Google has moved against another set of conservative sites. While many have celebrated the action against ZeroHedge and The Federalist, I remain deeply concerned over the free speech implications of such actions. I have written for years about public and private censorship, including recent actions to regulate and control speech on the Internet. 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. Writers have joined in this movement and two such academics recently declared “China was right” all along about censorship.
As 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. I am not very complex when it comes to such conflicts over free speech. I am not as much concerned with the merits of these fights as the implication of targeting some sites over others. I know very little about ZeroHedge while I am familiar with some of the writers on The Federalist. Google has said comparatively little about the reason for barring the sites and what NBC originally reported has been contradicted by the company. However, it is the explanation given for the action taken against the Federalist that I wanted to address. It seems to follow the pattern of politically biased, content-based discrimination against conservative sites by companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google. 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.
NBC News reported yesterday that ZeroHedge and The Federalist were banned from generating revenue through Google Ads. This demonetization of sites is a favorite tool for critics to shutdown writers or sites with opposing views. Google holds a virtual monopoly on such ad revenue (by some estimates over 70 percent of such revenue). 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. 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.
The NBC reporter Adele-Momoko Fraser broke the story which ncorrectly stated that both sites were demonetized. The Federalist was not demonetized but warning that it might be demonetized unless it changed its site to meet Google’s demands. In fairness to Fraser, some have claimed that she got the story wrong. However, NBC has quoted a Google spokesperson as saying “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. 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.
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. There are virtually no comparable references to “far left” or “alt left” sites that routinely run conspiracy theories about Republicans or raw hateful statements against conservative figures like the Daily Kos and other sites.
Here is what Google noted about the Federalist action.
The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google.
This is a common view held by both conservative politicians and writers today. Indeed, it often seems that you have to turn to Fox to check on the rioting and turn to CNN to check on the protesting. While one side claims that the rioting is being ignored, the other is claiming that it is being overblown.
This is a legitimate debate over the focus and bias of coverage. For example, Craig Melvin, an MSNBC host and co-anchor of “Today,” tweeted a “guide” that the images “on the ground” are not to be described as rioting but rather “protests.” That and other reporting led too many questioning the disconnect in reporting on peaceful protests with the scenes of burning buildings in the background and the report of hundreds of officers injured during the protests.
Then however a new reason for the threat came from Google which objected to its comment section. As we have discussed previously, many sites have eliminated their comments section because of trolls, paid or bot comments, or offensive speech. As one of the larger sites committed to free speech issues, we have resisted this trend to be open a forum for people to express themselves. We have tried to respond to complaints about offensive speech and in relatively few cases we have barred those who engage in such commentary. Because I have teaching and litigation duties, I have to rely on people raising racist or offensive content. However, comment section allow people to express their views and, while I often disagree with comments, I have tried not to censor them. Indeed, I routinely leave comments that insult me or say things that are demonstrably untrue about my past writings or testimony. The reason is that I feel uncomfortable with the role of censoring, particularly when I am the subject of the criticism.
Google has demanded that The Federalist remove its comment section because it offended the company’s policy against “dangerous and derogatory content.” The Federalist relented and reportedly eliminated its comment section. The result is the loss of the forum for individuals to exchange their views. The response of Google was an unmistakable message that sites would either comply with its demands or face ruin:
“Our policies do not allow ads to run against dangerous or derogatory content, which includes comments on sites, and we offer guidance and best practices to publishers on how to comply. As the comment section has now been removed, we consider this matter resolved and no action will be taken.”
There is also a concern over the NBC reporting. It was not only incorrect on the facts of the Goggle story but Fraser appeared to erase the line between reporting and advocacy in congratulating groups which target sites on the rights and seemingly celebrating the result.
Adele-Momoko Fraser
✔@AMFraserNBC
NEW — from @NBC_VC. Thanks to @SFFakeNews and @CCDHate for their hard work and collaboration! https://twitter.com/NBC_VC/status/1272962743436374016 …
NBC News VC
✔@NBC_VC
Two far-right sites, ZeroHedge and The Federalist, will no longer be able to generate revenue from any advertisements served by Google Ads.@AMFraserNBC reports.https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176 …
The Federalist complained that NBC did little to seek their view before running the story. Fraser relied on the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that targets online hate and misinformation. Conservative sites have complained that the group is primarily seeking to shutdown conservative sites by labeling them purveyors of hate, including holding them responsible of comments.
As we discussed earlier with regard to Twitter, Google seems to be making the case for not only pushing forward with anti-trust inquiries but stripping it and other companies of immunity protections. Indeed, the Justice Department just announced that it is moving forward with proposals to strip away protections. Google and other companies were given protections under Section 320 because it has claimed to being a neutral supplier of virtual space for people to speak with one another. It is now effectively shutting down sites because they allow others to comment freely on their sites. This biased targeting of sites has led to congressional objections and renewed threats to amend the federal law. Indeed, Google is undermining the support with some of us who viewed protections are fostering free speech values. It is now using its role to stifle and regulate speech, the very antithesis of not just free speech but the federal protections.
“ 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.”
I’m all for free speech, responsible free speech. If a site like the federalist which I see as a typical conservative site putting out some good articles. The issue seems to be the commenting on its site that’s gotten out of hand. I’m sure the federalist has its own policy regarding what is unacceptable on its comments. If they are not enforcing their own policies then it’s their own fault for getting in trouble with google. Free speech has its limits and allowing or neglecting to enforce one’s own policies regarding speech has its consequences too.
Just look at the comments on this blog. There are hateful comments from time to time, racist comments, some with racist innuendo, insults, etc. in the mix there are also good discussions going on or civil disagreements. Evidently Turley doesn’t enforce his own policy as well as many sites do, but when they eventually do its suddenly “censorship”. Everyone keeps forgetting one very important part of this, everyone AGREED to the terms and conditions upon signing up to google, twitter, Facebook, this blog, etc. Everyone literally accepted the possibility that their comments would be censored or removed or be kicked out of a site all together. Your free speech on these sites is dependent on your agreement with the platform.
Zerohedge is a fantastic website. check it out. so many early calls that turn out rightly, they should receive apologies from big tech and not demonetization
but trust me they aint goin offline. they got savings, lol
https://www.zerohedge.com/?page=1
I like Zerohedge – it’s a good source of links on various topics. I’m surprised Professor Turley is unfamiliar with it, as they often link to his own articles.
“the solution to bad speech should be more and better speech — rather than preventing others from hearing or reading opposing views.”
Demonitizing a website isn’t preventing people “from hearing or reading opposing views.”
The views are still available on the sites; the sites simply aren’t making money off of them. Most people make no money off of the views they make public, and the First Amendment doesn’t say that anyone’s speech-related income is protected.
Re: “while I often disagree with comments, I have tried not to censor them. Indeed, I routinely leave comments that insult me or say things that are demonstrably untrue about my past writings or testimony. The reason is that I feel uncomfortable with the role of censoring…,” I’m glad to see Mr. Turley saying something about comment censorship here, but I remind him that his own Civility Rule page says “We do not tolerate personal attacks or bullying. … I will delete abusive comments when I see them or when they are raised to me,” and that claim is false, as people post all sorts of personal attacks here, and many are not deleted even when Mr. Turley is alerted to them. He should update his Civility Rule page so that it accurately reflects whatever his actual policy is.
Agreed. Personal attack is generally the first line of rhetorical interaction on this blog.
Hellvis/Commit/Bookie:
Well when you see panty-waist tyrants like you guys as and the Gainesville puppets, whada gonna do but point it out. Oh and thanks for your erudition on the First Amendment via socks Commit & Bookie. It’s an education on complex topics by the terminally simple.
“Well when you” beg the question, make false allegations, and insult, “whada gonna do but point it out.”
Oooh, mespo is one of those fat manly guys who owns a big gun!! I do declare I may swoon!!
insults generally attract more interest than long winded radical screeds uttered in a modestly polite tone like mine
we are driven by attention– not just positive but negative. it is a form of feedback the brain craves.
this dynamic has nothing to do with ideology, but it does have to do with capitalism, like global capitalism that is
google is one of the “made men” of the capitalist global mafia, and their fake “principles” amount to little more than social engineering with little things, to maximize opportunities on their big things
nationalism stands in the way of google, especially from americans. they want to crush it.
Check out zerohedge folks so many times they called shots, i placed calls, and then $$$$$
truth can make you money– especially the truths that big tech wants to ban
https://www.zerohedge.com/?page=1
Thanks JT for your free speech advocacy. It seems crazy to have to say that.
One point that was left out was that in her initial tweet Fraser advocated the hashtag Black Lives Matter, then deleted it and tweeted what you have in the article. She also stated that NBC corroborated with those two groups and reported it to Google but later she backpedaled on that as well.
Isn’t it more damning that a ‘journalist’ would have a hand in censoring other reporting entities, especially when those entities singled out NBC on its past bad acts.
censorship is censorship, whether it is technically legal or not, it clearly denotes a fascist approach and Google owns that.
Lest we forget, this is all courtesy of the Left and the Democrat Party. J Kunstler, a Democrat, put it well this week:
“Then there is the ever-seditious opposition to Mr. Trump, the Democratic Party and its Resistance allies. Race war is their latest “solution” to the woes of a disintegrating economy, which only adds social and cultural collapse to the darkening scene. Since much of the Resistance leadership is drawn from America’s intellectual class — the news media, the campus faculties, the honchos of bureaucracy, the politicized judiciary, and the performing monkeys of Hollywood — they will end up denouncing and eating each other in their zealous competition to bring down the hated Trump by inventing ever-fresh fantasies to justify destroying western civilization and all the horses it rode in on, namely: individual liberty, free inquiry in the pursuit of truth, the rule of and due process of law, and the consent of the governed.
Never in US history has there been a faction as dishonest as today’s Democratic Party or as habituated to the application of bad faith in political conflict. Their addiction to malicious hoaxes and engineered untruths knows no limits — and naturally so, since they are motivated primarily by the dream of dissolving all boundaries in policy, law, sexual relations, and personal conduct. They’ve been busy proving the past few weeks that they’re against the social contract as a basic proposition, exhorting for an end to law enforcement while inciting street violence, crimes against property, and murder.”
JHK is one of my intellectual heroes. Every year I love him more. What a great mind and a fine writer. I recommend all his books
here are some fun post apocalyptics
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B00YT5KDF4/ref=dp_st_0802124925
Wow, so much here…
You and I are totally agreed on this: “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.”
And while, in discussion, my guess is that we may or may not agree on what constitutes working definitions of conservatism and progressivism, the above kind of cuts through all that. Clearly, we’re experiencing a societal shift going on and there is some danger in going too far to moderate it.
To me, someone who identifies as ‘deplorable’ is probably gullible and racist, part of a dying white male patriarchy who better learn to adapt or get plowed under. But to them, I’m a leftist, clueless idiot. Whatever, it doesn’t really matter.
It’s going to be interesting seeing how Trumpism, when it hits its inevitable wall, shakes out in its dying days — it being the culmination of Nixon’s southern strategy and all.
Maybe the most important thing lies in educating, at a very young age, the ways of rhetoric because we certainly have to keep the tradition of free speech going, or at least the illusion of it since I think it may be easy to romanticize that we have a tradition of it here in the States while really on a lot of levels there has been selectively free speech. Like it or not, Barr was really just pointing out the obvious when he said history is written by the winners after all. Many core voices in our culture and representative democracy have been systematically silenced by government, the academic canon and politics for ages.
My vote will always go toward more free speech and more education as to what constitutes rhetoric. In short, less idiocy of the general public.
What concerns me much more is the clear effort to exclude people from voting.
I am a senior white female, a well educated owner of a business in fine arts yet I would need be called a ‘deplorable’ by you in your crass categorization of all things not anti-Trump. I would vote for Mr, Potato Head before I would consider ANY democrat yet you want to place me with some hillbilly notion of a redneck simply because of your proscriptive understanding of this nation from within your cloister of elitism. Shame on you.
“I would need be called a ‘deplorable’ by you [Hellvis] in your crass categorization of all things not anti-Trump.”
No, Hellvis, said “someone who identifies as ‘deplorable’ is probably gullible and racist, part of a dying white male patriarchy who better learn to adapt or get plowed under,” but note that s/he didn’t identify anyone as a “deplorable.” Rather, s/he spoke about people who self-identify that way, so if you don’t self-identify as “deplorable,” s/he wasn’t talking about you. Do you self-identify that way?
“you [Hellvis] want to place me with some hillbilly notion of a redneck.”
S/he didn’t say that about you either.
It’s counterproductive to pretend that someone has said or wants something s/he didn’t say. You can choose not to do that.
here’s a nice bit of poetry by the cunning wordsmith Ice T
“whites got a thing they call white pride,
blacks got the muscle mexicans got the knives,
but i didn’t know who [really] had the power,
the whites the blacks or just the gun tower
“To me, someone who identifies as ‘deplorable’ is probably gullible and racist, part of a dying white male patriarchy who better learn to adapt or get plowed under.”
Excuse me? That’s pretty threatening. What is it that I am supposed to adapt to? Why should I willingly let go of maintaining a white majority in the country *my people* built? Why should I accept institutionalized policies which discriminate against whites, and in favor of non-whites? Why should I accept that laws are no longer enforced, or just eliminated, when too many non-whites are unable to follow them, leading to outrage over “disparate impact?” Why should I sit back, shut up, and go to my re-education camp, when whites are increasingly vilified in any number of institutions, while the mass media utterly distorts the reality of crime and race, and treats black on white violent crime completely differently than it treats the much less common white on black violent crime? Why should I accept the nonsensical elevation of subjective “gender identity” over biological sex? Etc.
I don’t know if you are an idiot or not, but I do know you are the enemy. People with your attitude are sowing the seeds for a civil war in this country.
I’m a deplorable white male.
“probably gullible and racist, part of a dying white male patriarchy who better learn to adapt or get plowed under.”
Come now, I am certainly not gullible.
And the “patriarchy” is a form of hierarchy that characterizes every modern civilization to one degree or another.
Fighting “hierarchy” is impossible. One hierarchy in society will only be replaced by another. This is human nature.
Google should be held accountable for their anti free speech and political bias. The NBC reporter, Frazier, is an activist and she does not hide it, she use #BLM, NBC/MSNBC are anti Trump, they have shown it.
FCC and the Senate need to review and take away Google protection from law suits. Strip away rule 230 from Google. DOJ needs to go in with a heavy hand and break up this ness of activist, socialist, and social justice warriros
Had no problem finding the The Federalist on Google. It came up immediately. How are they being banned?
The Federalist shut down their msg bb to kiss the azz of the Chicom controlled Google/Youtube.
So they’re back up for the moment.
They have been DEMONETIZED. That means they get no money for any ads that show on their site. But, the ads presumably still run? Anyway, look for The American Thinker to be next.
“Google blocks ZeroHedge from ad platform, warns The Federalist over comment sections”
“ZeroHedge comment section consistently violated Google’s dangerous and derogatory policy, tech giant says”
By Audrey Conklin FOXBusiness
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/google-the-federalist-zerohedge-ad-platform
Google Ads bans Zero Hedge for racist content, but reverses decision on The Federalist
Google claims commenters, not articles, were the culprits
By Adi Robertson Jun 16, 2020
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293285/google-ads-bans-the-federalist-zero-hedge-racist-content-discrimination-demonetization
reading ZEROHEDGE grows your brain and your manhood too
https://www.zerohedge.com/?page=1
They were forced to shut down their comments section.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/federalist-co-founder-sean-davis-responds-to-nbc-google-deplatforming-attempt/
Did you read the blog post? Can you read? Nowhere does it say they are being banned per se. They are being banned from generating advertising revenue.
Rudy M – you can keep your business open and sell goods, however you cannot make a profit. Sound good to you? It is called demonetization.
“Did you read the blog post? Can you read?”
You should read the column more carefully yourself.
“They are being banned from generating advertising revenue.”
No, they were given a warning, not banned from generating ad revenue, and it was a warning about their comments.
As Turley’s column says:
“The Federalist was not demonetized but warning that it might be demonetized unless it changed its site to meet Google’s demands. … Google has demanded that The Federalist remove its comment section because it offended the company’s policy against ‘dangerous and derogatory content.’”
Of course, an alternative to removing the comment section is to moderate those comments that include “dangerous and derogatory content.”
Of course, an alternative to removing the comment section is to moderate those comments that include “dangerous and derogatory content.”
Dangerous and derogatory content? Ooh, that sounds scary. Run for your safe space if you are unable to confront words.
Have you ever read The Federalist comment section? I’ve followed them for years and like this blog, the comments section is WordPress. Unlike this blog, The Federalist’s comment section is like the wild west running the full range of the political spectrum, civil and uncivil. Perhaps you’d care to cite what comments you believe qualify as dangerous and derogatory content and we can debate them.
I bet you’re smart enough to understand what quotation marks mean.
If you want to know what Google considers “dangerous and derogatory content,” you can read their policy:
https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6015406?hl=en
If you dislike their policy, don’t use their products and/or contact them to advocate for a policy change.
If you want to know what Google considers “dangerous and derogatory content,”
Nope. I don’t need Google to tell me what is dangerous or derogatory about content or anything else. But since they control about 70% of the information available on the internet, what we need them to do is get out of the way and leave the consumer free to form their own opinions.
If you “don’t need Google to tell [you] what is dangerous or derogatory about content,” then you shouldn’t have asked me “to cite what comments [I] believe qualify as dangerous and derogatory content,” since I was only quoting Google’s characterization of it, not making a claim of my own about it.
“they control about 70% of the information available on the internet”
A claim for which you provide no evidence.
I doubt it’s true. For ex., it’s astoundingly easy to find and read info on the internet without using their search engine or their browser. But I’m always open to changing my mind in response to good evidence.
ZEROHEDGE STRONG LIKE BULL
https://www.zerohedge.com/?page=1
READING IT MAKES A STRONG MAN STRONGER
Google doesn’t act as if it cares about losing 230 protection. Lawsuits may be a headache, but one it can live with. Not so the wrath of the woke left. Google knows that the power establishment is with the left, so it can continue to demonize the right without risking the loss of conservative advertisers. But technology loves freedom. Defenders of freedom usually come up with innovations in the market that gets the “objectionable” content redirected to the people. Google’s “Golden Goose” business model is more vulnerable than it thinks.
Those who don’t defend free speech for all will find it exists for none.
Free speech is the foundational. The secrete sauce of our country’s success and needs to be cherished and protected only below physical harm and life itself.
If we are dinosaurs as you say, then our nation is headed towards the same fate.
I support Free Responsible speech, that caveat is needed to bring civility back into the human condition, currently mired in incivility!
“Civility” and “responsibility” as defined by whom? The Leftist mob?
At home we dumped Google years ago. We use no Google products and refuse to “update” our operating System.
The city dump site is looking more and more attractive as to where to “update” our technology devices. People forget they serve us, not the other around
This website has Google trackers on it, so you’re using Google products, even if you hadn’t realized.
In essence the questions of what is covered by the first amendment regarding freedom of speech is for America’s courts to decide. There is a gray area and this device to determine just how gray. Google is not an American government body as are the courts. It follows that Google, nor any other private entity, should not be making the determinations as to what is politically correct or otherwise. Private entities should be allowed to censor that which has been determined to be objectionable by the courts. Anyone can seek a determination through the courts.
This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The 1st is a limit on Government, not private business. Google can censor to its heart’s content….legally.
Forced silence begets violence.
Yes, it is legal but it is still censorship. No different than ‘Banned in Boston’. A self-appointed fascism of ideology and Google owns that title.
Yes, however, Google is presenting itself as a non partisan, first amendment based entity. There are plenty of biased rags out there, proposing and supporting ideas peculiar to their bents, and they can, to their hearts’ contents censor and propose as they wish. Recently Twitter’s profile in this matter came to light when it added qualifying information pertaining to Trump’s pathological lies in the form of corrected statistics and advice to delve a little further into the veracity of Trump’s statements. This advice should be attached to all Tweets, regardless of source; kind of like the warning label on a pack of cigarettes.
Ziegler, Google is a private company that is also a MONOPOLY.
The idea is to shut down all platforms for the right before the election.
You are correct. This is no different from the IRS scandal in the Tea Party years, or the fascist shutdown of Trump rallies in 2016. This is simply hooliganism of a higher order. The Democrat Party way of things.
John Mosby – it is election interference.
FREE SPEECH…
🇺🇸
isn’t just what you agree with
As a progressive, liberal, seeker of the truth and common sense, if we could somehow reduce Trump’s lies and blasphemies by half, the world would be a better place.
Yes the first amendment protects Trump’s pathological lying.
Trump’s dupes will believe anything he says and America will simply have to live with that, for now. Progress in this area, the mindless actually listening to fact, will be an evolutionary change akin to glaciers receding.
issac – I think if you go back and look at each of the untruths, 2/3rds are now proved to be true, but not taken off the list.
Paul, somehow I don’t think Issac would be interested in knowing that…
Another evidenceless claim.
No reason to assume your claim is true.
Committ – since a lot of those lies were Trump claiming his phone was tapped, or he was being spied on, or there was no collusion, we can say those were all correct.