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[CaptainDork]

Agree, and let's keep our eye on the ball.

It's the little round thing called, "blue-state poll-shy angry, bored under-educated white women."

That's the reason Clinton lost.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[CaptainDork]

Wikileaks didn't change ...

They did.

When they had dignity, they released material to the press to be vetted.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[mi]

Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks

Are you going to sincerely claim, Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat) would've continued his leaking details of an ongoing investigation to the media, had New York Times and Washington Post told him, sorry, we can not publish illegally-obtained information?

Re:Narrative Pushing

[LynnwoodRooster]

DWS talking about weaponizing Bernie's Jewish background. She was 100% in the tank for Hillary and did everything she could to ensure Hillary won the primaries. Say what you will about Priebus, but he at least played it neutral with the GOP field...

Re:Narrative Pushing

[LynnwoodRooster]

Not to mention 7% more African American votes and 8% more hispanic American votes. It was the decided rise of the "minorities" (women, blacks, hispanics) that elected Trump - yes, the "racist/misogynist" was put into office by a marked increase of votes by the minorities he supposedly hates.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[AmiMoJo]

They released recordings of these "admissions", similar to the recordings of the ACORN event that subsequently turned out to be carefully edited to mislead.

It's just more fake news. If the idea of someone admitting that they and their organisation had been rigging elections for 50 years on camera didn't tip you off, perhaps you should try asking for the raw, unedited footage.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[sycodon]

So then the leak of the Pentagon Papers in the 70's was NOT the greatest hour of the media since it was leaked illegally?

Re:Narrative Pushing

[CaptainDork]

It had nothing to do with "racist/misogynist."

It was all about change.

Clinton was Obama 2.0.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but it's not boring.

Re: Narrative Pushing

[Oligonicella]

Essentially, what you're saying is that pointing out that someone who is Jewish is involved with something or holds a position under contention is wrong? Bullshit.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[speedplane]

Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks - it's the difference between CNN receiving an anonymous leak and actually hacking someone themselves and then claiming it was anonymous. If CNN actively worked with and helped to coordinate said hack, I'd hold them the same way I hold wikileaks.

CNN works with administration officials, constantly asking them for anonymous leaks, which the administration gives on a selective basis. Often, this information is classified, and would be illegal to provide through official channels. This is not much different than Wikileaks actively abetting others to send them material.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[mrclevesque]

So she said if they got him to to be honest about his religious affiliations he would probably say he was an atheist that might help Hillary gain a few votes.

Why is that a problem?

Re:Narrative Pushing

[jedidiah]

No. She lost because the US is not a monarchy. She thought that she could get by entirely on her name but it takes a little bit more than that. Even on election night, the less deluded parts of the liberal media started to put it together. Hillary is simply no Obama. She's also no Bill. Her party connections and entitled attitude weren't enough.

Trump performed like Romney (or a little better). Hillary did not perform like Obama.

Hillary simply is no Obama. That's all there is to it.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, it was about change. Most of the US never recovered from the 2008/2009 recession - they are treading water. The labor participation rate is at a 40 year low. Most people aren't doing any better than 2008 - and we had a leadership that insisted everything was fine, and we needed to stay the course. It didn't sit well with the electorate in much of the US. So change was voted for.

With Clinton promising more of the same, and Trump a bit of a wildcard - apparently lots of people will take a gamble that could be good or bad (Trump) versus what they perceived as a continued bad (Clinton).

Re:Narrative Pushing

[LynnwoodRooster]

She wanted to use his Jewish ancestry to stir up religious divisions. That's what happened. Your question has been answered, but I guess you don't like the answer so will dismiss it.

Would it be OK for a Republican candidate to use a candidate's sexuality or religion to try to gain an electoral advantage? Would you whitewash that as well?

Re:Narrative Pushing

[CaptainDork]

It's a good thing.

America never forgave itself for slavery and the failure to convert the entire population to Christianity plus allowing the infusion on non-Christian cultures.

Add to that the shortsighted greed of CEO and shareholders, which directly caused the loss of jobs, and America gets angry.

Let's peg the needle all the way to the right and let America actually dance on the rim of suicide.

As someone pointed out earlier, Rome burned, but people still live there.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[mrclevesque]

"She wanted to use his Jewish ancestry to stir up religious divisions"

No, not at all, they were talking possibilities, in a private email exchange, and it was about the possibility of getting a question to Sanders on his beliefs, on the assumption Sanders would say he was an atheist and that wouldn't go over well with the average American voter.

"Would it be OK for a Republican candidate to use a candidate's sexuality or religion to try to gain an electoral advantage? Would you whitewash that as well?"

To use a real example, it's also not ok to use a private conversation between what's his name and Trump, on the possibility of him grabbing pussies, to gain an electoral advantage.

Re: Narrative Pushing

[racerx509]

You bought the fake news. Point me towards a racist thing trump has said in the last 20'years. You can't, because it's fake news. When you look at his actual statements, you will see a populist platform, not racism. He said deport illegals. That's not racism. He said to vet Muslim immigrants for terrorism ties before letting them into the country. That's not racism. The bowl of skittles? He said a few, not a large fraction. Keep digging through what he said, vice what's been reported, and you'll see who the consumers of fake news are.

Trump saying Judge Curiel's inability to impartially judge him in a court of law is the very definition of racism. It was a direct quote from Trump himself. You can also cite the many cases against Trump's properties unfairly discriminating against potential black tenants and the ad he took out in the paper himself calling for the death penalty of the central park 5. He's pretty racist.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/do...

Re:Narrative Pushing

[Stinky Cheese Man]

Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million people...

You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.

When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.

With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.

They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.

Re: Narrative Pushing

[Shane_Optima]

Trump saying Judge Curiel's inability to impartially judge him in a court of law is the very definition of racism.

Except no, no it isn't. It's not reasonable to ask or demand someone to recuse themselves for such a reason, but an allegation of bias has nothing to do with asserting that someone is biologically inferior. Replace "Mexican" (even though he wasn't, yes yes) with "Scientologist" or "Democrat" or something if you can't see how the internal logic of his statement, unreasonable as it was, had nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

One of the biggest reasons the left bungled this election, from what I could see, is they latched onto and doubled down on the stupidest possible attacks whilst ignoring the mountain of very reasonable and rational attacks at their disposal. The fact that the right wing wasn't able to see clearly on this matter either, shows just how hypersensitive politicians as a whole are when it comes to blunt, ill-conceived remarks that haven't been put through the PC filter. Almost no one I talked in person to thought the "Mexican" judge comments were racist, not even the former Obama supporters.

The rest of your post is, I'm sorry to say, undisguised witch hunt politics. I'm against it when people like McCarthy do it and I'm against it now. There were plenty of policy-based issues you could have focused on--specific immigration issues and a rejection of police reform--but instead the left chose to focus on sound bites and guilty-until-proven-innocent SJW tactics, and it turns out few people outside of the echo chamber care about this.

Not even Latinos really cared, it turned out. I think I read somewhere that Trump got more of the Hispanic vote than Romney did?

Re: Narrative Pushing

[mrclevesque]

"It's not unreasonable for Trump to ask for a judge that doesn't have these potential conflicts of interest."

I don't know that a judge who volunteers his time to make sure the law is respected when individuals are accused of illegal activities can be said to have a conflict of interest.

Re: Narrative Pushing

[mrclevesque]

I kind of agree with all you said, and I think it all applies to Hillary and her accusers too

Re: Narrative Pushing

[mrclevesque]

"It's not reasonable to ask or demand someone to recuse themselves for such a reason, but an allegation of bias"

I just checked quotes of what Trump said, and he didn't say the judge was biased, he said the judge has an "absolute conflict", which sounds like saying the judge should recluse himself according to the law.

Doesn't mean much, other than Trump is good at the kind of talk that technically isn't x but sounds like x.

Re:Narrative Pushing

[strikethree]

...and trashing the us government so hard financially it will take 2 generations to repair it.

Really? George W. Bush took the national debt from a mere 2 trillion to over 17 trillion... and you think Donald's forays into corruption will come anywhere close to that? He is a small time outsider. He can't possibly do anywhere near as much damage as the neocons did.

It will take a lot more than 2 generations to make up for that 17 trillion dollars. And that does not even include the 3 trillion taken directly from the taxpayers through the Savings and Loans thefts that his brother, Neil stole.

Re: Just call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

Label others to dehumanize them so that you can justify destroying them without guilt.

You are the Nazi.

Simple TOS Violations

[Jzanu]

Early internet had these often, this is just the company enforcing policy that all customers and all distributors agreed on when registering. Breitbart violated their agreement.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Z80a]

In the TOS they define what is hate speech?

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Jzanu]

For starters hate groups violate their corporate mission statement, which is very public.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[pjt33]

What do you mean by "early Internet"? Even the early Web was almost entirely non-commercial and unencumbered by ToS.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Jzanu]

LIke this where in 1994 and 1997 AOL was involved in disputes over selling member information.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[publiclurker]

we certainly couldn't let people like you do something like that, could we.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[ArchieBunker]

Haha you think AOL was the internet back then?

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Jzanu]

No, but the legal challenge is an example of an early enforcement of TOS policy.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Z80a]

Well, hate speech is something that is quite up to interpretation and a bit vague, and well, while on the case of breitbart they probably deserve it, it could be abused to remove whatever they want.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[iggymanz]

they did? links to their violations please.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Jzanu]

Look at the BBC article for several examples. Human testing means there isn't a log, it was a judgement call to uphold the value of their firm for their actual customers.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[iggymanz]

I see the few sensationalist sounding headlines in the BBC article, would have to see actual articles.

Let's take this one:

"The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off"

I've seen the type of rabid feminist who whines that anyone who disagrees with them is harassing them. That headline is good advice for them.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Koby77]

"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." ---- that's because there are no examples out there. If a site is really problematic, then putting out ANY number of examples should be trivial.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[iggymanz]

Tens of millions of people think it *is* acceptable. The site and that movement thrive on being edgy and counter-mainstream, against political correctness.

Your definition of "diversity" is flawed, by the way since it excludes about half the populace at least.

Re:Simple TOS Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, pretty much:

Content that depicts, contains, or provides access to hate speech: gesture,
conduct, writing, or display, including but not limited to anything that may
incite violence or prejudicial action against a protected individual or group.
Anything that disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The
law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender,
nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or other characteristics.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[aliquis]

Even if I were a Nazi claiming I'm a Nazi isn't a counter argument by itself.

Sure I hate a lot of people and idea. The left do to.
Sure I don't want a whole bunch of immigrants in the country (the left doesn't really either, like, ask them if they want nationalist east-Europeans, Russians or maybe even work immigration, or ask the Muslims if they want non-Muslims in their land.)

So fucking what?

This is Sweden. It was inhabited by Swedes. Swedes owned Sweden. Sweden was supposed to be a democracy One way or the other the will of the people should had ruled the nation. Today they call that populism just like you call the alt-right Nazis and as such want to make the case that it's wrong because of that. How the fuck is the will of the people wrong because it's the will of the people?

The way I see it is that the time they stopped listening is the time their mandate to rule the nation on our behalf ended.

I don't give much/any benefit to the fact that they let the immigrants in, that they gave them permanent residency permits and citizenship and that they added a bunch of positive human-rights to our constitution, put multiculturalism in there and if they decided for incredible stupidity in doing the childrenÂs convention part of it. As long as that wasn't argued and supported by the people.

I don't see the right of theft or slavery no matter whatever you even voted for it or wrote it down in your law.

Re: Just call a spade a spade

[Jzanu]

Nazi party created by Hitler is illegal for reason that it systematically killed at least 18 million people and caused massive industrial warfare on a scale not seem before or since.

Violence or discrimination?

[Feyshtey]

AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "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.

But they're not concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups? Interesting.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[Jzanu]

Displaying pornography or violence are also TOS violations.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[thesandtiger]

Stating specifically what they are concerned with in this particular case doesn't state that they aren't also concerned with other behaviors if they see them. They mentioned the specific behaviors they found problematic in this case.

However, by all means, if you see advertisers on this network engaging in hate speech against majority groups, you should bring it to their attention.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[AmiMoJo]

That's what we call an unwarranted conclusion.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[DogDude]

violence or discrimination against non-minority groups?

Oh, is that a new thing that somebody just invented? Somehow, the people with no power are picking on the majority, who have the power? How does that work? Are there any examples in recent history of the poor, oppressed, majority?

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[AmiMoJo]

Are there any examples in recent history of the poor, oppressed, majority?

What they mean by oppression is that equality laws negatively affect their ability to be asshats. Oh, and of course, feminists won't let them sexually assault people any more. Can't even grab her pussy these days.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[quantaman]

AppNexus's spokesperson Joshua Zeitz told the BBC: "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.

But they're not concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups? Interesting.

Actually they are "concerned with speech that could incite violence or discrimination against non-minority groups". They just didn't spell out that fact because it's obvious and irrelevant to why they banned Breitbart.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[Cederic]

No, because nobody has no power. And peope do attack groups not considered to be minorities. E.g. Feminists posting #killallmen

If that's not good enough for you, look at incarceration rates by gender. Incontrovertible evidence that men are discriminated against.

So not new at all, just glibly ignored by the special interest groups and the media.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[Cederic]

As someone you've almost described I want to be safe to walk through my local city without fear of police harassment based on discriminatory feminist policies.

Sadly I can't; I can be investigated for a hate crime for saying hello to someone. Or for not saying hello to them.

You may find that ok but I don't.

Re:Violence or discrimination?

[Cederic]

What about the mistreatment of men since prehistory?

Well done for your bigoted blinkered sexist disregard for half the population.

Third party standards

[swb]

Third party standards for hate speech? Are any of the "third parties" remotely neutral in their designation of hate speech? It seems like most of the groups invested in the idea of hate speech have strong political agendas themselves and often draw the line on hate speech well into grey areas that may not be hate speech.

Re:Third party standards

[PopeRatzo]

It seems like most of the groups invested in the idea of hate speech have strong political agendas themselves

What is the SPLC's political agenda? They list the New Black Panthers as a hate group right along with the alt-Right neo-Nazis. They've got muslims on the list, christians on the list and jews on the list.

Re:Third party standards

[hairyfeet]

To answer your question the political agenda of the SPLC is simple,it is to promote themselves so they can get more money.

After all if they don't have a new "bogeyman of the day" to shill for the press, why the press won't write about them anymore, and gasp! They might not be able to get those big fat donation checks anymore! You see the flaw in your logic is assuming its automatically a black/white issue and that one has to be beholden to a single political party, when looking at your typical SPLC list its pretty obvious they hate all religions and religious groups equally but their biggest goal is to label damned near every assembly of more than 4 people as a "hate group" so they have someone new to shill to the press because in the end? Their biggest desire isn't the favor of a political party, its good old fashioned money money money.

Re:Third party standards

[HanzoSpam]

Why don't you just tell us who isn't on the list? It might save a lot of time.

Re:Third party standards

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't think the KKK and white supremacists who call for black people to be subjugated or murdered as a hate group? Interesting bedfellows, GOP!

Re:Third party standards

[AmiMoJo]

Rather than concentrate on the ad-hominems, why not argue against their choices for the list? Regardless of who wrote it and for what reason, is it actually wrong?

Re:Third party standards

[Mashiki]

Third party standards for hate speech? Are any of the "third parties" remotely neutral in their designation of hate speech?

Likely no. In which case Breitbart is likely going to have a field day with their lawyers getting involved in it. If anything, their "third party groups" are probably along the same lines as Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" full of far-left groups that look right at home at your local antifa meeting. Of course, WAPO has no problems operating their own blacklist. Gee looks like WAPO is actually fake news now.

Re:Third party standards

[Raenex]

What is the SPLC's political agenda?

To be useful idiots.

SJW overdrive

[mojo-raisin]

It sure is nice for the entire Left to reveal themselves for the intolerant bigots they are.

Can I block all cookies from AppNexus? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.

Re:SJW overdrive

[EmeraldBot]

It sure is nice for the entire Left to reveal themselves for the intolerant bigots they are.

Can I block all cookies from AppNexus? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.

Sooo, here's your speech:

It sure is nice for the entire Right to reveal themselves for the raging socialists they are.
Can I block all cookies from DoubleClick? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.

Using an extremely vaguely defined political philosophy as an insult, pet alone the hilarious idiocy of thinking an ad network represents the entirety of said vaguely defined political philosophy. You know, from now on Slashdot, we're replacing "Left" and "Right" with "Apples" and "Mangoes". I may disagree with it, but I don't really understand how labelling someone as "Conservative" is an insult - and I believe all sides, every political philosophy, can agree this is stupid.

If it's the one thing people can still agree on, because apparently rational discussion and respect for other's opinions went out the door this year.

Re:SJW overdrive

[Jzanu]

Sounds good. So then is CDU/CSU a banana?

Re:SJW overdrive

[EmeraldBot]

Sounds good. So then is CDU/CSU a banana?

Sure, SPD can be a strawberry then. Substituting fruits makes this all sound like an argument between preschoolers - and to be honest, I feel like that's what we've all become at this point. I hope calling the CDU/CSU a banana helps at least one person realize how crazy this political cycle has become, and maybe we can start to show respect for each other, some day in the distant future I suspect, but still.

Re:SJW overdrive

[Ryanrule]

Fuck you nazi

Re:SJW overdrive

[Jzanu]

Perfect, this makes the grand coalition a fruit salad.

Re:SJW overdrive

[MightyMartian]

If they're so damned intelligent, why are the pining for jobs that will never come back?

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[PopeRatzo]

Even if I were a Nazi...

OK, not really a promising way to start a sentence, but let's see where this goes.

Even if I were a Nazi claiming I'm a Nazi isn't a counter argument by itself.

I think I know where this is going.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[Anonymous Coward]

Add Alternet and Upworthy to the list (aka the Alt-Left) HuffPo and their ilk spew so much hate.

Some things never change

[tomhath]

Nancy Pelosi tried to make a federal law that media outlets had to deliver the message she approved.

Re:Some things never change

[publiclurker]

in other words, people like you prefer it when your hate speech is uninterrupted since that makes it easier for you to pretend that it has some basis in reality.

Re:Some things never change

[reboot246]

In other words, people like you label anything you disagree with as "hate speech". Disagreement IS NOT hate. Are you able to understand that, or are you too thoroughly brainwashed?

There's more than one way of looking at the world, and yours is mighty narrow and spiteful.

Re:Some things never change

[publiclurker]

no son, that is not how the real world works.

Re:Some things never change

[quantaman]

Nancy Pelosi tried to make a federal law that media outlets had to deliver the message she approved.

The article you linked has a very different story.

This is all about legislation that was designed to:

“encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.”

Basically talk radio is overwhelmingly right wing and they were looking for ways to make it more balanced, possibly by finding ways to encourage more diverse ownership, or by something like the Fairness doctrine, where broadcasters have to offer time to opposing viewpoints. Note that radio is regulated by the FCC already, so this doesn't necessarily violate free speech (though it's certainly a point worthy of discussion).

Either way your post is a fantastic example of the subtler side of "fake news".

Yes, there's a very tenuous connection of the facts to "Nancy Pelosi tried to make a federal law that media outlets had to deliver the message she approved".

But that's a very, very heavy spin that contains lots of false implications, and most people reading only your summary would come up with a completely false version of events. If your comment were a news report I'd call it fake news, yet it's currently scored "+4 Informative".

Re:Some things never change

[jedidiah]

So finally the liberals decided that media consolidation is a bad thing. It's like suddenly how the Electoral College is a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when it generates a result that you don't approve of. This is blatant flaming hypocrisy.

While they are at it they can stop the megacorp acquisitions in other areas. This includes pharmaceuticals where this practice causes monopolies on drugs whose patents have long expired (think Skrelli). Telecom, Banks, and Insurance companies are also nasty examples of this.

Re:Some things never change

[lgw]

Nothing you said refutes his point. Talk radio was mostly delivering a message that Nancy Pelosi did not approve of. The law was designed to require that media outlets also delivered a message that she did approve of.

Re:Some things never change

[dgatwood]

The GP's point was fundamentally invalid, because the proposed law didn't regulate anything. The law gave the FCC the authority to create future regulations that promoted diversity in ownership if its commissioners determined that doing so would serve the public good.

Arguing that it was an attempt at banning right wing radio is like arguing that passing a federal law that allows states to pass laws that recognize gay marriages is a nationwide ban on Christians. It's pure and utter nonsense.

Breitbart Tech is good...

[Fragnet]

Breitbart Tech is excellent. Whenever I go there I head right to that section. The rest of it is fucking awful.

Re:wtf is hate speach

[Jzanu]

Yes. See Volksverhetzung.

Re:wtf is hate speach

[Jzanu]

Note that as usual Wikipedia is a poor-quality source with undisclosed bias. Here is the text of the law.

alt-white

[PopeRatzo]

Stop calling it the "alt-right". "Neo-nazi" is one character shorter and is more accurate.

Re:alt-white

[Orgasmatron]

Good work. An argument straight out of the manual

Re:alt-white

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. White nationalists are a minority among alt righters, and neo-nazis are a minority among the former.

Re:alt-white

[Gravis Zero]

Good work. An argument straight out of the manual

You should read about what they are actually doing. Doing the Nazi salute in all seriousness is a pretty good sign they are neo-nazis.

Re:alt-white

[Orgasmatron]

Here's the thing... alt-right is not a formal organization with dues and ID cards. The phrase doesn't even have a clearly defined meaning. There are lively debates going on about that right now. As far as I can tell, it refers to everyone willing to entertain right-leaning ideas that Bill Buckley condemned.

Here is one discussion on reddit's /r/The_Donald: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...

Basically, whenever the media doesn't like someone, they associate that person with David Duke. Not because anyone knows or cares what David Duke thinks, but because he's the go-to monster. But he's getting old, losing his smear value. Enter Richard Spencer... tomorrow's media boogey man.

A good fraction of Trump's voters are not ordinary conservatives, they are alt-right. That's hundreds of thousands of people at the least, and probably into the tens of millions. Compare that to the dozens of people at that conference.

So, while virtually everyone at that conference was alt-right, 99.99% of the alt-right was not there, and has no idea who Richard Spencer is.

I consider myself to be alt-right and have been for years, and if it wasn't for people condemning the actions at this conference, I probably never would have heard of this guy.

But as long as we are tarring whole groups with the brush of the craziest members contained in that group, we should probably have a chat about how the all Democrats are cop killers. Right? Right?

Re:alt-white

[GameboyRMH]

But they've given it a snazzy new paint scheme with pepes and such! The swastikas are almost completely covered.

Re:alt-white

[GameboyRMH]

The order of rarity is also the hierarchy, whether you realize it or not. I suspect most centipedes don't know they're being led around by a bunch of neo-nazis, they see them as an unfortunate group of hangers-on.

Re:alt-white

[PopeRatzo]

But they've given it a snazzy new paint scheme with pepes and such! The swastikas are almost completely covered.

Yep. A rebranded Nazi is still a Nazi.

Re:alt-white

[Gravis Zero]

Here's the thing... alt-right is not a formal organization with dues and ID cards.

When you have a gather or "alt-right" people and one of the speakers literally quotes Hitler and does the Nazi salute while the crowd also does the Nazi salute, it makes it crystal clear that they are neo-nazis.

alt-right = neo-nazis

Re:alt-white

[Sarius64]

Well shit. Who can repute logic like that? Other than your average 10 year-old...

Re:alt-white

[Xest]

I actually agree with you that neo-Nazi is an invalid designation, because it does indeed require adherence to a very specific ideology, and not all alt-right supporters agree with it.

What isn't an invalid designation though is far-right, and given that that term is already well understood, and does accurately describe the entirety of alt-right I'm not sure why, given that alt-right is against political correctness, and for calling a spade a spade, they don't just stick with this accurate and correct designation of far-right.

It's almost as if they know full well their views are despicable to the majority, and that they believe if they call themselves other than what they are that that makes it okay, but then that also makes them hypocritical in that they're creating a new PC term "alt-right" instead of just using the existing correct term, "far-right".

That's why it's really quite hard to take the alt-right movement seriously as anything other than a bunch of irrational far-right hypocrites, because there's no logic to the movement or the viewpoint when the name they use to identify in itself goes against one of their most precious beliefs - the idea of being able to call something what it is rather than hide behind PC terms like "alt-right".

Are you really so insecure in your beliefs and so naive that you think hiding behind alt-right somehow makes your far-right views less repugnant? Why are you so fearful of accepting your actual political leaning that you have to pretend it's something it's not by hiding behind an alternative name, much like how North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic when it's anything but? Reality distortion by restricting yourself to far right news? Angry but deep down know you're focussing it on the wrong things?

I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you justify the very hypocrisy at the core of your movement and why you don't have the courage to stand by your political beliefs objective designation and just call it what it is.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[Opportunist]

More nutsy than nazi. Most of what doubles as nazi in the US would have been subject to T4 in Nazi Germany.

repeating lies does not make them true son.

[publiclurker]

I know that your mommie told you you were special, but that is something that she just said. It doesn't mean that the real world manipulates itself so you can pretend that your ignorance has any basis

Re:Examples? Proof? Reasonable Argument?

[Jzanu]

You could try reading rather than responding emotionally without investigating anything, and feigning injury at the slightest imposition on your over-inflated ego.

minority group

[deleteit]

I think we need a new definition for that term "minority group". Because it cannot be speaking of Black or Asian people (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html), so who is this minority the bad men are being vile about ?

Re:minority group

[deleteit]

My bad, I was looking worldwide population (where Asians and Blacks are the top 2) not just US. But indeed the debate around Breibart is US centered, so my remark was misplaced.

Re:Examples? Proof? Reasonable Argument?

[Zurkeyon3733]

Look kids! Its a lefty that calls anything that argues with it a Nazi! Then Swears at them... How Original! But hey, Whatever helps you sleep better there bub! (FYI, you can feel the HATE in your reply... Need to Check yourself there Mr. Hateful! :-D )

Re: Just call a spade a spade

[Jzanu]

Capitalism is the best economic practice, but libertarians are idiots who don't understand the context of capitalism as functioning in a society and in the real world.

Re:Examples? Proof? Reasonable Argument?

[Jzanu]

So... you're trying to say your ~feelings~ get hurt by the use of language, while you disclaim the capacity for harm from the speech and action of others especially provocateurs who instigate violence against targeted groups?

Re:the headline should be NewsCorp bans Breitbart

[Jzanu]

Read the BBC article. It has several.

Re:Wait... so ... did I get that right...?

[Ryanrule]

What I leave in the toilet after beans and beer night is more accurate than breitbart

Re: Hate Speech

[Zontar The Mindless]

Calls for wanton destruction are not dissent.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[Jzanu]

You are a fucking idiot kid, you're not even a neo-nazi you're a shit-stain the underwear of the man who lit your decaying leader's body on fire after he shot himself.

Re:Examples? Proof? Reasonable Argument?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Look, kids---it's an APK sockpuppet!

So what

[johanw]

I only browse with an adblocker anyway. :-)

There's an important issue of principle here

[squiggleslash]

I have to admit to being somewhat concerned about this. For an advertising company to refuse to place its ads on a website infamous for fascist propaganda may seem welcome to many, but those who welcome it are ignoring something very fundamental about free speech, the web, and the power of advertising: namely, wouldn't it be more effective to flood Brietbart with hundreds of autoplaying audio-enabled videos instead?

Re:There's an important issue of principle here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, uh, a white supremecist website that scapegoats immigrants and minorities for all America's problems and promotes a strong leader to deal with them is totally anti-fascist, whereas Obama is a fascist because... you don't like him?

You're an idiot. And probably a fascist who just doesn't like the idea that such a negative word is used to describe policies you agree with, being under the impression it's the word that's bad rather than the opinions.

Re:I have a feeling

[Jzanu]

No, Trump's scheme is to trash the USA as a whole as fuel for his new line of swastika embroidered undergarments.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[aliquis]

.. to yet another useless stupid comment?

...poor-quality source with undisclosed bias...

[Freischutz]

Note that as usual Wikipedia is a poor-quality source with undisclosed bias. Here is the text of the law.

Why? It sounds to me like Wikipedia has got a pretty good translation of the gist of that law which is the paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the rest of what you linked to is mostly a discussion of what kind of jail sentences you are liable to get. My German may be a bit rusty but the Wikipedia translation is pretty accurate:

130
Volksverhetzung

Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:
1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

Where please, is the undisclosed bias in that literal translation of the Volksverhetzungs law? Or, for that matter, the discussion of the above text on the Wiki page which sounds pretty dispassionate to me? I keep hearing you alt-right trolls dropping drive-by accusations like this but just for once I'd like to hear one of you justify it.

Re:...poor-quality source with undisclosed bias...

[Jzanu]

You are a fucking idiot, read all of it you god damn retard. The presentation in the opening paragraphs dismisses the historical foundation and necessity for the law.

Re:...poor-quality source with undisclosed bias...

[Jzanu]

In deceptive practice wikipedia "cites" a reprinted article from 1960, ignoring the legal development and definition by limited application and overwhelming successful prosecutions since. Overview meaning is that the rights of those targeted are worth more as they are the innocent party, the ones acting to incite violence are the ones committed crimes.

Re:...poor-quality source with undisclosed bias...

[Bing Tsher E]

You started off seeming like you had a point to make, but your posts are degenerating into crapflooding. What a pity that you actually seem like you're making an effort to convey information in each post.

Re:...poor-quality source with undisclosed bias...

[Jzanu]

You need to learn about human dignity because it is the core of German law and the foundation for the valid definition of hate speech.

Re:...poor-quality source with undisclosed bias...

[Cederic]

I think the events of new years eve last year demonstrated that German law has no desire or intent to protect human dignity.

Try again.

third party == don't blame us

[fche]

"We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech"

Nice dodge. Not even willing to man up, state, and stand behind their definitions.

Re:third party == don't blame us

[GNious]

They don't have to - It's fully at their discretion.
You don't like that, go use another ad-network :)

Re:"discrimination" means "choice"

[Jzanu]

Go to hell you ignorant son of a bitch.

Another source?

[rholtzjr]

Simple solution, go to another advertising company. Oh there is not one? I smell a new start up for Thiel.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[TheRaven64]

Alt-left, alt-gr-right.

Re:I have a feeling

[Bing Tsher E]

Do you have any idea what kind of an idiot you are making of yourself?

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[Bing Tsher E]

Crapflooder confirmed!

Does your mother know what a potty-mouth she raised?

Re:"discrimination" means "choice"

[rholtzjr]

Geez, can someone mod this trash out of existence?

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[stinkyjak]

It only considers it as hate if the target object is a minority. IE... it is ok to hate white people(though we really are a minority).

Re:Wait... so ... did I get that right...?

[Opportunist]

Yeah, but that's true for pretty much everything out there today, and this turd is at least without ads.

Re:Sure BANKSTER

[CaptainDork]

Go there folks, meet your brothers !

Met those fuckers at Thanksgiving.

I'll wait til next year.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[RandomSurfer314]

There are both literally and metaphorically no white and black people, they exist in all shades from pale white to dark black. At least that's how it is where I live.

hate speech?

[iggymanz]

I went to the site and looked around hoping to find rabid offensive racism, how disappointing. What I found instead at least with recent articles was mostly constitutional conservatism, anti-globalism, anti-loose borders, anti-mainstream media.

But maybe there's juicier older articles?

Re:hate speech?

[iggymanz]

nah, I'd say Trump was result of running a Clinton instead of serious candidate. Same old establishment is what Democrats chose, to say nothing of Clintons being career criminals always weaseling their way out of investigations for decades besides Hillary's total disregard for national security and rule of law.

The Democrats need to get serious. They could crush Trump in four years if they do and get all Democrat voters energized

Re:hate speech?

[strikethree]

I went to the site and looked around hoping to find rabid offensive racism, how disappointing. What I found instead at least with recent articles was mostly constitutional conservatism, anti-globalism, anti-loose borders, anti-mainstream media.

But maybe there's juicier older articles?

I researched recently and noticed the same thing. Not my kind of site, but I got a troll mod for pointing out the same thing you did. I am guessing you will receive or have already received at least one troll mod too. It is like being punished for researching and not seeing the same thing that others apparently see. I apologize for not being indoctrinated.

I am guessing that this is another case of, "if you are not with us, you are against us" type crap. I am not "with" anyone. I am just a person who prefers to determine reality (facts) as accurately as possible and then leave the judgement for later.

And in case anyone cares, I don't care about Breitbart. They can disappear tomorrow and I would not care. I only investigated because of all the hate that is spewed about them.

Illegal embarassment

[mi]

There's a very good reason we don't allow news services that kind of power, and while I'm glad we finally got confirmation about it, let's not cheer it on to the point where this becomes normal.

Richard Nixon would beg to disagree. Not only do news services not disallow illegally-obtained information, using such is a fairly reliable way of getting a Pulitzer Prize. Especially, if the target is a RethugliKKKan, of course.

Had Assange embarrassed Trump instead of spraying water over Her Beautiful Wickedness, he would've been praised as a hero along with these guys.

one great scoop doesn't excuse months of lies, outright lies, stories we already knew, and some plainly pure bullshit.

Notable absence of any citations here...

Re: Illegal embarassment

[bestweasel]

Here's an example of the wacky world of Julian Assange:

John Pilger:
You get complaints from people saying, 'What is WikiLeaks doing? Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?'

Julian Assange:
My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win.

Re: Illegal embarassment

[mi]

Here's an example [johnpilger.com] of the wacky world of Julian Assange

So, he is wacky — not any more so, than the folks routinely comparing McCarthy with Beria, but wacky, yes. OP is still wrong about established news services shying away from illegally-obtained information.

Nor is this an example of "lies" or "outright lies".

I have no problem ...

[CaptainDork]

... with this.

I use Adblock Plus that blocks AppNexus, anyway, regardless of payee.

Re:Joshua Zeitz = another pushy Jew.

[Jzanu]

You are a fucking idiot. In Germany it is normal with conscription.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[Jzanu]

You're a fucking idiot, seriously.

Overwhelming importance

[Okian Warrior]

The problem with Wikileaks is the line between editor and submitter is extremely blurred...

OK, that's definitely a problem with wikileaks. The line between editor and submitter is blurred.

The advantage of Wikileaks is that we find out about corruption.

Is one of these aspects of overwhelming importance?

Re: Overwhelming importance

[coteriescavenger]

His point was it's known that CNN and Hillary were conspiring together to control the message (i.e. brainwash you zombies). Their reason for releasing it doesn't change the fact.

It's worth noting, though, that WikiLeaks isn't pro liberal or pro republican, they're anticorruption. You're just so blinded by your ideology that you can't see the danger of achieving it through corruption.

Re: Overwhelming importance

[coteriescavenger]

Despite your best wishes Trump simply is not a part of any real corruption anywhere close to what Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have done, and appear to still be doing.

Re: Overwhelming importance

[coteriescavenger]

I did, and I'll tell you why. I've been following this election every day for months, going through the details, checking sources, and watching what was being reported on mainstream media (and not reporting). It's clear to the rest of the internet that the mainstream media can no longer be trusted for important decisions such as elections. You and a large part of the slashdot community have clearly been sheltered from the greatest case of government corruption since Watergate. This is the "fake news" that they're trying censure or discredit now.

I can say it with a straight face because it's beyond a doubt to be true. This is literally one of the last communities to realize it. Watching the mainstream media reveal its corruption over the last three months, you certainly won't hear a word about it from them except when their hand is forced, and then they only lie about the credibility of the information.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[Oligonicella]

Let's Play Pedantry!!! There is no "pale white" or "dark black". And not even where you live do humans range on the neutral scale. As for "metaphorically"? That one you simply missed as a metaphor is by definition (Oxford) "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable".

Re:Examples? Proof? Reasonable Argument?

[cshark]

I'm not touching this one.

...and a giant meh from most tech savvy folks

[fireylord]

To wit, hideous spamware/malware slinging racket bans something or other meaning we wont get to block said ads from said hideous spamware/malware slinging racketon website not many of us will visit anyway. ttfn ps. get a clue webmasters, you want people to accept ads on your webpages? Try this: sell, vet and host the adspace yourself, and be prepared to take full responsibility if you end up serving malware!

Re: Hate Speech

[coteriescavenger]

Who's called for destruction? Not Trump. BLM has, race baiters have, rioters have. Not Trump. You're on the wrong side of the fence this round, peacekeeper.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned lis

[Cederic]

You're the cunt putting arbitrary constraints on definitions to assure your precious narrative doesn't get damaged.

Hardly a position of integrity from which to be challenging others.

What is fallacious about acknowledging that "white" people are globally a minority?

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[sexconker]

63% percent of the US population is white. I urge you to get a lawyer and sue every math teacher you ever had.

I urge you to look up stats less than an eon old.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned lis

[coteriescavenger]

In a nutshell, it's a rapidly growing movement of mostly the younger generation that rejects traditional conservatism, but supports nationalism. It's largely taking place online and in Universities. At its core, it's a push back against SJWs, safe spaces, and racial politics, which is why it's being targeted by the establishment and being labeled racist and "fake news". Here's a video of milo yiannopolous honestly satirizing what it would take to destroy the alt-right movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Examples? Proof? Reasonable Argument?

[Falconhell]

Awww the Trump trolls got mod points, and did exactly what I wanted, wasted them on me, I can see you down there from atop mount karma. :)

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned lis

[raind]

Sounds like a typical AC ,

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned l

[coteriescavenger]

No.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[aliquis]

My usual reply to any Nazi-sympathizer association claim directed to me is that I'm not a socialist.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[aliquis]

NSDAP where socialist. Learn to accept it.

They were for national socialism rather than global socialism but they were definitely socialist.

And they didn't act all that different to other socialists, like the democratic people republic you mention.

As for the democratic peopleÂs republic of Korea it's a "people's republic" where the idea is that the people wants/benefits from a Marxist-Leninist system and hence it's in their interest and such a system is the "people's" choice or way. It is a socialist shit-hole. Just like all the others.

Seem like you actually get to vote in North Korea.
There's just one name on the ballot and you get the choice to be happy with that or go to a special booth to cross the person out if you don't want to vote for the person in question. You have to vote so .. It's a slight bit worse than the democracy we've got here in Sweden. Back in reality it has turned out that people care more about whatever they have competent rulers than whatever you got to vote or not. If you end up with a shitty government even if you voted people aren't happy .. I'm not suggesting the rulers of North Korea are good I'm just stating how it has turned out.

If communism (or Islam) was the best system people would be happy with it even if they didn't hadn't voted for it.

The largest problem with it is that it's not. Not whatever people got to vote or not. Though voting in North Korea doesn't change anything.

Marxism is trash. We already know that it perform awfully vs a freer economy and still a whole bunch of idiots want it because some people have done better than they have.

Re:Just call a spade a spade

[PopeRatzo]

NSDAP where socialist. Learn to accept it.

Are you trying to say "were socialist"? If so, how does that match up with their being anti-Marxist and anti-Communist?

Marxism is trash.

Nazis hated Marxism.

Look pal, I'm not going to pick on someone who got their political education from Glenn Beck's blackboard, and I'm in too good a mood to pick on someone as damaged as you, so I just want to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and to ask you, person-to-person, to please don't go out and do any Dylann Roofing this weekend OK?

Re:Go ahead and ban the most popular political sit

[Sarius64]

You only wonder that because your politicians lost and can't funnel money into your corrupt pockets. So fuck you.

In other words, leftist-derived standards.

[sethstorm]

We use a number of third-party standards

All of which are politically-driven and support racists - as long as they're of the correct leftist stripe.

BS!

[s.petry]

I gave solid examples of the Left fabricating stories about the right and you claimed that it happened the other way. Give me examples of what the Right is fabricating about the left.

I read tons of material, and everything I see coming out of the propaganda centers (leftist) is anti-right. I don't see Fox or Breitbart, the only 2 "Right" new centers, making crap up about the left. Show me, or you are full of crap. And "NO"! Baseless ad hominem and accusation does not work for EITHER side.

Re:BS!

[hey!]

I claimed that people spread lies all around, and that if you can't see the lies your own side spreads you're a dupe.

Re:BS!

[s.petry]

I explicitly requested examples, and you failed to provide a single one. Astounding (not really)

Re: Hate Speech

[cshark]

This whole thing is privately funded censorship. We would all be hypocrites for supporting it.

Which 3rd party standards?

[Reziac]

Perhaps the SPLC? by that standard, ordinary decent Americans are hatists if they happen to be white and don't think they should be exterminated.

Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list

[andyteleco]

It's really interesting to see Zuckerberg (jew) giving green light to this kind of speech.

Re:Here, have some of these

[CaptainDork]

lol