Advertising Company AppNexus Bans Breitbart News Over Hate Speech (betanews.com) 434
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.
Simple TOS Violations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In the TOS they define what is hate speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hate speech is something that is quite up to interpretation and a bit vague, and well, while on the case of breitbart they probably deserve it, it could be abused to remove whatever they want.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha you think AOL was the internet back then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they did? links to their violations please.
Violence or discrimination? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
Stating specifically what they are concerned with in this particular case doesn't state that they aren't also concerned with other behaviors if they see them. They mentioned the specific behaviors they found problematic in this case.
However, by all means, if you see advertisers on this network engaging in hate speech against majority groups, you should bring it to their attention.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, is that a new thing that somebody just invented? Somehow, the people with no power are picking on the majority, who have the power? How does that work? Are there any examples in recent history of the poor, oppressed, majority?
Third party standards (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Third party standards (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just tell us who isn't on the list? It might save a lot of time.
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:alt-white (Score:4, Insightful)
Good work. An argument straight out of the manual [i.sli.mg]
So what (Score:2)
I only browse with an adblocker anyway. :-)
Comment removed (Score:3)
third party == don't blame us (Score:2)
"We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech"
Nice dodge. Not even willing to man up, state, and stand behind their definitions.
Another source? (Score:2)
hate speech? (Score:4, Informative)
I went to the site and looked around hoping to find rabid offensive racism, how disappointing. What I found instead at least with recent articles was mostly constitutional conservatism, anti-globalism, anti-loose borders, anti-mainstream media.
But maybe there's juicier older articles?
I have no problem ... (Score:2)
... with this.
I use Adblock Plus that blocks AppNexus, anyway, regardless of payee.
Narrative Pushing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Narrative Pushing (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Hypocrites.
Wikileaks didn't change, the media did, even when Assange has an obvious agenda: he always did.
Re:Narrative Pushing (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Hypocrites.
Wikileaks didn't change, the media did, even when Assange has an obvious agenda: he always did.
The problem with Wikileaks is the line between editor and submitter is extremely blurred. Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks - it's the difference between CNN receiving an anonymous leak and actually hacking someone themselves and then claiming it was anonymous. If CNN actively worked with and helped to coordinate said hack, I'd hold them the same way I hold wikileaks.
As to wikileaks, no, not really. Early on, they did some really good work, especially with Snowdan's leaks in particular. They kicked off a massive debate about an issue of genuine importance, and they took a risk that no one else would. They took careful steps to ensure no one unnecessarily got hurt, including retracting unimportant info and keeping out the actually strategically important docs. Now, however, they clearly held onto this story for a long time, and they didn't release it because they thought he world needed to know - they did it because they wanted Clinton's ratings to drop. They didn't take info from a leaker and vet it, they dumped documents from shady people tied to a foreign government that were either of no importance or blatant propaganda, with only one major exception. I lost my respect for them because of shady journaling and no interest in their core mission goal, not because I disagree (or even agree) with their political views.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you going to sincerely claim, Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat [wikipedia.org]) would've continued his leaking details of an ongoing investigation to the media, had New York Times and Washington Post [wikipedia.org] told him, sorry, we can not publish illegally-obtained information?
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks didn't change ...
They did.
When they had dignity, they released material to the press to be vetted.
Re:Narrative Pushing (Score:5, Insightful)
Most sources for true journalists are "illegal", pretty much every company and government agency has policies against talking about anything going on internally.
Watergate-Deepthroat: Illegal to own in the US
Information on the Iraq war: Illegal to own in the US
Information on Guantanamo Bay: Illegal to own in the US
If you only want information available through official government channels, we wouldn't need news, we'd just wait for the next government approved message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, and let's keep our eye on the ball.
It's the little round thing called, "blue-state poll-shy angry, bored under-educated white women."
That's the reason [theguardian.com] Clinton lost.
Illegal embarassment (Score:2)
Richard Nixon [wikipedia.org] would beg to disagree. Not only do news services not disallow illegally-obtained information, using such is a fairly reliable way of getting a Pulitzer Prize [wikipedia.org]. Especially, if the target is a RethugliKKKan, of course.
Had Assange embarrassed Trump instead of spraying water over Her Beautiful Wickedness,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Project Veritas proved that to such a standard that the DNC may be charged under RICO under the next administration.
They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years.
But as a liberal, you are immune to logic and evidence, so enjoy your false reality while it lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Project Veritas proved that to such a standard that the DNC may be charged under RICO under the next administration.
They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years.
But as a liberal, you are immune to logic and evidence, so enjoy your false reality while it lasts.
You are bullshit, they never bussed people around, and if you want to try that line then you better have a citation for it. But she did engage in some really shady practices around Bernie's campaign, in particular, working with the DNC to limit Bernie's debate time, and giving her an advantage before them. That was a story I thought was worth knowing about, even when we suspected it, it was important for it to be confirmed - and we know she did these because, well, they're preserved by email.
Re: (Score:2)
"They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years"
"But as a liberal, you ..."
"to such a standard"
What standard?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They released recordings of these "admissions", similar to the recordings of the ACORN event that subsequently turned out to be carefully edited to mislead.
It's just more fake news. If the idea of someone admitting that they and their organisation had been rigging elections for 50 years on camera didn't tip you off, perhaps you should try asking for the raw, unedited footage.
Re:Narrative Pushing (Score:4, Insightful)
The hate against hillary is strong. she is unlikable,and not a nice person either. I think most of the stories againist her are false and misleading, but I still don't like her. haven't liked since 1996. Still would rather have her and 4 more years as things are then Trump who will be building concentration work camps to house illegals and trashing the us government so hard financially it will take 2 generations to repair it.
Think about it this way. Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million people but soundly lost the electoral vote. Trump is a racist hateful bigot Who waited until after the election to try and pretend to denouce the alt-right hateful bigot. You know the ones are now running around the country going hail trump hail victory? (by denouce only his campaign denouced those people he himself never did before the election)
So many people would rather have Hitler than Hillary. that Hillary could only win the popular vote by 2 million. Hell I can't stand hillary but she is at least a politician.
Hopefully she finally realizes the only people who like her are her family and stops trying to be a policitian.
Re: Narrative Pushing (Score:4, Insightful)
You bought the fake news. Point me towards a racist thing trump has said in the last 20'years. You can't, because it's fake news. When you look at his actual statements, you will see a populist platform, not racism. He said deport illegals. That's not racism. He said to vet Muslim immigrants for terrorism ties before letting them into the country. That's not racism. The bowl of skittles? He said a few, not a large fraction. Keep digging through what he said, vice what's been reported, and you'll see who the consumers of fake news are.
Re: (Score:3)
You bought the fake news. Point me towards a racist thing trump has said in the last 20'years. You can't, because it's fake news. When you look at his actual statements, you will see a populist platform, not racism. He said deport illegals. That's not racism. He said to vet Muslim immigrants for terrorism ties before letting them into the country. That's not racism. The bowl of skittles? He said a few, not a large fraction. Keep digging through what he said, vice what's been reported, and you'll see who the consumers of fake news are.
Trump saying Judge Curiel's inability to impartially judge him in a court of law is the very definition of racism. It was a direct quote from Trump himself. You can also cite the many cases against Trump's properties unfairly discriminating against potential black tenants and the ad he took out in the paper himself calling for the death penalty of the central park 5. He's pretty racist.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/do... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not her but when the head of the DNC wanted to call out Bernie Sanders for being Jewish. Then after resigning guess whose campaign hired her...
Re:Narrative Pushing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Narrative Pushing (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is grateful the democrats pushed very hard the only candidate that he would be able to defeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Calls for wanton destruction are not dissent.
Re:Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ?
Re: (Score:3)
They won't care much.
Donald Trump just hired their CEO for his personal staff.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Historically, successful boycotts are economically unsuccessful. That is to say they don't force companies to comply because profits go down. Companies cave because the people who run them don't want to be associated with the target of the boycott.
One South African businessman remarked to me shortly after Apartheid was lifted that suddenly it was OK, maybe even cool to be South African. It was a tremendous relief not to have to have a defense ready whenever anyone asked him where he was from.
So by all me
Re: (Score:2)
They are a noisy little sliver, perhaps, but they have mastered the way of making a lot of noise.
Part of me wants Trump to succeed, because the last thing the world needs is a really shitty president. The other part of me wants him to fail, because his fall would pretty much kill the Alt-right.
What will likely happen, of course, is something in between. He'll evolve into a typical president, not as bad as the worst, almost certainly not as good as the best. People bitch about "elites" and about the "old gua
Re: Should add HuffOp and Slate to the banned list (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So much hate everywhere on the internet. This isn't what the founders thought open communication would lead to.
I'll bet they thought about it. Fulvia stabbing the tongue of Cicero [heritage-history.com] is surely something they knew about. The level of hate we see is not historically high.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't kid yourself. This is exactly what they thought it would lead to and they actually had no problems with it. It's the current crop of liberal snowflakes that think the world needs to be censored.
The old school liberals had more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Go there folks, meet your brothers !
Met those fuckers at Thanksgiving.
I'll wait til next year.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have free speech down; need work on criminal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Of Course (Score:2)
This is nothing more than one company deciding not to engage in a commercial transaction with another company.
Good thing Milo isn't getting married, or we (and more importantly, the government) would have to chase AppNexus out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is about free speech. The only free speech is anonymous speech, because only then are there no consequences. For non-anonymous speech, the more people fear consequences, the more they will self-censor. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for speech, only pointing out that such consequences make people less free to speak their minds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. There is no equivalence here.
A business has no more right to deny service to a gay person any more than they do for someone of color. It's not an "ideology" issue, it's an issue of hate.
A business does have the right not to do business with organizations who peddle hate speech. That is an ideology issue.
The right wingers today have such a persecution complex and cry about "hypocrisy" when you really simply have no clue.
Re: Of Course (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Breitbart a protected class? By what definition? If I refuse to sell advertising in Breitbart I'm violating Breitbart's civil liberties, is that what you're trying to say?
The scope of civil rights legislation is pretty narrow; it deals with traditionally disadvantaged or persecuted groups of people based on identifiable characteristics like skin color, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. How could it ever include one business deciding to terminate a business relationship with another business?
Again and again, we see how the Alt-right seem to believe that the intent of civil liberties is to remove consequences, not in fact to assure equality. The alt-right wants to argue that the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment, not only confer freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of speech.
As to businesses being forced by statute not to discriminate, the Supreme Court upheld both Civil Rights Acts a long time ago, so whether you agree with it or not, it has well over half of a century of jurisprudence behind it. Yes, governments can make certain groups protected where that group can be demonstrated to have been historically disadvantaged. I guess you can try to argue that your Nazi buddies are a disadvantaged group, but the notion of unfair disadvantage isn't just that people hate your fucking guts and don't want to be in the same room with you, but also that they hate your fucking guts unfairly. There's not unfair about being biased against Nazis.
Re: (Score:3)
But they should at least be honest about it, instead of trying to spin it as some righteous, objective, morally justified action instead of the political one it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt AppNexus gives a flying fuck about a few cranky alt-right goons.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
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 up!" then the law is reasonable and justified.
The fact is that an ad company isn't a government organization and can make whatever rules about content that they want. It doesn't make or enforce laws. If they want to use a "3rd party" blah blah blah, then that's their choice.
Re: (Score:3)
The key element of hate speech is threat. Consider the difference between defacing someone's wall with your graffiti tag and defacing it with a swastika when the owner of that wall is Jew. They are not the same crime because the intent is different.
So in this case people may claim that it is "hate speech" that is inciting the ban, but more likely it is merely hateful speech, which is not illegal. It is not illegal to say you hate blacks. It is illegal to burn crosses on their lawn. It is certainly not i
Re:Of Course (Score:4, Informative)
Breitbart is a media site with numerous articles by numerous reporters with numerous slants. Claims like "alt-right" have become tools of silencing people with a different agenda than the primarily Liberal/Leftist/Progressive MSM is what they see as a threat. This article [wwltv.com] is linked on Breitbart [breitbart.com], which MSM originally reported on the "Hate Crime" but not so much on the finding of false accusation. It did not fit their agenda but does fit a Republican, and quite frankly should be "news" for everyone.
False accusations abound against Republicans, Trump supporters, and white males. You can find at least 2 other cases which were reported by MSM as hate crimes and anti-Trump supporters which where the original claimant is being charged with falsifying a police report. One for a robbery which never occurred, and another for a beating which never occurred. Meanwhile, there are actual murders and beatings of Trump supporters which MSM happens to ignore.
Hate speech is being used as a broad way of stifling dissent, and people really should be appalled.
Re: (Score:2)
They're only appalled by that whicy they disagree with.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I don't disagree that there are false narratives all around, which is why I often find myself in the role of wet blanket among my fellow left-wingers. The truth is bad enough.
But if you only see the falsehoods perpetrated against *your* side, then it's a fair bet that the falsehoods perpetrated *by your side are doing their job.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
That's how they got Paula Deen.
She had signed an agreement that said, essentially, "You fuck with our revenue stream, you're fired."
She is not in jail; there is no court date; she was not assessed a fine; she is not on probation.
To this day, she is free to continue saying that which she had been saying.
Her freedom of speech is preserved.
The single purpose of a business is to create profits that are upwardly asymptotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is. Just keep telling yourself that whitey.
Regardless, freedom of speech has no bearing here. This is a private company. They can do whatever they want, including banning alt-right hate sites like Breitbart.
Re: Of Course (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, kids---it's an APK sockpuppet!
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)
Sounds good. So then is CDU/CSU a banana?
Sure, SPD can be a strawberry then. Substituting fruits makes this all sound like an argument between preschoolers - and to be honest, I feel like that's what we've all become at this point. I hope calling the CDU/CSU a banana helps at least one person realize how crazy this political cycle has become, and maybe we can start to show respect for each other, some day in the distant future I suspect, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're so damned intelligent, why are the pining for jobs that will never come back?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's true for pretty much everything out there today, and this turd is at least without ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)