![]() In her reporting, Fraser characterized both sites a “far right.” Again, I am not that familiar with the sites but “far right” or “alt right” has become a ubiquitous label for sites that liberals or Democrats despise. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.” Google later clarified that it was forcing The Federalist to meet its demands. However, NBC has quoted a Google spokesperson as saying “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In fairness to Fraser, some have claimed that she got the story wrong. The Federalist was not demonetized but warning that it might be demonetized unless it changed its site to meet Google’s demands. The NBC reporter Adele-Momoko Fraser broke the story which ncorrectly stated that both sites were demonetized. For those of us who are part of the dinosaur class on free speech, the solution to bad speech should be more and better speech - rather than preventing others from hearing or reading opposing views. Many groups recognized years ago that they could achieve a form of private censorship by getting Google, Twitter, and other companies to effectively cut off the ability of readers to see opposing views. Google holds a virtual monopoly on such ad revenue (by some estimates over 70 percent of such revenue). This demonetization of sites is a favorite tool for critics to shutdown writers or sites with opposing views. NBC News reported yesterday that ZeroHedge and The Federalist were banned from generating revenue through Google Ads. Despite the clear bias shown in these actions, most academics are either applauding the crackdown or remaining conspicuously silent as companies silence those with opposing or unpopular views. ![]() It seems to follow the pattern of politically biased, content-based discrimination against conservative sites by companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google. ![]() However, it is the explanation given for the action taken against the Federalist that I wanted to address. Google has said comparatively little about the reason for barring the sites and what NBC originally reported has been contradicted by the company. I know very little about ZeroHedge while I am familiar with some of the writers on The Federalist. I am not as much concerned with the merits of these fights as the implication of targeting some sites over others. I am not very complex when it comes to such conflicts over free speech. Writers have joined in this movement and two such academics recently declared “China was right” all along about censorship.Īs will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I view this latest action as another form of private censorship that targets conservative sites while ignoring similar rhetoric from the left. Democratic leaders have been calling for censorship on the Internet and in social media for years, a move that will destroy the greatest forum for free speech in the history of the world. I have written for years about public and private censorship, including recent actions to regulate and control speech on the Internet. While many have celebrated the action against ZeroHedge and The Federalist, I remain deeply concerned over the free speech implications of such actions. Google has moved against another set of conservative sites.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |