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.
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 ?
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
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.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Trump is grateful the democrats pushed very hard the only candidate that he would be able to defeat.
Good work. An argument straight out of the manual
See that "Preview" button?
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.
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!