Advertising Company AppNexus Bans Breitbart News Over Hate Speech (betanews.com) 69
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
Narrative Pushing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:1)
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. Hy
Re: (Score:2)
"like her rigging the primary"
I don't understand why some people think you can say anything without evidence.
repeating lies does not make them true son. (Score:1)
Of Course (Score:3)
Re: Of Course (Score:1)
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".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
This, private company decides they'd rather not do business with organisations that could tarnish their reputation.
Other news not for extremists at 11.
Some things never change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
OK, not really a promising way to start a sentence, but let's see where this goes.
I think I know where this is going.
Re: (Score:2)
More nutsy than nazi. Most of what doubles as nazi in the US would have been subject to T4 [wikipedia.org] in Nazi Germany.
Simple TOS Violations (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the TOS they define what is hate speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "early Internet"? Even the early Web was almost entirely non-commercial and unencumbered by ToS.
Re: (Score:2)
Violence or discrimination? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Third party standards (Score:2)
Third party standards for hate speech? Are any of the "third parties" remotely neutral in their designation of hate speech? It seems like most of the groups invested in the idea of hate speech have strong political agendas themselves and often draw the line on hate speech well into grey areas that may not be hate speech.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
SJW overdrive (Score:3)
It sure is nice for the entire Left to reveal themselves for the intolerant bigots they are.
Can I block all cookies from AppNexus? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
It sure is nice for the entire Left to reveal themselves for the intolerant bigots they are.
Can I block all cookies from AppNexus? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Sooo, here's your speech:
It sure is nice for the entire Right to reveal themselves for the raging socialists they are.
Can I block all cookies from DoubleClick? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Using an extremely vaguely defined political philosophy as an insult, pet alone the hilarious idiocy of thinking an ad network represents the entirety of said vaguely defined political philosophy. You know, from now on Slashdot, we're replacing "Left" and "Right" with "Apples" and "Mangoes". I may disagree with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breitbart Tech is good... (Score:2)
alt-white (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop calling it the "alt-right". "Neo-nazi" is one character shorter and is more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... so ... did I get that right...? (Score:3)
Breitbart is now news without pesky ads?
Looks like I should finally take a look at that site...
minority group (Score:1)