Looks like NBCNews got this story wrong.<p>Google is saying they never demonetized the sites, but instead worked with them to address issues in their comment sections<p><a href="https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352</a><p><a href="https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist-and.html" rel="nofollow">https://boingboing.net/2020/06/16/google-bans-the-federalist...</a><p><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zerohedge-the-federalist-blm-2020-6" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/google-blocks-ad-revenue-zer...</a>
Yeah, okay this is definitely weird. I sort of get banning outright fake news and Zerohedge is a very shady website, sure.But the Federalist's article is not fake news. You can disagree with it, but it's part of a debate on the media coverage of the protests. People have always complained about media being unfair and biaised. Is it now promoting hate and misinformation to criticize the media? Or do we have to just trust NBC to judge if the media did adequately cover violence or not?<p>At this point we have moved from arguing for taking down false stories to taking down criticism in... A month? That's a little bit insane and scary<p>And I get that advertisers don't want to run their ads on controversial stories, but the Federalist is all about politics and it is to be expected that ads running there will be... Political, no?
> "On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google."<p>It's a perfectly reasonable argument to make that many mainstream media outlets were downplaying the amount of rioting and looting going on relative to peaceful protests.<p>Yet somehow it's now WrongThink to even discuss how media may be shaping perceptions through biased reporting?<p>And now NBC's news-vigilantism unit can tattle to Google and shame them (and advertisers on the Google ad network) into pulling ads because two websites had the audacity to question NBC's narrative?<p>A healthy society functions best when there are checks and balances on all sides but unfortunately there are some who are using the recent protests and BLM to push Orwellian control of culture and media that is frankly quite disturbing.<p>As an aside, what exactly is "far-Right"? I've never seen any non Leftist publication described as "Right" so I'm not sure what adding "far" does other than function as a smear on anything Right of the mainstream Left.
Can the HN title be changed to match the NBC one?<p>NBC's title says (emphasis mine), "Google bans website ZeroHedge from its ad platform over COMMENTS ON protest articles".<p>There seems to be a lot of confusion over the reason for the ban, with people discussing how the sites' articles themselves might or might not violate policy.<p>NBC makes it pretty clear that's not the reason when it says "over policy violations found in the comments section".
Odd, Google is now claiming The Federalist was never demonitized [1]. What is going on here? Did NBC spike a story too early?<p>[1] <a href="https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352?s=20" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352?...</a>
I find it troubling. Ignore for a second the discussion over why, whether Google can or should do that.<p>It is not a one random decision. It is a concerted effort to silence dissenting voices. I am not sure how anyone can cheer here.<p>It just encourages even worse polarization and further entrenchment. It does not lead anywhere good.
I know it's trendy on the right to say that the ultra-liberal Silicon Valley types are trying to ban conservatives from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. but I believe it's more accurate that ADVERTISERS on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, in the name of brand safety, don't want controversial conservative content showing up adjacent to their advertising.<p>If Google were to make this argument, that concern for the brand-safety of their advertisers, they are pulling the ability for these sites to show ads that would make sense and be somewhat defensible... but are they simply saying these sites can still show Google ads but they cannot make money from the ads while Google still does? THAT would be different.