Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohawk | Hacker News Reader

Totalitarians cannot tolerate any dissenting information or ideas. They can't just run an ad business, they also have to use their business to squelch ideas they disagree with.

The accusations of racism, etc, are just a cover for what they've wanted to do for a while. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of such racism.

I can't help but think that this just points to the fact that they must not have much confidence in their ideas that they feel they must muzzle others.

Edit: yep - bots are definitely out in force

View on HN

You think AppNexus ceasing to do business with Breitbart is a sign of a totalitarian society? And you're not being hyperbolic? Genuine question, not trying be clever.

Arguably it's a sign of a free society, free association and all that. What would a society where people and firms weren't free to boycott and disassociate from firms they didn't like be like?

They're not just ceasing to do business. They're making baseless accusations.

A totalitarian world view is one in which someone no longer feels obliged to just offer their services or goods in free exchange, but to also insist that those they do business with also subscribe to their way of thinking.

These things are rarely related.

So now you want to force businesses to associate with businesses they don't want to associate with and you're calling them totalitarian?

Of course not. But cutting ties and making baseless accusations?

This is false shaming and participating in a false narrative.

This is exactly how totalitarianism takes hold.

No totalitarianism tends to happen when you have a state run media apparatus which is run by a media mogul with a position close to a demagogue leader who has floated the idea of not giving press credentials to other media organizations. Starting to sound a little familiar?

Yes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-hillary-clinton-res...

How about businesses being forced to do business with individuals that hold views with which the owners of those businesses disagree.

A wedding cake baker chosing not to make a cake for a gay couple gets crucified and held legally liable -- yet the same exact behavior when an ad network chooses to do business with a company holding ideas with which they disagree -- that's allowed?

I personally think businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason -- the marketplace can answer that discrimination by not supporting those businesses.

There's a bit of a difference between discriminating against a human on the basis of a immutable aspect of their person and one media business refusing to associate with another media business on the basis of their content.

I'll admit, your solution sounds nice, but how do you account for regions where the market supports discriminatory businesses and ostracizes marginal groups?

It wasn't too long ago that liberals were screaming that a cake company that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding "has" to make the cakes for them... I agree, the business owner should have the sole discretion of who to do business with, but don't be two faced about it.

This is an interesting (made up) definition of totalitarianism. When I buy fair trade beans from the local coffee shop so I can feel better about my yuppie lifestyle, is my resulting denial of business to Folgers totalitarian?

It's more like you went into the local coffee shop but they won't serve you unless you sign a statement that you're not a racist. Some people would sign that even though it's none of the coffee shop's business. Other people will just walk out because they just wanted a cup of coffee.

And how is this totalitarian?

So this ad company is not allowed to criticize Breitbart and should be forced to do business with them? And this would somehow be "freedom" and not totalitarianism?

why is it every dissenting opinion is equal. I could say crazy stuff does that make it even? Breitbait is a tabloid. It does some news but not "hard" news. I have seen a few things obviously sensitization on it and some really bad news. I wouldn't advertise on it and I have a massive budget to do so. I love customers but I wouldn't want to associate my brand with them.

Not sure if that was a pun or Freudian slip, but the expression is, "dissenting opinion".

thanks, for that. but as a pun would work out way better :)

I down-voted and I'm not a bot (at least I don't think I'm a bot...). First off, there's a reference in that article to a "renegade Jew" comment, as well as calling muslims "ticking timebombs". In my neck of the woods that's pretty beyond the pale. Beyond that, I obviously don't agree with the sentiments, but hauling off and labeling this as totalitarian didn't seem to add a lot to the discussion.

Or, read another way: I'm off to squeltch your speech, ABUGABOOGABOOGABOOG IM THE TOTALITARIAN MONSTER

Oh my, you're so funny. I'd like to subscribe to your comedy newsletter.

You are using an article written by a Jew, published on a news site founded by and named after a Jew, as an evidence of racism and antisemitism.

It's so illogical to do that I bet you didn't know these facts. You are totally uninformed on the topic, but still feel confident enough to comment on it. All you do is echoing a (false) media narration. So OP was right. You are kind of a bot. A human one.

Businesses are free to dissociate from organizations that they feel will hurt their brand. They're also free to not do business with organizations purely for philosophical reasons.

Does it surprise you that most companies won't advertise on Stormfront or 4chan /pol/?

That isn't true. A bakery can't chose to not do business with certain groups without being sued. How is this any different?

Citizens chose to use the law to protect gay people in those areas, and haven't done so for tabloid news organizations. That's the difference.

The reality is it's illegal for a bakery to refuse to make a same-sex marriage cake, whilst it isn't illegal for an ad network to refuse to deal with a right-wing website.

There is a different dynamic here. In this comparison, Breitbart is the bakery. The ad exchange is the one with the messages that they want Breitbart to display on their cake, and they (used to) pay Breitbart to do so. It isn't illegal for a same-sex couple to refuse to buy a cake from a random bakery.

Even so, your comment implies that people who think the ad exchange should be allowed to refuse to sell Breitbart's advertising space have to explain why they think bakeries shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make same-sex marriage cakes, but there's no reason why people have to either agree or disagree with both.

There is plenty of evidence. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/28/breitbartcom-...

And they are not muzzling, they are ceasing to support. Since money is speech in the US, why would you infringe on their free speech rights?

You'll have to come up with something better than a screed like that.

To pick apart just one of their so called examples.

We celebrate free speech in our country.

Some people got together to do just that (the Draw Mohamed Cartoon contest), and were attacked by 2 armed Muslims who disagreed with the free speech.

Somehow, this makes Breitbart racist?

Give me a break.

"Somehow", yep, way to exercise the principle of charity there. That's a wilful mischaracterisation of an argument from a respected anti-racist organisation.

It's what makes engaging with your type so fruitless. Still, suspect you'll reap the whirlwind of all this in "your country" shortly. Shame we all have to go with you for the ride.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com