Here is another narrative:
Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment.
The problem is that Mr Phillips mentioned in the article must lack a sense of humor and/or information literacy if he thought he was reading hate speech. He was reading an opinion / sarcasm piece from Milo, Breitbart's in-house provocateur.
It is such a tiresome narrative that the liberal media outlets continue to trot out their own versions of fake news when they attempt to label breitbart sexist, racist, homophobic, or antisemitic.
It is sites like the nytimes who, through their reporting, have completely defanged the labels of "racist" and "hate speech" to the point that they mean nothing.
Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech. It might be in poor taste, but it is not hate speech. Mr Phillips, the professor quoted in the article, would do well to leave his ivory tower and actually talk to someone from another walk of life. Leave the coddled campus life, head to a bowling alley, and listen to the Thursday league banter. Maybe then, in the cloud of rough and jockular language Mr Phillips and his ilk will see a small piece of the substrate of Americans who tell dirty jokes. Who make fun of their spouses. Who call each other names (often politically incorrect) and do so as members of a tribe.
They read breitbart and Drudge Report because those sites offer an alternative narrative to what comes from regular mass media.
Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars.
How does this end? My guess is it won't matter in the end. Thankfully.
Breitbarts traffic shows no signs of slowing. That inventory vacated by the brands too weak to ignore these internet-crybullies will be snapped up by the brands who want to reach a conservative readership.