Slashdot Mirror
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.
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).
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
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".
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Stop calling it the "alt-right". "Neo-nazi" is one character shorter and is more accurate.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
They won't care much.
Donald Trump just hired their CEO for his personal staff.
No sig today...
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.
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
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).
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Go there folks, meet your brothers !
Met those fuckers at Thanksgiving.
I'll wait til next year.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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?
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.