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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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!