https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/03/google-demands-that-we-censor-our-content.html
Google trying to censor our content on bogus grounds.
The communication suggests this is coming from Google AdSense which is the publisher advertising side of things, informing the site admin that their site contains content that will likely result in them being removed from being eligible to sell ad slots to advertisers on their network.
Whether or not the assessment of individual flags are correct is another discussion (of which I genuinely don’t care and don’t have time to look into), but it is perfectly normal and acceptable for ad exchanges, Google AdSense in this case, to inform publishers that they’re about to lose out on profit potential because their content is not in compliance with what the advertisers are expecting from the exchange.
Google AdSense could just as easily immediately kick the publisher from the program, at which point they’d no longer be eligible to sell ads through AdSense, but their content will continue to remain online. No censorship is taking place here.
Adtech has been controlling the Overton Window too long. That's what fueled the rise of (actual) fake news, as originally observed coming from Estonia, radicalizing dumb Americans.
https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/774-the-ad-money-fuelling-fake-news/
Antivax? Hate speech? Sounds pretty fucking right wing to me.
In any event, losing out on some ad revenue sure as shit isn't censorship. 🤡
Please provide exampels of antivax and hate speech articles hosted on Naked Capitalism. I'll wait. Also, maybe go read up on what the term censorship means so as not to make a clown of yourself in public going forward.
I don't think there's anything normal or acceptable about a private entity acting as a gatekeepr to the internet and deciding what content people can see based on their own opaque reasons.
No one needs to pay to put ads next to content they don’t agree with. Google is informing them that advertisers don’t want their ads on these pages. They don’t have to remove the pages, thereby not being censored, they’d just suffer the consequence of not getting ad revenue.
Google has become the main way people find content online, and if content doesn't show up in search results then it's effectively censored. The consequence here is that advertisers decide what content is acceptable. Again, this is very clearly a big problem for society.
This has nothing to do with search. Just advertising. They’ll remain in search results as long as they don’t take the page down and remain otherwise complaint with search policies.
Google's search algorithm is equally opaque and almost certainly driven by advertisers as well. This is a well known problem.
This is the second filter in Herman & Chomsky’s propaganda model: Advertising
I wonder what VIOLENT_EXTREMISM and HATEFUL_CONTENT this watchdog of the financial sector is being accused of.
They're removing ads from the site based on content standards they have agreed to with the advertisers. They're not censoring anything and have only notified you of the changes you would need to make if you want to keep their business. You are not owed revenue from Google or anyone else.
Is it a problem that so much of the Internet, including your site, "depends" on corporate advertising? Yes. Is that censorship? No. You are free to find your own sponsors.
You're describing the motivations for the said censorship, but that does not change the fact that it is censorship done by a private entity that's not accountable to the public.
This is about hate speech and vaccine disninformation: Arbitrary my ass!
This also has to do with advertising: Censorship my ass!
It is very much arbitrary since Google, which is a private entity, gets to decide what content they censor and why without any transparency or accountability to the public. If you can't understand why this is problematic, then what else is there to say. And this is literally what censorship is, whether you think it's done for good or bad reasons is an entirely different discussion.
They might lose ad revenue if they keep hosting nazi shit and lies about vaccines, that's not fucking censorship and your take is ridiculous.
Please provide examples of nazi shit and lies about vaccines hosted on Naked Capitalism. I'll wait.
Freedom of speech means that the government shouldn't arbitrarily keep you from expressing yourself in the way you see fit.
Censorship happens when the government supresses certain forms of expression.
Neither of these situations apply to this case. Google - as a non-governmental entity - can freely decide where to advertise and where not to advertise. And nakedcapitalism can freely decide if they wish to continue publishing certain content without Google or stay with Google Ads under their terms and conditions. No one is forcing either side to do anything.
Would you have the government intervene and force Google to advertise on a site they disagree with? Now that would be arbitrary
That's supremely childish understanding of the relationship between the government and private entities. The part that you're failing to grasp in your "analysis" is that the government represents the interests of the class that holds power in society. Under capitalism, the government represents large capitalists, i.e. the very same people who own the media and platforms such as Google that do the censorship. Private interests that also happen to run your government are simply bypassing the middle man when doing the censorship.
It's incredible that grown ass adult would have trouble understanding such basic things.
Why are you so angry? And why don't you understand that the only rights you can claim protection from, are the ones related to government actions? Whether or not you agree with the idea of government as a way to come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other. That is, Johnny's mom won't force Johnny to play with you if Johnny doesn't want to.
In this analogy, Johnny's mom represents capitalist opression bypassing in counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor
I'm not angry at all, I'm just baffled that somebody could have such a poor understanding of the relationship between the government, the ruling class, and censorship. Again, government is not an independent entity that exists on its own. It's part of society and it represents the interests of people who hold power in society. In a capitalist society, the government represents the capitalists, and there's no difference between censorship being done by the government or by capitalists themselves.
Let's suppose for sake of argument, that you would like to appeal to a benevolent, anarcho-socialist government about Google's actions. You would not be covered by freedom of speech in that instance either. Or be a victim of censorship
I don't know what an anarcho-socilaist government is, but under a regular socialist government, Google would be owned by the workers and run as a cooperative. However, more importantly the government would represent the working majority as opposed to a small capital owning class. There is no inherent problem with censorship, every society censors ideas that it finds harmful. The question is who decides on what is censored and whether there's accountability in the process.
The supposedly anti-vaccination pages in question: