Google Bans 200 Publishers From Its Ad Network (recode.net)

Since it passed a new policy against fake news, Google has banned 200 publishers from its AdSense network, an ad placement service that automatically serves text and display ads on participating sites based on its audience. "The ban was part of an update to an existing policy that prohibits sites that mislead users with their content," reports Recode. From the report: Not all 200 publishers were swept up as part of the effort to root out fake news sites. Publishers were banned in November and December and included sites that impersonate real news organizations through shortened top-level domains, according to Google's 2016 "bad ads" report, normally released at the beginning of each year. So-called fake news publishers will sometimes take advantage of ".co" domains by appearing similar to legitimate news sites that would normally end in ".com." Google declined to provide a listing of the banned sites. Separately, the annual report on violations of advertising policy also included data on ads removed by Google. The company reported that in 2016 it took down 1.7 billion ads for violations, compared to 780 million in 2015. Google attributes the increase in ad removals to a combination of advertiser behavior and improvements in technology to detect offending ads. Also among those the removed ads were what Google calls "tabloid cloakers." These advertisers run what look like links to news headlines, but when the user clicks, an ad for a product such as a weight loss supplement pops up. Google suspended 1,300 accounts engaged in tabloid cloaking in 2016.

Comments

Re:CNN?

[silentcoder]

Cussing out a federal agency or not is not a measurement of degree of bias. It is merely indicative of a key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to respect authority, it's considered a key value to them. Liberals tend to question and be critical of authority.

There are a number of such key value differences between conservatives and liberals - and strong science to back up that concept.
Conservatives tend to value in-group loyalty extremely highly. Hence conservatives tend to be anti-immigrant and generally don't mix much with people of different cultures or values or ethnicities. They say things like "take care of our own first".
Liberals on the other hand tend to attach almost no value whatsoever to in-group loyalty, it's just not a value they care about. So they'll form their social groups across any and all lines, they'll care equally for a sick child of a neighbour or the sick child of an immigrant - they don't see a difference.

Conservatives are, in general, far more anxious than liberals - they simply are more afraid (so the whole "snowflake" and "safe space" thing is doubly-stupid) - and you can see that in the way so many conservative arguments are framed around "the threat". Conservatives argue we can't save millions of refugee lives because a few of the refugees may be terrorist - but even if we deem these the most astoundingly wonderfully effective terrorists in history, and assume they can kill thousands - that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. The threat is tiny, so they don't focus on it - and besides the outcome even if the threat happens isn't that bad to them - since they don't value in-group loyalty that much the cannot consider "a thousand of our own" to be a greater loss than "millions of them". To a liberal - there is no "ours" or "them".

https://www.ted.com/talks/jona...

These are differences in fundamental morality. Note - not in LEVEL of morality. Both groups are highly moral - and indeed both believe the other to be entirely IMMORAL - but that's because the moral values they subscribe to are completely different.
So yeah, cussing out the FBI is not a big deal for a liberal - if they did something WTF-worthy then they deserve to get WTF'd. To a conservative it goes against that deep respect for authority moral - and so seems like a huge deal. Breitbart wouldn't run that because their readership would be offended. This is key to understanding the birther movement. Why was it so important to them to try and prove Obama was not a legitimate president - why would they cling to such an obvious piece of bullshit ? Because resisting the greatest authority in the land, despising him as much as they wanted to - well that goes against their morality, the only way to square the circle was to convince themselves his authority was not legitimate. You can see the inverse of the same process happening right now as Trump flat-out lies about crowd-sizes and TV-ratings, and denies having lost the popular vote on utterly spurious grounds. Why would he CARE ? He's president, the highest authority in the land. He won the election and he was inaugurated - why wouldn't he just be happy - why make such a big deal of those things ? Because he helped plant the seed that respect for authority only applies to legitimate authority, and anything that calls even the slightest question over the legitimacy of his authority (and certainly over the degree of mandate he got from voters) is perceived as a very real threat to him. He cannot imagine that anybody would obey him in anything if they think his authority is not absolutely 100% legitimate and mandated. Which is doubly quixotic fear because frankly the people who are resisting him couldn't care less. They would be resisting just as much if he HAD won the popular vote. They care about WHAT he is doing - they question authority, they don't respect it by default and how legitimate it is doesn't enter into the equation at all. The only reason they keep bringing it up is because of how nicely it gets under his skin.

So no, the cussing is entirely unrelated to the degree of bias - it's merely indicative of the moral differences between the target audiences.