• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Facebook & Google change ad policy: No more on "fake news" sites

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
michal1980 said:
they'll just flag everything not approved by the DNC as hate speech and get it banned.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Enjoy your neoliberal censorship, lefties. You've earned it.

Google should be including CNN, NYTimes, Washpo, Huffpo, Reuters, NPR, Politico, TheHill and all of the other bought-out media.
 
Vic said:
How are they going to do that when they're no longer in control?
Click to expand...
Just because hillary lost doesn't mean the globalists have switched parties all of a sudden. This trend has been building since 2008 and 2012 and 2020 will be no different. Globalists know which party is supplying their cheapass labor.
 
SP33Demon said:
Just because hillary lost doesn't mean the globalists have switched parties all of a sudden. This trend has been building since 2008 and 2012 and 2020 will be no different. Globalists know which party is supplying their cheapass labor.
Click to expand...
Is "Globalist" the new code word for the "International Jew?"
 
Vic said:
Is "Globalist" the new code word for the "International Jew?"
Click to expand...
No, it's code for corporations who are pro-TPP, pro-open borders, pro-cheap labor. The ones who initially backed the Republican party before it won over the working class this election. You can put google, facebook, and silicon valley in that basket of deplorable globalists. It's no secret they heavily backed obama and clinton because it helps them continue to get cheap labor instead of hiring American.
 
SP33Demon said:
No, it's code for corporations who are pro-TPP, pro-open borders, pro-cheap labor. The ones who initially backed the Republican party before it won over the working class this election. You can put google, facebook, and silicon valley in that basket of deplorable globalists.
Click to expand...
So you're just opposed to free market capitalism and are demanding government intervention. Got it.
 
A friend of mine is extremely Pro Trump. I asked her why she favored him so much over Hillary.
"He's going to bring all the jobs back!!"
So I asked how she thought he was going to do that.
"By passing good policies!!"
So I ask her what policies she thinks he's going to pass that will facilitate that.
"WELL... erm... I hear HIllary is caught up in a pedophile ring, I guess."

Seriously. That was her answer to my question. This kind of facebook propaganda of taking a picture of some guy and slapping some damning text on it is toxic and damaging. Now, I want to say we're all intelligent and can vet through the obviously bullshit propaganda pieces but the fact is a large number of voters are dumb and will absolutely be taken in by the conspiracy theories. Voters that are dumb that get taken in by the conspiracy theories are numerous enough to sway entire elections. It isn't limited to any one side either, both sides do it and it is wrong in both cases. If it is within our capability to stem the tide of news that is blatantly, factually, false then we should attempt to do something about it.
 
SP33Demon said:
No, it's code for corporations who are pro-TPP
Click to expand...
Do you even know what the TPP was going to do? Public understanding of the deal is quite low, to put it mildly.

http://nyti.ms/2eohUwi
“Popular understanding of the T.P.P. is very low,” Kevin G. Nealer, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a postelection analysis on Thursday. With its abandonment, he added, “The risk to America’s role as trade policy leader — and therefore to the global economy — is real and immediate.”

Mr. Obama and his team likewise emphasized the potential geopolitical blow, even as they promoted the economic benefits the trade agreement would offer American exporters by eliminating thousands of tariffs and other trade restrictions in the other countries.

Forsaking the agreement, the president insisted, would undercut the United States’ standing in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region as a reliable counterweight to an expansionary China, economically and militarily, for America’s allies there. The other countries have approved the pact or are in the process of doing so, but without the approval of the United States, it does not take effect.
[...]
“In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,” Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. “These agreements would improve market access and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing trade barriers.”

One example is a bilateral agreement between Australia and Japan, which gives Australian beef exporters a price advantage over American producers whose exports are subject to higher Japanese tariffs; those tariffs would ultimately have been removed under the Pacific agreement.

“We are experiencing lost sales without T.P.P.” of about $400,000 a day as a result, said Kevin Kester, a California cattle rancher and vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

“Multiply that over several hundred more products and several dozen more free-trade relationships,” Mr. Froman said in an interview.

The T.P.P. would have phased out some 18,000 tariffs that the other 11 countries have on imports from the United States, thus reducing their cost to foreign buyers. Beyond such typical trade actions, it also would have established a number of precedents for international trade rules dealing with digital commerce, intellectual property rights, human rights and environmental protection.
[...]
A number of countries had agreed to copyright protections, benefiting sectors like the film industry. The agreement would have assured an open internet among the 12 nations, including in Communist-run Vietnam, encouraging digital trade and serving as a contrast to China’s walls to internet traffic.

It included commitments against wildlife trafficking — Vietnam, for example, is a major market for rhino horns and ivory — and against subsidies in that country and others on both sides of the Pacific that encourage overfishing.

For the first time in a trade agreement, state-owned businesses like those in Vietnam and Malaysia would have had to comply with commercial trade rules and labor and environmental standards. The agreement would have committed all parties to the International Labor Organization’s principles prohibiting child labor, forced labor and excessive hours, and requiring collective bargaining, a minimum wage and safe workplaces.

While unions and human rights groups remained skeptical about enforcement, the United States reached separate agreements with Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam in which the three countries committed to specific labor changes, under penalty of the United States’ restoring tariffs for noncompliance. Those side agreements will fall along with the overall trade pact.

Election-year antitrade politics aside, the biggest hurdle to Republicans’ consideration of the Pacific pact was objections from some — led by Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, chairman of the committee responsible for trade — to intellectual-property provisions that would have limited monopoly protections for brand-name pharmaceutical companies’ so-called biologics. Those are advanced drugs used, for instance, in cancer treatments.

The Obama administration — pressed by nearly every other nation, the generic drug industry and nonprofit health groups like Doctors Without Borders, all of which wanted quicker access to affordable lifesaving drugs — had agreed that drugmakers could keep production data secret for five to eight years, fewer than the 12 years in federal law. Mr. Hatch had demanded 12 years. But administration officials were hindered in how far they could go to appease Republicans given strong opposition in other countries to any change.

Without the trade agreement, however, drug companies have no monopoly protections for biologics data in some countries.
[...]
Another innovation in the T.P.P. was provisions to help small businesses, which lack the resources of big corporations, to navigate export rules, trade barriers and red tape.
Click to expand...
 
Vic said:
So you're just opposed to free market capitalism and are demanding government intervention. Got it.
Click to expand...
Yes, when it corrupts and degrades our standard of living. Note the differences between McD's and Chic-Fil-A. I don't have as much of a beef with private orgs as I do with public ones like google and fb. The truth embodiment of greed, quarterly earnings and their investors.
 
brycejones said:
Come on man, engage your brain cells for once. Enabling fake news sites is not in the interest of democracy.
Click to expand...

but he literally thinks that all the major news sites are lying and that gives a pass for his alt right sites to also lie. In that world fake news is ok.
 
brycejones said:
Enabling fake news sites is not in the interest of democracy.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech which many of you will cry that a company can do what it wants. Which is true, but don't get upset when people call you out for censorship. BTW, how did things work out for Twitter when they censored shit? Nice stock price, bro.
 
Probably a good idea. Too many gullible low-information people out there who will believe something just because they like what it's saying, without investigating, regardless of if it's real or not. Does this mean orororororooooroorroooo is going to have a more difficult time shitposting garbage found in the anal recesses of the internet ?
 
SP33Demon said:
Freedom of speech which many of you will cry that a company can do what it wants. Which is true, but don't get upset when people call you out for censorship. BTW, how did things work out for Twitter when they censored shit? Nice stock price, bro.
Click to expand...

Sorry freedom of speech issue not found, the government is not involved. Write all the fake news articles you want. Publish them on your website all day long (no censorship). Two corporations have merely said their ad networks won't be available to those websites. I'm sure if you enjoy a steady diet of made up bull shit you'll be able to subscribe to them or some other business model.
 
michal1980 said:
they'll just flag everything not approved by the DNC as hate speech and get it banned.
Click to expand...

Sadly you're right, that's pretty much how it works already. Conservatives get their accounts banned on twitter, facebook and other platforms, while the lefties spew vile things without consequence. After this election facebook and their cronies just realize they need to do more to push the DNC agenda.
 
brycejones said:
Sorry freedom of speech issue not found, the government is not involved. Write all the fake news articles you want. Publish them on your website all day long (no censorship). Two corporations have merely said their ad networks won't be available to those websites. I'm sure if you enjoy a steady diet of made up bull shit you'll be able to subscribe to them or some other business model.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you'll be equally fine with your cable company deciding what sites are "OK" for you to visit right? After all, it's not government.
 
PokerGuy said:
No, but the problem is those who get to decide what is "fake". Anything not DNC approved will likely be deemed fake at one point or another.
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe the fake copies of mainstream news sits that ran made up stories this election? Do you really believe google and facebook have an obligation to allow those sites to access their ad networks?

PokerGuy said:
And I'm sure you'll be equally fine with your cable company deciding what sites are "OK" for you to visit right? After all, it's not government.
Click to expand...

Please point to where in these proposals access to any sites are being blocked. I would be pissed if someone decided certain websites couldn't be visited but that is not even remotely what is occurring here so calm down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top