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.

3 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list. by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ?

  2. Re:Of Course by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:Narrative Pushing by klingens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.