this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
19 points (66.7% liked)

Technology

34971 readers
123 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml
19
Google demands that Naked Capitalism censors their content. What could possibly go wrong with megacorps acting as arbitrary censors of content without any accountability. (www.nakedcapitalism.com)
submitted 8 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] brianary@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago

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/

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 8 months ago

Google's search algorithm is equally opaque and almost certainly driven by advertisers as well. This is a well known problem.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

If nakedcapitalism.com censors themselves for money that's their own problem.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This is about hate speech and vaccine disninformation: Arbitrary my ass!

This also has to do with advertising: Censorship my ass!

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago

Please provide examples of nazi shit and lies about vaccines hosted on Naked Capitalism. I'll wait.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Arguing about what type of government best represents what groups of people does not resolve the basic conflict.

Google has a certain philosophy. You may - or may not - agree with that philosophy, but they have a right to have it.

Google also has the right to refuse to do business with other companies that it deems incompatible with its philosophy. You may - or may not - agree that a certain company's philosophy is incompatible with Google's, but each of those companies is free to decide if they do or do not wish to do business with the other.

Nakedcapitalism is also free to decide if they would like meet Google somewhere in the middle or tell them to pound sand.

The idea that you can force two companies to play nicely together when they clearly don't want to, is not a socialist concept. It is an authoritarian concept

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It literally does resolve the basic conflict which is, once again, which class holds power in society. Google has a certain philosophy because it's a product of a social-economic system that birthed it. A company like google would not exist in a socialist society because the system works differently.

If you don't understand the problem with the fact that private company that acts as a gatekeeper of the internet gets to decide what content people are able to see, then there's really no point having further conversation. The fact that you worked in AuThoRiTariAn into this is really just the cherry on top. 😂

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In a world where Google is a cooperative representing a certian group of proletarians, and nakedcapitalism is a cooperative representing another group of proletarians, would you force them to do business together if one of them were opposed to the idea?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If Google was a cooperative that acted as a gatekeeper for the internet, and it was censoring people's access to information based on its profit incentive. Then yes, I would absolutely want Google to be forced to provide unfiltered access to search. It's pretty incredible that anybody would want it to work otherwise frankly.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Google is not restricting anyone's access to the internet, nor is it stopping nakedcapitalism from publishing its articles. It is simply deciding not to advertise on their website, which is a normal business decision that could have been made by a socialist cooperative or any other entity.

It sounds like your issue is with SOciEtY and oUr FoRm of gOvERnmEnT, with a little bit of BUt pEoPLe cAn'T UsE thE INteRNet WiTHoUt gOOgLe sprinkled in, rather than the actions of one company or another. Maybe you should be angry with nakedcapitalism too. They aren't a socialist cooperative either

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Google is not restricting anyone’s access to the internet, nor is it stopping nakedcapitalism from publishing its articles.

Your logic might even make sense if Google wasn't a giant monopoly that has oversized influence over the internet. Not only is Google able to directly influence what sites get ad revenue, but it also uses an opaque algorithm that serves their profit interest to decide what people see.

It sounds like I've explained to you precisely what my issue is in ten different ways here, and it's like talking to a wall. So, I'm going to stop here.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Of course, it's possible that Google has paired its withdrawal of advertisements with a lower rating in search results. Do you have any evidence of that happening, or is it pure supposition, like your hypothetical socialist cooperatives?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What I actually said was that these are two different ways Google suppresses content based on its own interests. Meanwhile, quite hilarious of you to think that socialist cooperatives are hypothetical. Go read up on Mondragon and Huawei as a couple of examples. It's gonna blow your mind.

[–] putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

What I actually said was that these are two different ways Google suppresses content based on its own interests.

So do you have any evidence that Google is employing the second way in this case?

And Mondragon and Huawei control Google and nakedcapitalism? That is news!

And you already promised in two previous comments to end our exchange, so I hope you take it seriously this time. No wonder Johnny doesn't want to play with you. Don't even bother asking his mom about it

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

The supposedly anti-vaccination pages in question: