It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google Issues Ultimatum to Conservative Website: Remove 'Hateful' Article or Lose Ad Revenue

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is rediculous. Most people view Flynn work as grossly biased. It's a field my wife is a research professor in.

Like how he used orphans in Spain to judge the iq of people of the lowest I groups, misused other scientists data, misrepresented their findings, and generally have false premise of what intelligence is and how it develops.




posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

There's a lot of software that tailors ads to a the viewer, not the website. You'd have to be living under a rock not to know this. Why on earth else do you think so many people can make threads on here complaining about the kinds of ads they get on various sites, even this one? It isn't because those advertisers necessarily flip switches saying which sites they want to be seen on. It's at least as much based on what searches you and I are doing on our own.

When I was car shopping a couple years ago, every single website I visited was inundating me with car ads. Today, those same sites bombard me with various clothing websites or video game ads. But others will complain they're getting things like porn.

Your ads are pretty much personalized.


True and also completely irrelevant.

The issue here is the site the adds appear on not the adds themselves.


It's a tad bit hypocritical don't you think?

We don't want our ads on that site, but the reason our ads are on that site is because people who are interested in our stuff visit that site. The implication being that they are happy to make money off people who would visit those sites but don't want people on those sites from making money off of them.

So ... they will sell those whom they perceive to be hateful scum, but won't return the favor. So much for high-minded morality and virtue signalling.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Who said I based that off of Flynn? I was doing research down other avenues and the facts are still there.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is who the right wing guy this op is about was always using to justify racism.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Generally surprised people think Google has to pay people who breached their contract.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So?

My remarks were based off of other research. There are certain points that are true.

1.) When we look for our mates, we do tend to look for people who are similar to us, including of similar intellect.

2.) IQ is heritable to a certain degree. Families tend to fall within 10 points of each other.

Add those two facts together and you can see how either areas of lower or higher IQ could trend toward being reinforced inside populations. That also doesn't mean that IQs cannot trend either up or down over time, too.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

There's a lot of software that tailors ads to a the viewer, not the website. You'd have to be living under a rock not to know this. Why on earth else do you think so many people can make threads on here complaining about the kinds of ads they get on various sites, even this one? It isn't because those advertisers necessarily flip switches saying which sites they want to be seen on. It's at least as much based on what searches you and I are doing on our own.

When I was car shopping a couple years ago, every single website I visited was inundating me with car ads. Today, those same sites bombard me with various clothing websites or video game ads. But others will complain they're getting things like porn.

Your ads are pretty much personalized.


True and also completely irrelevant.

The issue here is the site the adds appear on not the adds themselves.


It's a tad bit hypocritical don't you think?

We don't want our ads on that site, but the reason our ads are on that site is because people who are interested in our stuff visit that site. The implication being that they are happy to make money off people who would visit those sites but don't want people on those sites from making money off of them.

So ... they will sell those whom they perceive to be hateful scum, but won't return the favor. So much for high-minded morality and virtue signalling.


That makes no.sense at all.

You are arguing that Google should provide add revenue to a company that is breaching the t&C's of the product.

The t&C's exist for the very sound reason that most companies will not want to advertise or be associated with sites that promote certain views.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Most scientist today, including neuroscience does not use the kind of iq test Flynn or you are talking about.

You are correct though intelligence is both nature and nurture.

Which is why choosing orphans is so disengenius.

I guess I must be doing OK as I am a lowly carpenter and my wife has two doctorates.

But maybe we choose partners for other reasons too.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your right it doesn't make sense.

It's more right wing whining. They think somehow it's different when they whine than liberals.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

All right then, perhaps ad agencies should stop targeting ads so that it is easier to control which ads show up on which sites.

If the problem is that advertisers don't want their ads associated with "hate," then don't you think it would be better to stop targeting ads to the consumer? After all, since ads are targeted, the uncomfortable truth is that it's the consumers at least in part who dictate what ads show up on which pages.

Get it yet?

If, say for the sake of argument, Michelin doesn't want their tire ads to show up on what they deem to be "hate" sites, then perhaps they ought to stop selling to customers who visited those sites and who also bought or searched Michelin tires (or just tires in general) because that's how Michelin tire ads end up showing up on those "hateful" sites.

Consumer A needs tires and does internet research on different brands and types. Consumer A is then bombarded by tire ads on every internet site he or she visits for the foreseeable future, including Michelin, up to and including pr0n, politics, recipe, eBay, etc., according to Michelin, they are now associated with everything from Debbie does Dallas to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz because that's how ad software works and because that's what Consumer A does with his or her internet life.

At the same time, since ads are targeted to the consumer and therefore personalized ... I fail to see why this is such a big snit and wonder if it isn't at attempt at backdoor censorship. After all, my ads aren't going to be your ads. It's not like the "residue" of my internet shopping will dictate what ads you will see.

Of all the traffic these "hateful" sites receive, no one is going to be viewing the same ads because they're targeted to the specific viewer. It's not like anyone but me is going to see Michelin associated with the site, and unless I'm dumb as a box of rocks, I know why I am seeing those ads -- they're chosen because I've been looking at tires recently.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So in other words companies don't have a right to make contracts and penalize those who break them ok.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

So in other words companies don't have a right to make contracts and penalize those who break them ok.


Do we know what the original content was to see how it violated contract? Nope.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

So in other words companies don't have a right to make contracts and penalize those who break them ok.


We aren't allowed to point out the hypocrisies at work in the contract?



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah join the snowflake movement.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Because he took it down himself. He didn't have to. He just chose to keep making money rather than stick to his principles of free speech.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The adds are targeted at the consumer. Unless you are suggesting that the adds also veto consumers based either A) previous search history (someone on same IP address 6 months ago once looked at s site for whatever reason) or B) some kind of pop box (please click here to confirm you are not a white supremacist). Then adds will be based on what you have looked at recently not who you are.

A simpler solution seems to be not to advertise on sites promoting hate, violence etc. Wait that's exactly what they are doing!!!

You are also ignoring that not all adds are personalised and that many people use software that prevents cookies etc being logged.

You are also ignoring that Google is perfectly entitled to not provide an income stream to site that it considers to be promoting hate.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Google also bullies the left.

Google funded this leftist think tank extensively ... until one of their own published a piece praising the EU anti-trust effort against Google.

All of a sudden, the think tank booted that part of their tank.


The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American left and helped Google shape those debates.
But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar….
[A] couple of days later,… Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a larger corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive chairman.
Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that ‘the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,’ according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn…. Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of ‘imperiling the institution as a whole.’


So today Google is great for this little slice of tyranny. They were great for firing their engineer.

But now they are effectively forcing the ouster of bits of their own funded think tank that praised anti-trust efforts?

I thought you guys believed in anti-trust or is Big Tech somehow different from entities like Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma.

What if these guys were Monsanto or Haliburton? Alphabet is effectively the same size of player now.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Oh, I think a far simpler solution would be to stop targeting ads.

My point is that it's hypocritical to say you are against hate, but you have ads targeted at consumers who visit sites you deem hateful.

So you are plenty happy to sell to haters, but you don't associate yourself with hate.

In other words, it's empty virtue signaling, not an actual stand against hate. No one sees the ads on the site except the people who go there (the perceived haters) and we've established the corps are perfectly OK selling to them.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Gosh, you mean a company isn't going to pay employees to disrespect them and generate negative press?

Wow, capitalism is weird.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is not true. These people often sneak their videos into all kinds of loops. Some have a literal kids cartoon and then the next video is some bizarre propaganda.

Also these are computer program algorithms. So having a contract that describes what is allowed is perfectly normal.

You are basically whining, not unlike snowflakes with their constant complaining of how unfair it is.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join