Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment.
The problem is that Mr Phillips mentioned in the article must lack a sense of humor and/or information literacy if he thought he was reading hate speech. He was reading an opinion / sarcasm piece from Milo, Breitbart's in-house provocateur.
It is such a tiresome narrative that the liberal media outlets continue to trot out their own versions of fake news when they attempt to label breitbart sexist, racist, homophobic, or antisemitic.
It is sites like the nytimes who, through their reporting, have completely defanged the labels of "racist" and "hate speech" to the point that they mean nothing.
Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech. It might be in poor taste, but it is not hate speech. Mr Phillips, the professor quoted in the article, would do well to leave his ivory tower and actually talk to someone from another walk of life. Leave the coddled campus life, head to a bowling alley, and listen to the Thursday league banter. Maybe then, in the cloud of rough and jockular language Mr Phillips and his ilk will see a small piece of the substrate of Americans who tell dirty jokes. Who make fun of their spouses. Who call each other names (often politically incorrect) and do so as members of a tribe.
They read breitbart and Drudge Report because those sites offer an alternative narrative to what comes from regular mass media.
Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars.
How does this end? My guess is it won't matter in the end. Thankfully.
Breitbarts traffic shows no signs of slowing. That inventory vacated by the brands too weak to ignore these internet-crybullies will be snapped up by the brands who want to reach a conservative readership.
>Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment.
>Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars.
Without quibbling over whether some of their content is hateful (I think it is; you disagree), what's wrong with letting the free market de-value ads run on their network? What's wrong with attacking their business model? Companies don't have to run ads next to headlines like "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" That's the free market at work.
> Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation
> Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech
Given the rise Trump, Brexit, AfD in Germany, M5S in Italy, and all the rest, it seems obvious the problem at the moment is mainly right-wing fake news sites.
Crowdsourcing a "hitting them where it hurts" approach to fake news seems like an interesting and promising strategy to eliminate the income streams of websites that promote hatred. I am trying to think of the downsides, i.e. how will this come to bite us in the butt...
> I am trying to think of the downsides, i.e. how will this come to bite us in the butt...
The right has discovered social media. If you start brigading right-wing sites by going after their advertisers, they're going to start doing the same thing to you.
What's more, as the recent election showed, the right's brigading ability is far greater than the left's at the moment. What do you think would happen if Milo Yiannopoulos were to post the contact information for advertiser at Vox.com and the Huffington Post and tell his followers to demand that they pull their ads? I'd be willing to bet a good deal of money that it would be more impactful than an opinion piece in the NY Times.
Trump got elected. Imagine if the US government threatened to refuse to work with anyone who's got "inaccurate" news, according to the republican definition of the word.
More generally, the definition of acceptable opinion will shift to something you will find unacceptable, and this system will still be in place.
Note: before you say that'd be illegal, I'd like to remind you that the republicans control Congress, the Senate and the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court and the Fed. Illegal actions for the republicans is effectively only things that violate the constitution, and only when so judged by republican judges.
I think articles like this are what helped Trump get elected. People are tired of being told what to think. They're tired of SJWs. They're tired of the pitchforks and public shaming.
BuzzFeed News has actually become a pretty reputable organization in the past couple of years. They have quality journalists working there (according to journalist friends). I was also surprised when I heard about this since I associate them with listicles, but appearently that's how they fund things...
[+] [-] sheraz|9 years ago|reply
Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment.
The problem is that Mr Phillips mentioned in the article must lack a sense of humor and/or information literacy if he thought he was reading hate speech. He was reading an opinion / sarcasm piece from Milo, Breitbart's in-house provocateur.
It is such a tiresome narrative that the liberal media outlets continue to trot out their own versions of fake news when they attempt to label breitbart sexist, racist, homophobic, or antisemitic.
It is sites like the nytimes who, through their reporting, have completely defanged the labels of "racist" and "hate speech" to the point that they mean nothing.
Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech. It might be in poor taste, but it is not hate speech. Mr Phillips, the professor quoted in the article, would do well to leave his ivory tower and actually talk to someone from another walk of life. Leave the coddled campus life, head to a bowling alley, and listen to the Thursday league banter. Maybe then, in the cloud of rough and jockular language Mr Phillips and his ilk will see a small piece of the substrate of Americans who tell dirty jokes. Who make fun of their spouses. Who call each other names (often politically incorrect) and do so as members of a tribe.
They read breitbart and Drudge Report because those sites offer an alternative narrative to what comes from regular mass media.
Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars.
How does this end? My guess is it won't matter in the end. Thankfully.
Breitbarts traffic shows no signs of slowing. That inventory vacated by the brands too weak to ignore these internet-crybullies will be snapped up by the brands who want to reach a conservative readership.
[+] [-] rgejman|9 years ago|reply
>Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars.
Without quibbling over whether some of their content is hateful (I think it is; you disagree), what's wrong with letting the free market de-value ads run on their network? What's wrong with attacking their business model? Companies don't have to run ads next to headlines like "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" That's the free market at work.
[+] [-] jbob2000|9 years ago|reply
> Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech
Something isn't quite lining up here...
[+] [-] relics443|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gotofritz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rgejman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amorphid|9 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/rebootdem/status/808456933795475456
http://adstrike.us/
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|9 years ago|reply
The right has discovered social media. If you start brigading right-wing sites by going after their advertisers, they're going to start doing the same thing to you.
What's more, as the recent election showed, the right's brigading ability is far greater than the left's at the moment. What do you think would happen if Milo Yiannopoulos were to post the contact information for advertiser at Vox.com and the Huffington Post and tell his followers to demand that they pull their ads? I'd be willing to bet a good deal of money that it would be more impactful than an opinion piece in the NY Times.
[+] [-] candiodari|9 years ago|reply
More generally, the definition of acceptable opinion will shift to something you will find unacceptable, and this system will still be in place.
Note: before you say that'd be illegal, I'd like to remind you that the republicans control Congress, the Senate and the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court and the Fed. Illegal actions for the republicans is effectively only things that violate the constitution, and only when so judged by republican judges.
[+] [-] DougN7|9 years ago|reply
Nobody changes by bring attacked.
[+] [-] gotofritz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trav4225|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hclivess|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|9 years ago|reply
Mote. Beam.
[+] [-] yifanlu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Neliquat|9 years ago|reply