ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th June 2020, 12:30 PM   #1
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 2,176
Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles

Quote:
Google has banned two far-right websites from its advertising platform after research revealed the tech giant was profiting from articles pushing unsubstantiated claims about the Black Lives Matter protests.

The two sites, ZeroHedge and The Federalist, will no longer be able to generate revenue from any advertisements served by Google Ads.
Quote:
Google's ban of the websites comes after the company was notified of research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation. They found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the protests, and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.
Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles [NBC]

I think it's reasonable to take steps to mitigate the toxic nonsense, noise, and BS that's out there, though I'm sure not all will agree.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2020, 06:09 PM   #2
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,524
Quote:
projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.
When you take the profitability out of hateful speech maybe you can reduce the hateful speech?

I don't know, but I think I am OK with this.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2020, 06:27 PM   #3
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 27,715
Cue outraged tweets about media censoring conservatives in 3--2--1---

Probably from Trump himself.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2020, 06:57 PM   #4
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,586
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
When you take the profitability out of hateful speech maybe you can reduce the hateful speech?

I don't know, but I think I am OK with this.
Not when you also have politics and Russian interference. I image the profit is nice icing (I'm shocked it's in the millions), but the cake is still good without it.

I'm also surprised Google is only looking at two sites. Maybe because they are big or something. Or maybe because they have more commercial attraction like other news magazines.

But what about some of the others. I hope this is just a start.

Oh, and I wonder how many jhadist sites make money on Google ad contracts.

Anyone know?
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2020, 07:02 PM   #5
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 81,586
It looks like the gun was jumped.

WA Examiner today: Google claims Federalist was 'never demonetized' after NBC News botches report
Quote:
Google shot down an NBC News report that said it was banning the Federalist from its advertising platform in response to research claiming the tech giant was profiting from false narratives about the Black Lives Matter protests.

The report said the Federalist, along with the right-wing financial blog ZeroHedge, violated Google's policies on race-related content, prompting the tech giant to cut its ability to generate revenue with Google Ads. Google later acknowledged it did inform the Federalist that it was violating its policies in its comment section in articles, but claimed to have never blocked the outlet from its ad platform.

"The Federalist was never demonetized," Google Communications tweeted on Tuesday more than two hours after NBC News published its report. "We worked with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section.
Looks like they are now going to hold the websites accountable for material in 'comments'.
Quote:
After publication of this story, Google added that it takes into account all of the content on a website, including comments, to determine if a policy violation has occurred, which is where the policy violations are said to have occurred," NBC tweeted. "And Google says it notified The Federalist on Tuesday of policy violations, and it now has three days to remove the violations before the ban goes into effect."
__________________
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way. That's how Mnuchin got rich. Worse, he did it on the backs of elderly people who had been conned into reverse mortgages. Mnuchin paid zero, took on the debt then taxpayers bailed him out.

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th June 2020 at 07:06 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2020, 07:22 PM   #6
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2020, 08:07 PM   #7
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,524
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not when you also have politics and Russian interference. I image the profit is nice icing (I'm shocked it's in the millions), but the cake is still good without it.
I suppose. I just wonder how many are just there for the icing. I imagine it is not an insignificant number.

Alex Jones comes to mind.

If people like him can't make a living off the BS thew spew how much BS do you think they will spew? I would guess less. I would guess it also attracts fewer spewing the same or similar BS.

If I were young and didn't give a ****, conservatives seem like a very gullible market at this moment and it wouldn't be hard to monetize that gullibility. I can't be the only one thinking like that.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2020, 06:11 AM   #8
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,004
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I suppose. I just wonder how many are just there for the icing. I imagine it is not an insignificant number.

Alex Jones comes to mind.

If people like him can't make a living off the BS thew spew how much BS do you think they will spew? I would guess less. I would guess it also attracts fewer spewing the same or similar BS.

If I were young and didn't give a ****, conservatives seem like a very gullible market at this moment and it wouldn't be hard to monetize that gullibility. I can't be the only one thinking like that.
And you think there is no Librul sites monetizing?

MIllions of dollars? There must be a following, form the 75% that didn't vote for Hillary. You folks seem to think Conservatism is some rare disease, when it actually represents half the country- more if you go by Trump's popularity polls.

But: "First they came for the Conservatives, but I didn't complain, I wasn't a conservative...."
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2020, 06:18 AM   #9
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,721
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
And you think there is no Librul sites monetizing?

MIllions of dollars? There must be a following, form the 75% that didn't vote for Hillary. You folks seem to think Conservatism is some rare disease, when it actually represents half the country- more if you go by Trump's popularity polls.

But: "First they came for the Conservatives, but I didn't complain, I wasn't a conservative...."
Interesting you conflate all of conservatism with fringe conspiracy outlets.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2020, 06:45 AM   #10
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,898
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
And you think there is no Librul sites monetizing?

MIllions of dollars? There must be a following, form the 75% that didn't vote for Hillary. You folks seem to think Conservatism is some rare disease, when it actually represents half the country- more if you go by Trump's popularity polls.

But: "First they came for the Conservatives, but I didn't complain, I wasn't a conservative...."
It's a common disease, not a rare one.

/ETA: Dextral Cysticercosis.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 17th June 2020 at 07:08 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2020, 08:02 AM   #11
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,275
“First they came for the racist, hate mongering sites promoting lies and disinformation, and I did not complain because I was not a racist, hate mongering lier. In fact I was rather pleased.”

I noticed in particular that “coming for” the hate mongers meant that they could still say whatever they wished, they just couldn’t make as much money from it. They were even offered ways they could regain their money stream.

It’s not free speech that is being threatened, just the making of profits off of hatred.

Last edited by Giordano; 17th June 2020 at 08:07 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2020, 08:04 AM   #12
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,721
I too am a victim of censorship. Google refuses to enter a voluntary business arrangement with me because of my radical views.

Cops2Soylent.biz remains deplatformed.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2020, 04:53 PM   #13
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 2,176
I didn't mean to start this thread and fall silent, but some things came up that took my attention, and I apologize. Perhaps there's not a lot to talk about here in any case, but I could've clarified my intention more fully.

Simply speaking, I'm alarmed how profitable BS is, and how destructive this BS can be. Alex Jones. Glenn Beck. Many others. There are far too many of these jackasses making millions off the gullible. Qanon. Youtube CT stars. One might argue that stupid people deserve their reality too. Is that true? It's a perversity of modernism.

I don't know if Google actually did anything good or meaningful here, but I enjoyed the passing moment when I thought they might have.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2020, 04:56 PM   #14
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,524
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Interesting you conflate all of conservatism with fringe conspiracy outlets.
I can't tell if casebro missed my point or was just helping me make it more clear.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2020, 05:31 PM   #15
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,547
This is quite odd to me because Google is not liable for the content that third parties post on their servers. Google has immunity. How does Google repay that impunity that they have been granted by congress? They restrict the speech of others. Interestingly, restricting the speech of others in this manner is something that the US government may not be constitutionally able to do.

Google claims that holding websites accountable for the content in the comments section has been a long-standing policy. I don't recall any news articles about Google enforcing this policy historically. Do any of you?
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2020, 06:02 PM   #16
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,524
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
This is quite odd to me because Google is not liable for the content that third parties post on their servers. Google has immunity. How does Google repay that impunity that they have been granted by congress? They restrict the speech of others. Interestingly, restricting the speech of others in this manner is something that the US government may not be constitutionally able to do.

Google claims that holding websites accountable for the content in the comments section has been a long-standing policy. I don't recall any news articles about Google enforcing this policy historically. Do any of you?
As to the highlighted: No, they don't. They just don't let them make money off of it through their advertising platform. That is not restricting their speech in any way.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2020, 04:01 PM   #17
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
As to the highlighted: No, they don't. They just don't let them make money off of it through their advertising platform. That is not restricting their speech in any way.
Google is forcing the hand of websites to restrict the speech of individuals. Eliminating the platform that individuals use to communicate is controlling speech. Companies are being bullied and shammed to do something that some political groups have been unsuccessfully been able to do by acts of legislation for a long time; restricting speech they label as hateful.

Are you aware of how google was made aware of the comments sections of these two websites? Activism by NBC, a journalistic entity.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2020, 04:25 PM   #18
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,623
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Google is forcing the hand of websites to restrict the speech of individuals.
No, they're not forcing the websites to do anything, they're just letting them know that Google won't pay them to do what they've been doing up to now.
That's not the same thing.

Quote:
Eliminating the platform that individuals use to communicate is controlling speech.
They're not eliminating the platform, they're saying they won't place ads on those websites. The websites can still operate and their platform hasn't been eliminated.

Quote:
Companies are being bullied and shammed
This is a sham complaint.

Quote:
Are you aware of how google was made aware of the comments sections of these two websites? Activism by NBC, a journalistic entity.
And the relevance of this is....?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2020, 10:01 AM   #19
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
No, they're not forcing the websites to do anything, they're just letting them know that Google won't pay them to do what they've been doing up to now. That's not the same thing.

They're not eliminating the platform, they're saying they won't place ads on those websites. The websites can still operate and their platform hasn't been eliminated.
Nice attempt at using reductionism to explain the situation at hand. Using this technique obscures the teleological consequences that Google's ultimatum would have on these websites.

The dichotomy is do what Google demands, or loss your main revenue source. If you lose your main revenue source your website would have to shutdown. This is effectively restricting the rights of freedom of speech. Incidentally, the Center for Countering Digital Hate is expressively trying to reach that goal; eliminate the speech which they perceive as hateful.

Restricting speech is the pragmatic result of Google's policy. A policy which at this point appears to be arbitrarily applied.

Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
This is a sham complaint.
It is factual that laws regulating hate speech may or not be constitutional in the US. Law experts are divided.

As a result of this barrier, individuals and entities whom want to pass these laws are willing to get creative so that they can meet their objective. As outlined above, Google has become the liaison to enforce these rules that as of yet have not been passed by congress.

Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
And the relevance of this is....?
Transparency is a necessary component to live in a society that values freedom and wants to reduce alienation of autonomous citizens. Recognizing the parties that started the investigation imparts relevant contextual knowledge to this situation. It allows citizens to determine intent. Some may conclude that NBC engaged in Corporate Espionage. This is not an endearing virtue.

Some might conclude that journalistic organizations should not be engaged in activism. Perhaps there are different tax implications if News Organizations engage in both behaviors. Furthermore, if that activism is counter to peoples values, that may result in a number of behaviors that negatively impact NBC. Recognizing organizational bias is important.

Citizens have a vested interest in preventing discrimination, coercion, and the use of normative social influence to alienate people. You probably agree that hate speech should be restricted, that is why you see no issues with the sequence of events that is resulting in the successful implementation of that restriction. If the same system was used to bring change to something you disagreed with, you would be up-in-arms.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2020, 11:51 AM   #20
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,623
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Nice attempt at using reductionism to explain the situation at hand.
It seemed like you needed it to be explained to you as your understanding of the situation was in error.

Quote:
The dichotomy is do what Google demands, or loss your main revenue source.
Find another revenue source then.

Quote:
It is factual that laws regulating hate speech may or not be constitutional in the US. Law experts are divided.
Google's ad policies are not laws, so this is irrelevant.

Quote:
Some may conclude that NBC engaged in Corporate Espionage. This is not an endearing virtue.
I guess you can boycott NBC then.

Quote:
Some might conclude that journalistic organizations should not be engaged in activism.
So now you want to restrict their free speech?

Quote:
Perhaps there are different tax implications if News Organizations engage in both behaviors.
I have no opinion about that.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 06:19 AM   #21
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
(...)
That was nice word salad with some big words thrown in. Though I do understand one needs to BS, obscure and conflate if one wants to, say, redefine certain words (like "censorship") in way that suits one's agenda.

Why you won't say straight what you actually think?
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Trump is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 07:43 AM   #22
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,647
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles [NBC]

I think it's reasonable to take steps to mitigate the toxic nonsense, noise, and BS that's out there, though I'm sure not all will agree.
Terrible decision. As a longtime blogger, I can tell you that comments sections are generally a sewer. But readers love to comment on articles and sometimes the commentary is worthwhile. If you tell website owners that their comments sections might get them demonetized, they are going to take the easy way out. Rather than moderate the comments sections they will get rid of them altogether, which is what the Federalist immediately did.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 01:00 PM   #23
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,524
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Terrible decision. As a longtime blogger, I can tell you that comments sections are generally a sewer. But readers love to comment on articles and sometimes the commentary is worthwhile. If you tell website owners that their comments sections might get them demonetized, they are going to take the easy way out. Rather than moderate the comments sections they will get rid of them altogether, which is what the Federalist immediately did.
I have to wonder: was much lost?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 01:09 PM   #24
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Terrible decision. As a longtime blogger, I can tell you that comments sections are generally a sewer. But readers love to comment on articles and sometimes the commentary is worthwhile. If you tell website owners that their comments sections might get them demonetized, they are going to take the easy way out. Rather than moderate the comments sections they will get rid of them altogether, which is what the Federalist immediately did.
Comments sections of far right toxic websites (like The Federalist and ZeroHedge) is where all the scumbags meet. They are also a target for Russian bots, you didn't even have to register to comment at either of them.

The world would be a better place without these scumbag magnets.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I have to wonder: was much lost?
Probably nothing worth keeping!
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd June 2020 at 01:10 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 01:20 PM   #25
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Nice attempt at using reductionism to explain the situation at hand. Using this technique obscures the teleological consequences that Google's ultimatum would have on these websites.

The dichotomy is do what Google demands, or loss your main revenue source. If you lose your main revenue source your website would have to shutdown. This is effectively restricting the rights of freedom of speech. Incidentally, the Center for Countering Digital Hate is expressively trying to reach that goal; eliminate the speech which they perceive as hateful.
Another one who casually tosses around the term "Freedom of Speech" without having any idea what it actually means.

Freedom of Speech is a GOVERNMENT restriction, not a private one.


If I own a platform, I get to choose who is allowed to use my platform. That is my right, the people who use my platform have to follow my rules, and if they don't like my rules, I will not let them use it

Same applies to Google. Follow their rules or you get kicked off. Neither Zero Hedge nor the Federalist nor any other organisation have any rights whatsoever as regards the use of Google. All rights to use Google belong to Google, and anyone wanting to use it does so at their behest.

If you think Freedom of Speech is absolute, try threatening someone on this forum and see what happens.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd June 2020 at 01:32 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 05:53 PM   #26
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Just to add... this is the sort of thing that the allowing of hate speech to continue unabated, will inevitably lead to..

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/motors...-bubba-wallace

Personal threats against people oppose hate speech. How long will it be before someone actually acts on this sort of threat and murders someone for supporting a ban on Confedrate iconology

I hope NASCAR find whoever did this, and bans them for life.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2020, 08:10 AM   #27
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Just to add... this is the sort of thing that the allowing of hate speech to continue unabated, will inevitably lead to..

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/motors...-bubba-wallace

Personal threats against people oppose hate speech. How long will it be before someone actually acts on this sort of threat and murders someone for supporting a ban on Confedrate iconology

I hope NASCAR find whoever did this, and bans them for life.
Paranoia and false claims? Wasn't a noose, and the door pull rope had been bundled that way for months. I too hope they find that whoever fashioned this noose like rope in October 2019, knowing that Bubba Watson would get that stall in June 2020, as I could use some insight on some upcoming races.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2020, 08:45 AM   #28
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 588
Demonetizing due to comments is an interesting one. These are blogs where the comments are not the main basis of content like a forum like this would be. I wonder specifically what the policy is, how they determine what specific speech goes against it, at what volume and how quickly it must be removed. Would seem too simple for outside influences to shut down websites they disagree with just by posting comments outside the terms, screenshotting them and submitting them to google.

Target older stories which would be less likely to be monitored and greater chance to remain there when checked. Even a small forum like this with a few admins requires the general member base to report posts that go against the rules. Sites with more activity and functions that don't bring fresh comments to the top of activity lists would be more easily targeted.

Unless we want the idea of comment sections removed from all websites, there has to be some leniency. Otherwise I see a tit for tat back and forth of people from each side trying to destroy the platforms of the other. I'm sure that's already happening, but think there is going to be a larger push for tech companies like google to react to them now.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2020, 09:00 AM   #29
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,485
One and a half cheers for Google. In principle, I think they have every right to decide what kind of content they will allow to take their ad money. Right now they seem to be demonetizing mostly content that I don't like. The problem is that they have such a big share of that market, that exercising that right comes uncomfortably close to censorship. I'm not totally comfortable with any single entity having that kind of power over information that reaches the public, nor am I completely confident that they can be trusted to use that power benevolently.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2020, 01:00 PM   #30
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Paranoia and false claims? Wasn't a noose, and the door pull rope had been bundled that way for months. I too hope they find that whoever fashioned this noose like rope in October 2019, knowing that Bubba Watson would get that stall in June 2020, as I could use some insight on some upcoming races.
I'm doubting this story. How could an obvious noose, hanging in a clearly visible and obvious place, where every member of every NASCAR team could see it and walked right past it, go unnoticed for 10 months? In other countries, maybe that might not be unusual, but in the USA? In the south?

Smells like a cover up to me.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2020, 02:09 PM   #31
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm doubting this story. How could an obvious noose, hanging in a clearly visible and obvious place, where every member of every NASCAR team could see it and walked right past it, go unnoticed for 10 months? In other countries, maybe that might not be unusual, but in the USA? In the south?

Smells like a cover up to me.
Symbolism takes many forms and context is everything.
A Christian cross in and of itself is not offensive in most contexts but may be taken as an offensive symbol if painted on Synagogues. Likewise a Star of David would be seen as offensive if painted on the front doors of a Catholic church. I certainly do not need to explain the corruption of the swastika symbol and the difference between western and eastern symbolism in that regard.
An NRA meeting was not offensive to most people in Columbine but became incredibly offensive to pretty well everybody when it was to be held there shortly after the mass shooting at the school.
Confederate flags and other symbols of black oppression and slavery became forefront in people's minds when NASCAR banned the Confederate war flag at races (Which was a long overdue action IMHO). Perhaps nobody was seeing this noose as anything other than a noose at the end of a pull rope until the idea of nooses being symbols of lynching and black oppression was something they were reminded of?
Please understand that I am not saying that they were not right to condemn and remove the noose given the context of the situation. I am just saying that people probably gave it very little thought until reminded of the symbolism nooses have to black people.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 03:34 AM   #32
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Freedom of Speech is a GOVERNMENT restriction, not a private one.
What nonsense! If the government can't penalize your speech then private individuals/organizations should not be able to step in to the void.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me that your definition of freedom of speech is the freedom to say only what you approve of.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 03:57 AM   #33
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Freedom of Speech is a GOVERNMENT restriction, not a private one.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What nonsense! If the government can't penalize your speech then private individuals/organizations should not be able to step in to the void.
(Caveat: We are talking about US Law here)

Show me a law that says an information provider is not allowed to restrict the information that is promulgated on its own platform. What was that you said? You can't? Well of course you can't because no such law exists!

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Of course, it doesn't surprise me that your definition of freedom of speech is the freedom to say only what you approve of.
Of course, it doesn't surprise me that in your unilateral, wet-dream, idealist fantasy world, anyone would be allowed to say anything about anyone to anyone else at any time, and all completely without consequences, but that does not bear the slightest resemblance to anything that happens in the real world.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 26th June 2020 at 03:58 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 05:14 AM   #34
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
(Caveat: We are talking about US Law here)

Show me a law that says an information provider is not allowed to restrict the information that is promulgated on its own platform. What was that you said? You can't? Well of course you can't because no such law exists!
SLICK!

You implied that vigilante action is ok if the government can't penalize your speech.

Whether anybody is required to provide a venue for you to express your opinions is a different matter entirely.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 06:47 AM   #35
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You implied that vigilante action is ok if the government can't penalize your speech.
Stop telling lies. I neither suggested nor implied any such thing.

Show me the actual words from the post you quoted where I "implied vigilante action is OK".

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Whether anybody is required to provide a venue for you to express your opinions is a different matter entirely.
No, it IS the matter, in its entirety.

I'm not at all interested in your pompous, self righteous pontifications - I'm talking about what the LAW says!

Providers such as Google/Twitter/YouTube deny people such as Alex Jones, David Icke and Katie Hopkins a platform for their vile speech. They have banned "medical content" that contradicts the WHO's advice on coronavirus; they have banned content that promotes 5G conspiracy theories.

Is it legal for them to do these things? Yes, it is.
There is no law that forces them to allow such content. Only the government can make laws in that regard.

Is it censorship for them to do these things? No, it is not.
No-one is preventing them from saying what they want to say.

Is it a denial of those peoples' right to free speech? No, it is not.
Those people are free to spread their BS. They are entitled to provide their own platforms or website for the content. No-one is stopping them from doing so.

Google/Twitter/YouTube etc are privately owned content platforms. Users use those platforms at the owners behest, under the terms and conditions laid down by those owners. NO-ONE has any "rights" whatsoever as regard to being allowed to have promoted content on those platforms.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 26th June 2020 at 06:54 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 07:09 AM   #36
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,845
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm doubting this story. How could an obvious noose, hanging in a clearly visible and obvious place, where every member of every NASCAR team could see it and walked right past it, go unnoticed for 10 months? In other countries, maybe that might not be unusual, but in the USA? In the south?

Smells like a cover up to me.
Because the racetrack itself went unused during that time.

Since it was a door pull, with a loop, and if the garage was closed, then sans x-ray visions, it would go unseen.

Keep in mind there are photos of this door pull being that way in October 2019. Bubba wasn't assigned that garage until June 2020. That's some epic planning.

Got any reason why the FBI would be covering this up?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 07:37 AM   #37
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Stop telling lies. I neither suggested nor implied any such thing.

Show me the actual words from the post you quoted where I "implied vigilante action is OK".
You implied it in the very post that you yourself quoted:
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Freedom of Speech is a GOVERNMENT restriction, not a private one.
Clearly you meant that individuals can act in ways that governments can't and that would obviously include punishing individuals who don't make the "right" speeches. (Otherwise, why mention government at all?)

Unless you intended to suggest that the government must provide a venue for somebody to air their views which would be a nonsensical position to take.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 08:01 AM   #38
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,634
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You implied it in the very post that you yourself quoted:
Wrong! Again!

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Clearly you meant that individuals can act in ways that governments can't and that would obviously include punishing individuals who don't make the "right" speeches. (Otherwise, why mention government at all?)
Wrong! Again!

Quite the opposite in fact

What I mean is that individuals are not bound by the Law the way the US Government is bound. This is a fact and it is very specifically laid down in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This prevents the US Government, and only the US Government from restricting the free speech of its citizens. It in no way bars US citizens from deciding what they will or will not allow to be said on their behalf - it is why YouTube can kick Alex Jones off its platform, its why Twitter can ban Katie Hopkins, its why this forum can restrict what you say and ban you if you do not comply with the MA.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with vigilantism!
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:06 AM   #39
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 16,384
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I have news for you. Individuals can't make such laws either.

Combined with the fact that the government isn't required to provide individuals a platform for airing their views and your attempt to label freedom of speech a "GOVERNMENT restriction" only is just a pure nonsense.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2020, 11:25 AM   #40
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I have news for you. Individuals can't make such laws either.

Combined with the fact that the government isn't required to provide individuals a platform for airing their views and your attempt to label freedom of speech a "GOVERNMENT restriction" only is just a pure nonsense.
No they can't, in fact they cannot make any laws. They can influence government laws, and some individuals have too much influence, but that's really a separate issue.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.