Hacker News Reader

Comment by lightgreen | Hacker News Reader

Afaiu the user comments (not the articles) on the federalist were unacceptable for advertisers.

Right, so they're trying to censor users on third party sites now. This is when you know that Google needs to get broken up as they have too much power and are too willing to use it.

Google does not want to lose advertisement money which is almost all of Google revenue. It’s just business, I would not call that censorship.

It looks like the move was pushed by the "Center for Countering Digital Hate". I don't see how that's just business, it seems more like a political move. Which is pretty disturbing, if you ask me.

Well, it’s entirely possible that some SJW raised the issue with the website. But whoever raised the issue, Google had no other option than follow it’s own rules https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6008942?hl=en-GB quoting:

“”” We value diversity and respect for others, and we strive to avoid offending users, so we don’t allow ads or destinations that display shocking content or promote hatred, intolerance, discrimination or violence.

Examples of inappropriate or offensive content: bullying or intimidation of an individual or group, racial discrimination, hate group paraphernalia, graphic crime scene or accident images, cruelty to animals, murder, self-harm, extortion or blackmail, sale or trade of endangered species, ads using profane language. “””

Note these rules apply to both ads and destinations.

Isn't that one of the major problems with censorship[1]: that it's hard to apply these vague policies in a way that's consistent, useful, and ethical?

It all seems fine when the people making the decisions seem to be aligned with your values. But people in power are often not driven by lasting values so much as favorable media coverage[2]. When the media consensus on what's good and what's bad changes, they are going to turn, as well.

[1] I know it's not really "censorship" in the government sense, but that's not relevant to the point and I don't know a better word to use.

[2] Honestly, who wants bad media coverage? It just makes you feel bad and takes you down a few pegs in social status. If you're rich and powerful already, that's probably in your top five fears.

So google is "censoring" these two pubs by saying we won't pay you anymore by allowing our ad networks to be on your site because we don't like what people say there. Up thread someone says google is less than half internet advertising. So is it still censorship? If 3M doesn't like something in the WSJ, is it censorship if they stop advertising there? I get the point, that someone exerted force on them but is stopping giving money censorship?

Refusing to advertise on a site is not censorship.

refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not discrimination?

If you can present an argument that your analogy is meaningful, I’ll consider a response.

Advertising is an endorsement of the content. Baking a cake is not.

Tell that to the baker.

Unless the ad was manually placed there by the advertiser, in what way can an automatically ad-network placed ad be remotely considered an endorsement?

Nope. It isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com