Google to Cut Off Ad Money to Sites Challenging Official Narrative on Climate Change

https://bongino.com/google-to-cut-off-ad-money-to-sites-challenging-official-narrative-on-climate-change/

Who doesn’t realize now that climate change is made up? 

They doing what YT did by de-monitizing certain tubers.

Google to Cut Off Ad Money to Sites Challenging Official Narrative on Climate Change

https://bongino.com/google-to-cut-off-ad-money-to-sites-challenging-official-narrative-on-climate-change/

Who doesn’t realize now that climate change is made up? 

That is a non sequitur though. If Google cut advertisement money for a pro-Nazi group would that mean the holocaust was made up?

It could be that they cut off ad money to climate change skeptics because Google believes they are wrong...

That is a non sequitur though. If Google cut advertisement money for a pro-Nazi group would that mean the holocaust was made up?

It could be that they cut off ad money to climate change skeptics because Google believes they are wrong...

swoooooosh

That is a non sequitur though. If Google cut advertisement money for a pro-Nazi group would that mean the holocaust was made up?

It could be that they cut off ad money to climate change skeptics because Google believes they are wrong...

Your comment is what happens when you just read the headlines and poster's comment.

Google, which controls a third of the U.S. digital ads market, is now going to be censoring
what they call “false information on climate change,” which really just means “what Google
considers false information on climate change.” The censors incorrectly (though deliberately)
censored the since-verified Hunter Biden laptop story, credible Wuhan lab leak theory, and
countless other things they got wrong. Of course, the goal here isn’t to actually censor
misinformation as it is to prevent the spread of information that challenges progressive orthodoxy.

<2nd paragraph in that article>

The take-away is not that climate change is not real.  The take-away should be that we are having one side of an issue spoon fed to us by "Google, WHICH CONTROLS A THIRD OF US DIGITAL ADS MARKETS," while they CENSOR ANYTHING THEY AS AN ORGANIZATION DEEM "FALSE INFORMATION."

Since when does ANY information technology company have the expertise to determine what stories related to Climate Change are true, and which ones are false?

They are keepers of the Leftist narrative, and we already have a hundred plus examples how they got it all wrong.

They were falsely claiming the annual flu was not worse than Covid, and now "new reports" prove it is.  Would that FACT/TRUTH/REAL INFORMATION have been useful over a year ago before we started all the lockdowns that every health organization now tells us was the wrong decision?

We can't function as a society if a company like Google, FB or Twitter are going to filter what we are allowed to see as it related to important issues.

Every time one of these stories comes up, I'm reminded of the news reports in Good Morning, Vietnam!  After the censors stripped all the meat, there was barely any bone or gristle left!

That is a non sequitur though. If Google cut advertisement money for a pro-Nazi group would that mean the holocaust was made up?

It could be that they cut off ad money to climate change skeptics because Google believes they are wrong...

Once again, you missed the point entirely.

Once again, you missed the point entirely.

I tried to explain the point to him. 

50/50 he'll try to find a flaw to argue about and ignore the underlying point.

I tried to explain the point to him. 

50/50 he'll try to find a flaw to argue about and ignore the underlying point.

He’s not a dumb guy. He never said he disagreed. Based on that analysis I believe he completely agrees with me. 😂

I appreciate your trying to explain it to him. But I have the feeling that he knows exactly what my point is in the same way you do. He just is trying to change my (our) perception. And I won’t go down that rabbit hole with him.

Remember this is the guy who told us he wants to have these conversations because he wants expand our minds and wants to show us the other side of issues. He really doesn’t state what his beliefs are and what they are not. I remember a discussion I was having with him a long time ago. I believe you were in on it too. And he fully admitted his beliefs were not the same as the side he was arguing. Do you remember that? I do. He just argues pretty much for the sake of arguing. I won’t go down that rabbit hole with him any more. If he really doesn’t understand what I was saying then he would ask me. But I cannot remember a time when I told him he didn’t understand what I was saying, and he asked me what it is I meant. He knows. That’s why he doesn’t ask. But now that I am on to his silly games I won’t go any further with him even if he did ask. I don’t want to waste my time on that type of conversation. It is obvious to me most of these conversations don’t really matter to him except to try and change ones perception and way of thinking. As he has admitted to doing in the past. If you want to waste your time with him go ahead. For me it’s not worth wasting my time with. JMHO

He’s not a dumb guy. He never said he disagreed. Based on that analysis I believe he completely agrees with me.

I appreciate your trying to explain it to him. But I have the feeling that he knows exactly what my point is in the same way you do. He just is trying to change my (our) perception. And I won’t go down that rabbit hole with him.

Remember this is the guy who told us he wants to have these conversations because he wants expand our minds and wants to show us the other side of issues. He really doesn’t state what his beliefs are and what they are not. I remember a discussion I was having with him a long time ago. I believe you were in on it too. And he fully admitted his beliefs were not the same as the side he was arguing. Do you remember that? I do. He just argues pretty much for the sake of arguing. I won’t go down that rabbit hole with him any more. If he really doesn’t understand what I was saying then he would ask me. But I cannot remember a time when I told him he didn’t understand what I was saying, and he asked me what it is I meant. He knows. That’s why he doesn’t ask. But now that I am on to his silly games I won’t go any further with him even if he did ask. I don’t want to waste my time on that type of conversation. It is obvious to me most of these conversations don’t really matter to him except to try and change ones perception and way of thinking. As he has admitted to doing in the past. If you want to waste your time with him go ahead. For me it’s not worth wasting my time with. JMHO

Funny u should say this, i posted the same thing like 2 weeks ago.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Funny u should say this, i posted the same thing like 2 weeks ago.

It's as if some people with nothing to offer to the conversation try to create these "thought experiments" so they don't feel left out.

"Hey, I just saw SPAM on sale for cheap!"

"What if the price you saw was the price it should have been all along.  Would you still think it was "cheap"?"

Nothing to add.  Just wants to start a discussion he can participate in.

That's just my opinion, of course.

It's as if some people with nothing to offer to the conversation try to create these "thought experiments" so they don't feel left out.

"Hey, I just saw SPAM on sale for cheap!"

"What if the price you saw was the price it should have been all along.  Would you still think it was "cheap"?"

Nothing to add.  Just wants to start a discussion he can participate in.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Some people have more time than others or get entertainment in different ways. Im not 1 to judge. I just choose not to participate as much because it doesnt provide entertainment in my opinion.

So i posted i wont be responding as much unless he has a personal statement with a question.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Your comment is what happens when you just read the headlines and poster's comment.
<2nd paragraph in that article>

The take-away is not that climate change is not real.  The take-away should be that we are having one side of an issue spoon fed to us by "Google, WHICH CONTROLS A THIRD OF US DIGITAL ADS MARKETS," while they CENSOR ANYTHING THEY AS AN ORGANIZATION DEEM "FALSE INFORMATION."

Since when does ANY information technology company have the expertise to determine what stories related to Climate Change are true, and which ones are false?

They are keepers of the Leftist narrative, and we already have a hundred plus examples how they got it all wrong.

They were falsely claiming the annual flu was not worse than Covid, and now "new reports" prove it is.  Would that FACT/TRUTH/REAL INFORMATION have been useful over a year ago before we started all the lockdowns that every health organization now tells us was the wrong decision?

We can't function as a society if a company like Google, FB or Twitter are going to filter what we are allowed to see as it related to important issues.

Every time one of these stories comes up, I'm reminded of the news reports in Good Morning, Vietnam!  After the censors stripped all the meat, there was barely any bone or gristle left!

I am not saying I like google, I am only pointing out that the argument is flawed. Banning certain ads does not prove that what is in the ads is true.

The bigger question is what should be done about this issue. Does it warrant something to be taken at the level of legislation, and if so what should be done? Should google have to accept any and all advertisements someone brings it? Playing with a double edged sword here. a

He’s not a dumb guy. He never said he disagreed. Based on that analysis I believe he completely agrees with me. 😂

I appreciate your trying to explain it to him. But I have the feeling that he knows exactly what my point is in the same way you do. He just is trying to change my (our) perception. And I won’t go down that rabbit hole with him.

Remember this is the guy who told us he wants to have these conversations because he wants expand our minds and wants to show us the other side of issues. He really doesn’t state what his beliefs are and what they are not. I remember a discussion I was having with him a long time ago. I believe you were in on it too. And he fully admitted his beliefs were not the same as the side he was arguing. Do you remember that? I do. He just argues pretty much for the sake of arguing. I won’t go down that rabbit hole with him any more. If he really doesn’t understand what I was saying then he would ask me. But I cannot remember a time when I told him he didn’t understand what I was saying, and he asked me what it is I meant. He knows. That’s why he doesn’t ask. But now that I am on to his silly games I won’t go any further with him even if he did ask. I don’t want to waste my time on that type of conversation. It is obvious to me most of these conversations don’t really matter to him except to try and change ones perception and way of thinking. As he has admitted to doing in the past. If you want to waste your time with him go ahead. For me it’s not worth wasting my time with. JMHO

I didn't miss the point, I was merely pointing out a flawed argument for no other reason than I dislike flawed arguments. Consider it a pet peeve if you will.

If you said 2+2=4 therefore Joe Biden is an idiot I would chime in that your argument is flawed but it should not be taken that I disagree with the statement Joe Biden is an argument or didn't understand that Joe Biden is an idiot. I can fully agree with your position but I will still point out an inaccuracy or a flaw in the reasoning. I didn't miss anything here


There are other times where I do get into an discussion and I cover both sides for a full understanding following which I give my opinion if I have one on the topic. But in this case it was just to correct a flawed argument.

I am not saying I like google, I am only pointing out that the argument is flawed. Banning certain ads does not prove that what is in the ads is true.

The bigger question is what should be done about this issue. Does it warrant something to be taken at the level of legislation, and if so what should be done? Should google have to accept any and all advertisements someone brings it? Playing with a double edged sword here. a

 

Who said anything close that, other than YOU.

Um, we already have a remedy.  Take away these mega tech giant's protection against civil liability.  They hide behind a status they do not qualify to use.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’
defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary
benefit to facilitate “forum/s for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from
standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as
Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would
operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

When questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month, and in a subsequent
op-ed, Cruz reasoned that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook
should be ‘neutral public forums.’ On the flip side, they should be considered to be a ‘publisher
or speaker’ of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.” Tech-
advocacy organizations and academics cried foul. University of Maryland law professor Danielle
Citron argued that Cruz “flips [the] reasoning” of the law by demanding neutral forums. Elliot
Harmon of the Electronic Freedom Foundation responded that “one of the reasons why Congress
first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community
moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts.”

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate
“offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online
platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with
traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held
that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper
they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms.
Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its
message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The
court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content
made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held
liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable
for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow
platforms to remove whatever they wish, however.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

The issue becomes enforcement.  Who is powerful enough to go after these multibillion dollar a year corporations?  Even Congress can't do anything but hold hearings and refer potential violations of the law to the DOJ.

It's not a completely binary proposition.  Platforms might do some things that make them publishers, and publishers may do things that make them platforms.  If this were an IRS issue, the government would say you have meet the definition of a platform completely, or you are automatically a publisher.  There's no formula for doing either 51% vs. 49%.  There would be no way to track or prove that.

When ANY media giant takes away the public's right to know -- even in the name of filtering misinformation -- we no longer have a free press.

BTW, the press has been doing something similar for over a century.  They sometimes use the 1st amendment to publish partial or inaccurate news with no recourse on the part of any injured parties.  Unless they can prove malicious or negligent behavior, the press is shielded from legal and civil action.

I didn't miss the point, I was merely pointing out a flawed argument for no other reason than I dislike flawed arguments. Consider it a pet peeve if you will.

If you said 2+2=4 therefore Joe Biden is an idiot I would chime in that your argument is flawed but it should not be taken that I disagree with the statement Joe Biden is an argument or didn't understand that Joe Biden is an idiot. I can fully agree with your position but I will still point out an inaccuracy or a flaw in


There are other times where I do get into an discussion and I cover both sides for a full understanding following which I give my opinion if I have one on the topic. But in this case it was just to correct a flawed argument.

You proved my point for me, thanks! As I stated, I am not going down the rabbit hole with you.

Google is a private company.  They can decide what ads to run.... are we going for more government control now? 

They should cut off ad money to truck manufacturers. Americans really don't care about "climate change" We want our big, lifted trucks. So what get 5 mpg. I like my lifted 4Runners and Tacomas. And for the west side peeps, GMC and Fords.

Who said anything close that, other than YOU.

That was the implication in Inspectors post when he said "Who doesn’t realize now that climate change is made up?" right after posting the story.  The implication is that this cutting off of ad money to climate skeptic websites is proof that climate change is made up. If that is not the argument that Inspector was making then I welcome his clarification.

Um, we already have a remedy.  Take away these mega tech giant's protection against civil liability.  They hide behind a status they do not qualify to use.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
The issue becomes enforcement.  Who is powerful enough to go after these multibillion dollar a year corporations?  Even Congress can't do anything but hold hearings and refer potential violations of the law to the DOJ.
It's not a completely binary proposition.  Platforms might do some things that make them publishers, and publishers may do things that make them platforms.  If this were an IRS issue, the government would say you have meet the definition of a platform completely, or you are automatically a publisher.  There's no formula for doing either 51% vs. 49%.  There would be no way to track or prove that.
When ANY media giant takes away the public's right to know -- even in the name of filtering misinformation -- we no longer have a free press.
BTW, the press has been doing something similar for over a century.  They sometimes use the 1st amendment to publish partial or inaccurate news with no recourse on the part of any injured parties.  Unless they can prove malicious or negligent behavior, the press is shielded from legal and civil action.

We have touched on this before and disagreed somewhat (big surprise right?) I think we disagreed whether FB met the definition of a publisher.
As you correctly point out it is a bit of a gray area, no clear litmus test. Certainly we should want to maintain news sources that do not suppress one party or another.


Your response doesn't really touch on the issue I brought up though, of the double edged sword. What happens when a holocaust denial group or a group sympathetic to a terrorist group wants to advertise through a private company? Do we now tell those companies they cannot deny any advertisement?

Republicans now endorse more government control.   Instead of allowing companies to bake cakes how they want.   They must bake cakes according to how the government wants.   🤔

Republicans now endorse more government control.   Instead of allowing companies to bake cakes how they want.   They must bake cakes according to how the government wants.   🤔

I would say generally this is false. There are times when republicans have definitely betrayed small government ideals and endorsed big government but generally they do this less than democrats.

I think issues with Facebook and Google however are forcing them to consider regulating large businesses more where in the past republicans are less likely to regulate businesses. They are seeing how lack of regulations are a double edged sword.