There's 4 examples of headlines that might just display the kind of speech that a company really doesn't want to be associated with.
To wit: the free speech clause of the first amendment is designed to forbid the government from passing laws that abridge free speech. It's human nature and literally unenforcable for that to mean that people must be tolerable of all forms of speech, and that companies must provide equal footing to all forms of speech. Even if this ad network was "biased", it's a function of the downpressure on crazy speech that people be allowed to not associate themselves with speech that's unrepresentative of their views
this is awesome. geeks are humans only chance against hopelessness & despair. fixing global warming, improving democracy, transportation, space travel... are all here because of us geeks. Rise up & be proud. We have a voice. A strong voice. (& in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court)
Can we please not go into ubermensch territory. We (the geeks) also created atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, built electric chairs, designed Auschwitz, and as we speak are hooking together a system of globalised mass surveillance...
And to quote Adorno:
It is by no means clear precisely how the fetishization of technology
establishes itself within the individual psychology of particular people,
or where the threshold lies between a rational relationship to technology
and the overvaluation that finally leads to the point where one who cleverly
devises a train system that brings the victims to Auschwitz as quickly and
smoothly as possible forgets about what happens to them there.
We should not defend our interests by claiming them humanity's saving grace. Making new widgets is fine. Sometimes it's even interesting. But (say) getting everyone in the world on the internet, or running railways to the ends of the Earth, or getting a computer in every home, doesn't automatically make the world better.
humans only chance against hopelessness & despair
Or is everything actually hopeless (in the sense the universe will end one way or the other and humanity has as much chance of finding a solution to that as finding god (though both can be combined, in which case you get Asimov's The Last Question, which would explain its popularity among certain technophiles).
fixing global warming
We can't effectively seed clouds to make it rain. And there's no exit if we (say) overcompensate and create a new slush-ball Earth. And making any other place to live (Mars?) wouldn't be accomplishable until after climate change's worst had already happened on Earth (and that's betting on technology that doesn't exist and that we don't know can exist).
improving democracy
Is technology ideologically neutral? If so, it can equally be employed for negative ends (in the sense of a utility monster, say). If not, technophiles have no defense for their proclivities, and then ideas can be argued to be subject to regulatory control, among other things. And if it is a matter of how it's used, then it's just as easy not to use it all and obtain the same result simpler.
transportation, space travel
Because the universe will not be complete without a McDonalds in Jovian orbit. I doubt this is about saving the human race so much as about saving a certain culture and its associated ideologies.
in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court
The problem with "expert rule" is that it is inherently anti-democratic. Why should I get "your" input if "I'm" the expert? Stalinism, is the perfect example here: Stalin is the expert, he has the answers, anything that conflicts with that must be removed. And it circles round to the very problems that are behind those situations that result in scenarios such as this article describes:
the danger is that its gradual disappearance will create the need for
some new (racist or expert-rule) form of hierarchy, directly founded in
individual qualities, and thus canceling even the “formal” bourgeois equality
and freedom. In short, insofar as the determining factor of social power be
in/exclusion from the privilege set (of access to knowledge, control, etc.),
we can expect an increase in various forms of exclusion, up to downright racism.
They may be on the wrong side of history on this. Fake news and hate speech are on the rise, and by 'on the rise' I mean now popular amongst double-digit percentages of the population. Networks can try to step above, but that will only cede ground to other ad networks. The people want to see this stuff and advertisers want enthusiastic young eyeballs.
I find it ironic that in a discussion that touches on censorship, fake news and hate speech you edited your comment to hide the fact that you were hating on Google, despite them not even being mentioned in the article ... one might call what you were doing "fake".
No. I corrected a typo. My sentiment is towards whatever business is involve. AS I said, some part of my brain writes in google when discussing ads. And if my opinion sounds like "hate" I suggest spending some time on brietbart for perspective on that word.
who defines 'fake news' and 'hate speech' when it comes to mass-media? - I don't invoke Orwell lightly - but there seems to be no consideration of how such concepts could be (mis)used in 4 or 14 years time - against the very people who think they are on the side rightfulness today
Totalitarians cannot tolerate any dissenting information or ideas. They can't just run an ad business, they also have to use their business to squelch ideas they disagree with.
The accusations of racism, etc, are just a cover for what they've wanted to do for a while. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of such racism.
I can't help but think that this just points to the fact that they must not have much confidence in their ideas that they feel they must muzzle others.
You think AppNexus ceasing to do business with Breitbart is a sign of a totalitarian society? And you're not being hyperbolic? Genuine question, not trying be clever.
Arguably it's a sign of a free society, free association and all that. What would a society where people and firms weren't free to boycott and disassociate from firms they didn't like be like?
They're not just ceasing to do business. They're making baseless accusations.
A totalitarian world view is one in which someone no longer feels obliged to just offer their services or goods in free exchange, but to also insist that those they do business with also subscribe to their way of thinking.
No totalitarianism tends to happen when you have a state run media apparatus which is run by a media mogul with a position close to a demagogue leader who has floated the idea of not giving press credentials to other media organizations. Starting to sound a little familiar?
How about businesses being forced to do business with individuals that hold views with which the owners of those businesses disagree.
A wedding cake baker chosing not to make a cake for a gay couple gets crucified and held legally liable -- yet the same exact behavior when an ad network chooses to do business with a company holding ideas with which they disagree -- that's allowed?
I personally think businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason -- the marketplace can answer that discrimination by not supporting those businesses.
There's a bit of a difference between discriminating against a human on the basis of a immutable aspect of their person and one media business refusing to associate with another media business on the basis of their content.
I'll admit, your solution sounds nice, but how do you account for regions where the market supports discriminatory businesses and ostracizes marginal groups?
It wasn't too long ago that liberals were screaming that a cake company that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding "has" to make the cakes for them... I agree, the business owner should have the sole discretion of who to do business with, but don't be two faced about it.
This is an interesting (made up) definition of totalitarianism. When I buy fair trade beans from the local coffee shop so I can feel better about my yuppie lifestyle, is my resulting denial of business to Folgers totalitarian?
It's more like you went into the local coffee shop but they won't serve you unless you sign a statement that you're not a racist. Some people would sign that even though it's none of the coffee shop's business. Other people will just walk out because they just wanted a cup of coffee.
So this ad company is not allowed to criticize Breitbart and should be forced to do business with them? And this would somehow be "freedom" and not totalitarianism?
why is it every dissenting opinion is equal. I could say crazy stuff does that make it even? Breitbait is a tabloid. It does some news but not "hard" news. I have seen a few things obviously sensitization on it and some really bad news. I wouldn't advertise on it and I have a massive budget to do so. I love customers but I wouldn't want to associate my brand with them.
Businesses are free to dissociate from organizations that they feel will hurt their brand. They're also free to not do business with organizations purely for philosophical reasons.
Does it surprise you that most companies won't advertise on Stormfront or 4chan /pol/?
The reality is it's illegal for a bakery to refuse to make a same-sex marriage cake, whilst it isn't illegal for an ad network to refuse to deal with a right-wing website.
There is a different dynamic here. In this comparison, Breitbart is the bakery. The ad exchange is the one with the messages that they want Breitbart to display on their cake, and they (used to) pay Breitbart to do so. It isn't illegal for a same-sex couple to refuse to buy a cake from a random bakery.
Even so, your comment implies that people who think the ad exchange should be allowed to refuse to sell Breitbart's advertising space have to explain why they think bakeries shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make same-sex marriage cakes, but there's no reason why people have to either agree or disagree with both.
I down-voted and I'm not a bot (at least I don't think I'm a bot...). First off, there's a reference in that article to a "renegade Jew" comment, as well as calling muslims "ticking timebombs". In my neck of the woods that's pretty beyond the pale. Beyond that, I obviously don't agree with the sentiments, but hauling off and labeling this as totalitarian didn't seem to add a lot to the discussion.
Or, read another way: I'm off to squeltch your speech, ABUGABOOGABOOGABOOG IM THE TOTALITARIAN MONSTER
You are using an article written by a Jew, published on a news site founded by and named after a Jew, as an evidence of racism and antisemitism.
It's so illogical to do that I bet you didn't know these facts. You are totally uninformed on the topic, but still feel confident enough to comment on it. All you do is echoing a (false) media narration. So OP was right. You are kind of a bot. A human one.
"Somehow", yep, way to exercise the principle of charity there. That's a wilful mischaracterisation of an argument from a respected anti-racist organisation.
It's what makes engaging with your type so fruitless. Still, suspect you'll reap the whirlwind of all this in "your country" shortly. Shame we all have to go with you for the ride.
This U.S. election has been an important inflection point in displaying the bias and application of bias by "apparently" disinterested entities like Twitter, reddit and the like - places that claim to advocate diversity and openness, yet struggle to do so in the face of conflict. I hope this spawns a renewed push for education into why things like freedom of speech and tolerance are so important.
It all goes back to people being people. For us humans it's too easy to break the rules because we think we know what's best, etc. As the saying goes, history too easily repeats itself. Castro's passing is perhaps ironic in the timing.
Not sure what your first comment means. My point is simply that many entities pass themselves off as these open platforms for diverse opinions, when in reality they will target and/or censor those they disagree with. Is this a good thing sometimes? Obviously, e.g. with illegal things. But it can also be a dangerous habit. This isn't about pointing fingers at specific people or companies, but about recognizing that this is human and no one is above the temptation.
The intent was to say that there is more to this than "platforms for diverse opinions ... censoring those they disagree with".
Regardless of their agreement, if they just censor those that are false they will appear to have a liberal bias. This is reportedly what scared Facebook away from dealing with fake, mostly right-wing, propaganda on their platform.
Reddit has infamously tried to be a free speech platform. They've allowed misogynists, nazis, rabid Trump devotees, and fat-haters a place to spew. The result of that spewing has been an enormous amount of trolling and harassment which ends up silencing people and making Reddit less diverse.
At some point you have to choose whose free speech you value more. Reddit has made some small attempts to stop the harassment, which in turn has made Reddit somewhat more diverse. Because misogyny has become a little less prevalent, I'm seeing more women on the site.
Free speech, as far as internet forums go, is not a black and white issue.
Are we going to pretend that the white nationalist alt-right has been a good citizen on platforms like Twitter and Reddit?
Hacker News itself is heavily moderated: spaces for expression are a commons, and people who abuse those spaces make them less useful for others, until they have infected the entire space making it only amenable to their sort of expression.
There's no such abstract ideal of free speech that transcends its legal definition. Speech is not neutral. If speech were neutral, it would not be so important. Since speech has effects, like harassing speech forcing people off platforms for expression, everyone has a shared interest in the expressive platforms they use. If an ideal of free speech precluded the moderation of conflicts arising from speech, what does it actually mean? That the most aggressive, vicious speakers get to monopolize the spaces they force others out of?
Have to be careful with definitions. There are some fringe groups of white supremacists and their ilk which pretty much everyone (including Trump) wants to crawl back to their cave. There is also a diverse group of people of all backgrounds who want political change and are tired of both dems and reps. The latter group is magnitudes larger, and yet the former group seems to get all the attention. Why?
> Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[16][22][23]
Think we can all agree that the people you are describing are trash. My point is that they are a fortunately very small non-statistically significant group and their beliefs do not represent the beliefs of most Americans (yes, including Trump voters.)
The post you replied to was talking about white supremacists, with no mention of Trump voters.
You are the one who brought up Trump voters at the first mention of alt-right white nationalists, which is ironic since you insist that the former has nothing to do with the latter.
As an immigrant from the (once) Soviet Union, the current inability among my Silicon Valley/tech friends to say anything but pro-left views scares me. Even hinting that I may want something other than NYT-like viewpoints seems to cause people to bring out the pitchforks.
Are you suggesting that Breitbart is the mirror image of NYT on the right? Because that's what you seem to be implying here, and it is ridiculous. Breitbart is a cesspool. Perhaps you are claiming the NYT is, too?
There are probably more conservatives/libertarians in tech than you think, but don't speak their views for fear of being outcast (e.g. not getting hired, invited, funded, etc.). In fact, they probably even publicly agree with pro-left opinions just to keep from being "outed", even though they may disagree in private. What's ironic is that the left prides themselves on being diverse, inclusive, and open-minded. It'd be quite funny if didn't lead down such a dangerous path.
I'm beginning to understand why early enlightenment thinkers formed secret societies to discuss their ideas. Because if the normies found out what they actually believed, then they'd probably be outcast from their societies, or worse. Maybe there needs to be a secret handshake or something.
> There are probably more conservatives/libertarians in tech than you think, but don't speak their views for fear of being outcast (e.g. not getting hired, invited, funded, etc.)
Personally, I don't hold anyone's personal beliefs (political or not) against them...BUT how they arrived at those beliefs and maintain them in the face of challenges to them does provide evidence for how they think, which has some relevance in predicting how they will think in other situations.
Take the very contentious issue of abortion. Whether you are for or against legal abortion, it doesn't matter to me because there are thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments that can be made for both sides. Absent any other evidence, I would assume your position on abortion is based on such arguments.
The more extreme political beliefs, right or left, that are inconsistent with the expert opinion of the vast majority of industry and academic experts in economics, science, history, ethics, foreign affairs, and military tactics would raise a big warning flag for me, because I have not been able to find anyone able to explain a way to hold those beliefs that does not require accepting vast conspiracy theories that are way too big to be even remotely feasible.
Not sure how your comment relates to my post. Are you saying you'd work with a libertarian (or a communist) but not one that believes in something you think is a conspiracy theory?
Essentially. It's not the belief that matters to me, it's the process of arriving at that belief that is important. (I'm talking about beliefs where the belief itself is irrelevant to one's suitability for whatever joint endeavor I'm considering with them. If I was, say, looking for someone to help me slaughter some cows, for example, then people who have a strong belief that all killing of animals is murder would probably be unsuitable, no matter what process led them to their beliefs on animal killing).
Beliefs that involve conspiracy theories are not necessarily signs of poor reasoning ability. Many things that were conspiracy theories have turned out to be true--but they were always conspiracies that were limited in scope.
The conspiracy theories that raise a red flag about the reasoning ability of those who believe them are the ones that require the conspiracy to involve so many people over such a big area that it would be impossible to keep it secret, or that require the conspirators to have such vast control over so many aspects of government and business that they could easily make anyone who tried to expose them disappear.
Take bike paths for example. There are people who oppose the construction of bike paths. I've seen at least two reasons for objecting to bike paths.
One objection I've seen raised was from people who thought that the street markings for the bike paths were ugly. They did not want ugly streets in their neighborhoods.
If someone objects to bike paths and this is their reason, all I can infer from that is that their notion of what is ugly doesn't match mine. I find a street with a bike line no more or no less ugly than one without a bike lane.
Another objection I've seen is that the purpose of bike paths is to make cities easier for people to get around in, in order to encourage more migration from rural areas to the cities, so that when the UN sends troops to take our guns away and enslave us under "Agenda 21", we'll be nicely packed in cities. A tightly packed population is easier to surround and disarm than a spread out rural population.
If someone objects to bike paths, and delaying our enslavement by the UN is their reason, I'm going to infer that they are an idiot.
You seem to be reading a lot into a simple business decision. Most advertisers probably don't want their brand advertised alongside (and thus associated with) highly controversial content, including racist content.
Thus most ad networks have general policies against hate speech and the like.
Same reason you can't monetize videos about war on youtube. It's not a conspiracy by google to stop people from making videos about war (which you are still free to do), advertisers just don't want their valuable brands becoming mentally associated with horrifying footage of human slaughter.
If real news can't make money then how long will fake news be able to? Fabricating stories are easier than investigative reporting so I predict the race to the bottom will be even faster.
The type of people reading fake news are the kind of people who click random banner ads, who install toolbars, etc. I imagine fake news is a lot more lucrative than real news because you're market is generally a less sophisticated internet user.
I am frankly shocked by the reaction to this on HN. It seems like I am in the Breitbart forums.
If you think Breitbart is a news organisation, then you have either never read any of their articles or are kidding yourself. It is a propaganda organisation. It doesn't report news, it serves opinions. Here is an extract from a recent article[0] about Justin Trudeau mourning the death of Fidel Castro.
"Castro’s Cuban regime was notorious for imprisoning dissenters, including homosexuals, journalists, and political opponents, and nearly brought nuclear war to the United States, one of Canada’s closest allies."
The problem with that statement is that it is written like either of those things were against the US ideology. US has still not completely accepted homosexuality and it brought nuclear war upon itself by taking its weapons to Russia's neighbourhood.
Here's another absolute rubbish article[1] about why there should be a cap on the number of women who are allowed to take up STEM majors.
Breitbart's whole history is like this. In 2009, Andrew Breitbart heavily pushed the ACORN Video Scandal[2] which later turned out to be a series of heavily edited and misleading videos which lead to the closure of ACORN, an NGO which helped people from low to middle income groups.
Another one was the "Friends of Hamas" story that turned out to be a case of complete and utter bullshit but Breitbart couldn't own up to it.[3]
Breitbart has never been a media organisation and I for one am extremely happy to see it being boycotted like this. The headlines I have outlined are not even the more horrific ones they post. Go have a look yourself if you want.
They purposefully spread misinformation and decline to accept their fault when proven wrong while always being on their toes to point out the slip ups in the more liberal media coverage of events. In my part of the world, we call it hypocrisy.
dude, you're a critical thinker - I liked the text classifier post, I'll have a proper read when I'm next on a train - Milo is a first class troll - Breibart has perspective on some current topics - there are no longterm gains from censoring that
Obviously this ad network can do what they want. They can work with or not work with any website they desire. But I do worry about companies who control money becoming vigilantes attempting to support points of view they agree with and squash points of view they disagree with.
I would be more interested in these networks dropping clickbait and known fake news websites (maybe they do, I just haven't seen the equivalent news story on that).
81 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadWell surely that's a great idea that will discourage the accusations of bias.
To wit: the free speech clause of the first amendment is designed to forbid the government from passing laws that abridge free speech. It's human nature and literally unenforcable for that to mean that people must be tolerable of all forms of speech, and that companies must provide equal footing to all forms of speech. Even if this ad network was "biased", it's a function of the downpressure on crazy speech that people be allowed to not associate themselves with speech that's unrepresentative of their views
If you mean AppNexus specifically took an investment from News Corp, then sure.
And to quote Adorno:
We should not defend our interests by claiming them humanity's saving grace. Making new widgets is fine. Sometimes it's even interesting. But (say) getting everyone in the world on the internet, or running railways to the ends of the Earth, or getting a computer in every home, doesn't automatically make the world better. Or is everything actually hopeless (in the sense the universe will end one way or the other and humanity has as much chance of finding a solution to that as finding god (though both can be combined, in which case you get Asimov's The Last Question, which would explain its popularity among certain technophiles). We can't effectively seed clouds to make it rain. And there's no exit if we (say) overcompensate and create a new slush-ball Earth. And making any other place to live (Mars?) wouldn't be accomplishable until after climate change's worst had already happened on Earth (and that's betting on technology that doesn't exist and that we don't know can exist).improving democracy
Is technology ideologically neutral? If so, it can equally be employed for negative ends (in the sense of a utility monster, say). If not, technophiles have no defense for their proclivities, and then ideas can be argued to be subject to regulatory control, among other things. And if it is a matter of how it's used, then it's just as easy not to use it all and obtain the same result simpler.
transportation, space travel
Because the universe will not be complete without a McDonalds in Jovian orbit. I doubt this is about saving the human race so much as about saving a certain culture and its associated ideologies.
in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court
The problem with "expert rule" is that it is inherently anti-democratic. Why should I get "your" input if "I'm" the expert? Stalinism, is the perfect example here: Stalin is the expert, he has the answers, anything that conflicts with that must be removed. And it circles round to the very problems that are behind those situations that result in scenarios such as this article describes:
The accusations of racism, etc, are just a cover for what they've wanted to do for a while. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of such racism.
I can't help but think that this just points to the fact that they must not have much confidence in their ideas that they feel they must muzzle others.
Edit: yep - bots are definitely out in force
Arguably it's a sign of a free society, free association and all that. What would a society where people and firms weren't free to boycott and disassociate from firms they didn't like be like?
A totalitarian world view is one in which someone no longer feels obliged to just offer their services or goods in free exchange, but to also insist that those they do business with also subscribe to their way of thinking.
These things are rarely related.
This is false shaming and participating in a false narrative.
This is exactly how totalitarianism takes hold.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-hillary-clinton-res...
A wedding cake baker chosing not to make a cake for a gay couple gets crucified and held legally liable -- yet the same exact behavior when an ad network chooses to do business with a company holding ideas with which they disagree -- that's allowed?
I personally think businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason -- the marketplace can answer that discrimination by not supporting those businesses.
I'll admit, your solution sounds nice, but how do you account for regions where the market supports discriminatory businesses and ostracizes marginal groups?
Does it surprise you that most companies won't advertise on Stormfront or 4chan /pol/?
There is a different dynamic here. In this comparison, Breitbart is the bakery. The ad exchange is the one with the messages that they want Breitbart to display on their cake, and they (used to) pay Breitbart to do so. It isn't illegal for a same-sex couple to refuse to buy a cake from a random bakery.
Even so, your comment implies that people who think the ad exchange should be allowed to refuse to sell Breitbart's advertising space have to explain why they think bakeries shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make same-sex marriage cakes, but there's no reason why people have to either agree or disagree with both.
Or, read another way: I'm off to squeltch your speech, ABUGABOOGABOOGABOOG IM THE TOTALITARIAN MONSTER
It's so illogical to do that I bet you didn't know these facts. You are totally uninformed on the topic, but still feel confident enough to comment on it. All you do is echoing a (false) media narration. So OP was right. You are kind of a bot. A human one.
And they are not muzzling, they are ceasing to support. Since money is speech in the US, why would you infringe on their free speech rights?
To pick apart just one of their so called examples.
We celebrate free speech in our country.
Some people got together to do just that (the Draw Mohamed Cartoon contest), and were attacked by 2 armed Muslims who disagreed with the free speech.
Somehow, this makes Breitbart racist?
Give me a break.
It's what makes engaging with your type so fruitless. Still, suspect you'll reap the whirlwind of all this in "your country" shortly. Shame we all have to go with you for the ride.
It all goes back to people being people. For us humans it's too easy to break the rules because we think we know what's best, etc. As the saying goes, history too easily repeats itself. Castro's passing is perhaps ironic in the timing.
The intent was to say that there is more to this than "platforms for diverse opinions ... censoring those they disagree with".
Regardless of their agreement, if they just censor those that are false they will appear to have a liberal bias. This is reportedly what scared Facebook away from dealing with fake, mostly right-wing, propaganda on their platform.
At some point you have to choose whose free speech you value more. Reddit has made some small attempts to stop the harassment, which in turn has made Reddit somewhat more diverse. Because misogyny has become a little less prevalent, I'm seeing more women on the site.
Free speech, as far as internet forums go, is not a black and white issue.
Hacker News itself is heavily moderated: spaces for expression are a commons, and people who abuse those spaces make them less useful for others, until they have infected the entire space making it only amenable to their sort of expression.
There's no such abstract ideal of free speech that transcends its legal definition. Speech is not neutral. If speech were neutral, it would not be so important. Since speech has effects, like harassing speech forcing people off platforms for expression, everyone has a shared interest in the expressive platforms they use. If an ideal of free speech precluded the moderation of conflicts arising from speech, what does it actually mean? That the most aggressive, vicious speakers get to monopolize the spaces they force others out of?
Re: Tolerance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
OK, so let's spell it out explicitly. The term "alt-right" was created by Richard Spencer, who is often described as a white supremacist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer
> Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.[16][22][23]
You are the one who brought up Trump voters at the first mention of alt-right white nationalists, which is ironic since you insist that the former has nothing to do with the latter.
2. Likewise, I disagree, even vehemently with a lot of more mainstream opinions here.
3. Neither me nor those I disagree with in good faith are idiots.
4. If one hangs out with white supremacists and spouts their ideology """ironically""" or whatever, I think one is an idiot. Yea, that's true.
I'm beginning to understand why early enlightenment thinkers formed secret societies to discuss their ideas. Because if the normies found out what they actually believed, then they'd probably be outcast from their societies, or worse. Maybe there needs to be a secret handshake or something.
Personally, I don't hold anyone's personal beliefs (political or not) against them...BUT how they arrived at those beliefs and maintain them in the face of challenges to them does provide evidence for how they think, which has some relevance in predicting how they will think in other situations.
Take the very contentious issue of abortion. Whether you are for or against legal abortion, it doesn't matter to me because there are thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments that can be made for both sides. Absent any other evidence, I would assume your position on abortion is based on such arguments.
The more extreme political beliefs, right or left, that are inconsistent with the expert opinion of the vast majority of industry and academic experts in economics, science, history, ethics, foreign affairs, and military tactics would raise a big warning flag for me, because I have not been able to find anyone able to explain a way to hold those beliefs that does not require accepting vast conspiracy theories that are way too big to be even remotely feasible.
Beliefs that involve conspiracy theories are not necessarily signs of poor reasoning ability. Many things that were conspiracy theories have turned out to be true--but they were always conspiracies that were limited in scope.
The conspiracy theories that raise a red flag about the reasoning ability of those who believe them are the ones that require the conspiracy to involve so many people over such a big area that it would be impossible to keep it secret, or that require the conspirators to have such vast control over so many aspects of government and business that they could easily make anyone who tried to expose them disappear.
Take bike paths for example. There are people who oppose the construction of bike paths. I've seen at least two reasons for objecting to bike paths.
One objection I've seen raised was from people who thought that the street markings for the bike paths were ugly. They did not want ugly streets in their neighborhoods.
If someone objects to bike paths and this is their reason, all I can infer from that is that their notion of what is ugly doesn't match mine. I find a street with a bike line no more or no less ugly than one without a bike lane.
Another objection I've seen is that the purpose of bike paths is to make cities easier for people to get around in, in order to encourage more migration from rural areas to the cities, so that when the UN sends troops to take our guns away and enslave us under "Agenda 21", we'll be nicely packed in cities. A tightly packed population is easier to surround and disarm than a spread out rural population.
If someone objects to bike paths, and delaying our enslavement by the UN is their reason, I'm going to infer that they are an idiot.
Thus most ad networks have general policies against hate speech and the like.
Same reason you can't monetize videos about war on youtube. It's not a conspiracy by google to stop people from making videos about war (which you are still free to do), advertisers just don't want their valuable brands becoming mentally associated with horrifying footage of human slaughter.
Show me you can tell the difference between real and fake ads first. Then I'll trust you to tell me the difference between real and fake news.
If you think Breitbart is a news organisation, then you have either never read any of their articles or are kidding yourself. It is a propaganda organisation. It doesn't report news, it serves opinions. Here is an extract from a recent article[0] about Justin Trudeau mourning the death of Fidel Castro.
"Castro’s Cuban regime was notorious for imprisoning dissenters, including homosexuals, journalists, and political opponents, and nearly brought nuclear war to the United States, one of Canada’s closest allies."
The problem with that statement is that it is written like either of those things were against the US ideology. US has still not completely accepted homosexuality and it brought nuclear war upon itself by taking its weapons to Russia's neighbourhood.
Here's another absolute rubbish article[1] about why there should be a cap on the number of women who are allowed to take up STEM majors.
Breitbart's whole history is like this. In 2009, Andrew Breitbart heavily pushed the ACORN Video Scandal[2] which later turned out to be a series of heavily edited and misleading videos which lead to the closure of ACORN, an NGO which helped people from low to middle income groups.
Another one was the "Friends of Hamas" story that turned out to be a case of complete and utter bullshit but Breitbart couldn't own up to it.[3]
Breitbart has never been a media organisation and I for one am extremely happy to see it being boycotted like this. The headlines I have outlined are not even the more horrific ones they post. Go have a look yourself if you want.
They purposefully spread misinformation and decline to accept their fault when proven wrong while always being on their toes to point out the slip ups in the more liberal media coverage of events. In my part of the world, we call it hypocrisy.
[0] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/26/canadian-pm-trude...
[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_c...
[3] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/friends-of-hamas-and...
I would be more interested in these networks dropping clickbait and known fake news websites (maybe they do, I just haven't seen the equivalent news story on that).