web analytics

Google will decide what you can read

By Patrick Van Roy On June 17th, 2020

Yesterday Google at the bequest of NBC and a FOREIGN ACTIVIST GROUP from England tried to shut down 2 sites it disagrees with The Federalist and Zero Hedge. They used their complete control of the Internet Ad Revenue to try and put 2 of NBCs competitors out of Business.

 

133 Responses to “Google will decide what you can read”

  1. So Google have rules and two sites broke them. So Google enforced their rules. Why do you hate capitalism so much, commie?

  2. Well said Seamus.

  3. This video is over 12 minutes long, way too long to listen to at this time

    Why exactly where the two sites taken off google?

    What terms of service were violated ?

    I have occasionally glanced at the federalist and zero hedge over the years and I haven’t anything particularly awful about them

    But Google doesn’t have any power to take either one of them down.Anyone here can look at either one of those sites all day long today if they wish

  4. Here is the site that was supposedly shut down

    https://thefederalist.com/

  5. In the case of the blog it was for posting anti Semitic conspiracy theories (about Jews funding BLM riots) while the Federalist was for issues in their comments section. The Federalist have now deleted the comments and Google have restored their account.

    The Google action was to demonitise them. Sites earn money by running Google ads on their site. Google removed their ads from these website (and thus cut their revenue).

  6. The Zero folks were banned from the Ad Platform and the Federalist apparently received a warning that it would be too for violating Google policy. The Fake News crowd is upset because they want their fake news to continue despite the polives of the private companies.

  7. No Seamus if you would watch something now and then you might get a clue to what is actually going on.

  8. It’s funny how the Fake News crowd are all in favour of private companies being allowed to pick and choose their customers if it’s a gay couple trying to buy a cake, but as soon as the customer is an Alt Right news site with a penchant for publishing antisemitic conspiracy theories they decide the exact opposite.

  9. Any advertiser should be able to withdraw ads, etc.

  10. The Federalist is THE Constitutional/Conservative site on the Internet. They host the most solid writing and opinions on the right, by Reporters, Judges, Politicians and Pundits. Including several Supreme court Judges.

    Google in conjunction with nbc and foreigners are interfering in our election, and interfering with The Constitution.

  11. “No Seamus if you would watch something now and then you might get a clue to what is actually going on.”

    Or maybe you can post an argument, instead of posting endless propaganda videos and then taking the hump when people don’t watch them.

    What is your argument? Not Carlson’s argument, your argument?

  12. How are they interfering with the Constitution?

  13. Google needs to be broken up.

  14. A little thing called free speech Seamus….. last question I’m answering from you.

    If you watched the clip you wouldn’t ask stupid questions.

  15. Google have offended the Glorious Leader, the state press and the Politburo. In the interest of the Supreme Soviet they must be broken up.

  16. “A little thing called free speech Seamus”

    Free Speech in the Constitution protects against government action, not private action. So how is private regulation of speech unconstitutional?

    I take it you oppose Donald Trump’s attempts to intimidate the NFL into regulating the speech of their players and will oppose firing any player who kneels during the US anthem?

  17. How is the free speech of the Federalist and Zero Hedge being violated, when they have unfettered worldwide distribution?

    This is the ultimate fake argument.

  18. Another example here(but without the racial guilt element) of what I mentioned on the politics of hate thread, where a good argument is spoiled by hype and false claims.

  19. We have readers here in the US, Canada, Ireland, UK, Spain and Germany.

    Those readers can read those sites at any time that they wish.

    Where is the censorship, Pat?

    Speak for yourself, don’t hide behind Tucker Carlson.

  20. I’m not even sure it is a good argument spoiled by hype. In my opinion it is a pretty nonsense argument in general.

    If I started a site should I be able, by law, to compel Fox News, the Daily Mail, the Trump Organisation etc… to give me money for advertising and if they don’t then the law should break them up?

    And if that shouldn’t be the case for them why should it be the case for Google?

  21. There are arguments for breaking up big tech and other great American companies, but this isn’t one of them.

  22. Seamus

    To be absolutely honest, Im not quite sure what has happened or is being attempted here. Is it an attempt to stop advertisers placing ads on these sites, or to stop Google directing searchers to these sites. What is the specific actions being demanded by the protest groups here ?

  23. People pay Google to advertise. Google then place those ads on other sites, in this case Zero Hedge and the Federalist. Those sites will then feature those ads on their sites and Google pays them for it. The effect is that Google act as an advertising brokerage.

    Google has terms and conditions that people need to follow and Zero Hedge and the Federalist broke those terms. So Google removed the ads, and thus the advertising revenue the sites get.

  24. Seamus

    Thanks for the explanation. Can companies place their ads if they wish directly on those sites without going through Google ?

  25. I’m sure they probably could. Google makes it really easy for both parties (the site and the company placing the advert) so I’m not sure it would be worth their while. But they could do it.

  26. no they can not……. that’s the problem.

  27. Why can’t they Patrick?

  28. Who told you that the websites won’t accept ads directly

    And whose fault is that if they don’t?

    Does Google demand exclusivity?

    ( It would be easier for the site if google did all the ads, but does google demand exclusivity ? )\

  29. Any site can run their own ads. This website could run its own ads without using Google.

  30. Google controls the entire add revenue for the internet. sure you can get Joe’s bakery to buy an add but EVERY corporate account is controlled by Google. They also control over 80% of the worlds Data Storage.

    There is no other entity on the planet that wields the power of Google. They are a super power, the only thing they don’t have is a border.

    The internet is the western worlds communication network and they control it and are answerable to no one. Google is THE Monopoly that every megalomaniac titan of industry ever dreamed of.

    They need to be broken up, but how do you break up a company that controls and has access to every piece of information on almost the entire planet.

    What you refuse to see is our laws and traditions be damned if they don’t like what you are saying your done and you’re a pariah.

    By doing this to the Federalist might have just been the straw that breaks the Camels back. One can only hope.

  31. They need to be broken up, but how do you break up a company that controls and has access to every piece of information on almost the entire planet.

    Pure capitalism in action.

  32. If it is the case that google runs all the ads on certain websites, and google has exclusivity to place ads on those sites, and then google ( not the websites ) decides to block certain ads, then that’s a potential problem….

    But here, if I am not mistaken, google has a problem with websites themselves. I’ve never seen an ad for Zero Hedge or from The Federalist.

    What exactly is the point being made here? And don’t hide behind Tucker Carlson’s skirts.

    Say it in words, yourself.

  33. Those sites I think accept ads, I’ve never seen them advertise for themselves.

  34. No they can not……. that’s the problem

    You’re saying that sites can’t run their own ads? I don’t believe that’s correct.

    Dave’s technology expertise is needed here.

  35. Any major site, absent an exclusivity agreement with an ad company, should have the ability to accept ads.

    This would be more a business rather than a technical question.

    But it would probably be a pain in the ass to deal with, so they likely outsource the task, and not need to have staff to deal with ads ( from multiple sources )

  36. It all seems a bit hazy and complicated to me. On one hand there is the obvious point that any private company can operate as it wishes in regard to its relationship to any other websites and if Google doesn’t want to be involved in assisting certain websites via their advertising platform they are perfectly entitled to do that, but on the other hand they shouldn’t assist politically partisan activist groups who want to suppress or damage the existence of ideologically opposed websites by automatically accepting their definitions of ‘hate speech’.
    Google, given its size and power does have a responsibility I think to protect the ethos of free speech even if it isn’t legally required to.

  37. Google, given its size and power does have a responsibility I think to protect the ethos of free speech even if it isn’t legally required to

    As I said on another thread Colm, Google like Twitter & Facebook has house regulations and standards and every time someone reports content breaching their rules Tucker & Fox are trying to frame it as a ‘freedom of speech’ non story.

    It’s classic sensationalism which in this case has a political slant.

  38. The complainers at ATW can’t even explain the issue at all.

  39. “Google controls the entire add revenue for the internet.”

    Simply not true. Estimates would suggest that Google’s digital ad market share was 37.2% in 2018 and is declining. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

    In reality Google decided they wanted nothing to do with a fringe alt-right conspiracy theory site, and warned another less-fringe alt-right conspiracy theory site about their conduct. and the alt-right conspiracy theory nut jobs can’t stand that. So Google must be broken up. All hail the Glorious Leader (peace be upon him).

  40. Paul

    The point I am making is that someone reporting ‘content breaching their rules’ doesn’t mean that it is. It’s an opinion and often a biased and politically loaded piece of activism, and I hope Google base any decisions on a genuine independent analysis of their own rather than pandering to political expediency. I don’t know enough, well anything really about what the particular ‘offensive’ articles content was so I can’t say if Google made a justified call, but I am aware that what some people call ‘hate speech’ really isn’t.

  41. Zero Hedge was demonetised after running articles suggesting that the riots were being organised by the CIA at the behest of (and with funding from) Jews. The Federalist was due to racist comments in an unmoderated comments section. Those comments have now been removed, and there is no action being taking against the Federalist.

  42. What exactly was the ” demonetised ”

    What did google stop doing?

    Stopped providing ads to those sites?

  43. Phantom, on June 17th, 2020 at 3:43 PM Said: Edit Comment
    If it is the case that google runs all the ads on certain websites, and google has exclusivity to place ads on those sites, and then google ( not the websites ) decides to block certain ads, then that’s a potential problem….

    But here, if I am not mistaken, google has a problem with websites themselves. I’ve never seen an ad for Zero Hedge or from The Federalist.

    What exactly is the point being made here? And don’t hide behind Tucker Carlson’s skirts.

    Say it in words, yourself.

    I hide behind no one’s skirts I find clips that express what is I want to say or illustrates MY POINT. If I wanted to type this crap out I wouldn’t use the clips.

    It’s very simple phantom, Google is interfering in free speech. Nothing else need be said. They are deciding whether or not you or your site can be read.

    It is a power no one has the right to and no one should have the ability to do. They have the ability and are using it against political speech that they disagree with.

    It’s a violation of Human Rights.

  44. “Stopped providing ads to those sites?”

    Exactly. Google stopped providing ads to Zero Hedge, and warned the Federalist that it would do the same if the Federalist didn’t delete some racist comments.

  45. Google is not interfering in speech if what Seamus says is correct.

    Such claims are silly.

  46. “It’s very simple phantom, Google is interfering in free speech. Nothing else need be said. They are deciding whether or not you or your site can be read.”

    No they aren’t. There is nothing stopping you from reading Zero Hedge. In fact you can Google Zero Hedge and find the site. It is simply Google won’t be giving them money. You are saying Google must pay everyone money or they should be broken up.

  47. Here is Zero Hedge’s take on the story

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/google-demonetizes-zero-hedge

  48. Seamus confirms the abuse of power…. thank you.

    “Stopped providing ads to those sites?”

    Exactly. Google stopped providing ads to Zero Hedge, and warned the Federalist that it would do the same if the Federalist didn’t delete some racist comments.

    Google threatened bankruptcy a cut off of all revenue generating capability to 2 sites because it did not LIKE what was said in THE COMMENT SECTION.

    They held 2 site’s LIABLE for comments, while they are EXEMPT under 230 for being LIABLE for anything written by someone else on THEIR sites.

    Do as I say not as I do or I’ll bankrupt you.

    They are enforcing their rules on everyone else speech, that’s a violation of not just American rights but Human Rights.

  49. “Google threatened bankruptcy a cut off of all revenue generating capability to 2 sites because it did not LIKE what was said in THE COMMENT SECTION.”

    Not all revenue. All revnue from Google. They are perfectly capable of generating other revenue. Google has no control over that.

    “They held 2 site’s LIABLE for comments, while they are EXEMPT under 230 for being LIABLE for anything written by someone else on THEIR sites.”

    They didn’t hold them liable. Google couldn’t go to court and get a court to do anything. Google just choose not to do business with them.

    “They are enforcing their rules on everyone else speech, that’s a violation of not just American rights but Human Rights.”

    Free speech protects against government action, not private action. I ask again, because you convinently ignored it, should the NFL fire players who kneel during the US National Anthem?

  50. you should read FO’s link

  51. I did. Which according to you should be impossible, because Google are deciding “whether or not you or your site can be read”. If Google are deciding that I can’t read Zero Hedge how did I read it?

  52. Seamus you’re right googles just a search engine, they mean nothing, control nothing. Just another company trying to make a buck.

  53. “Seamus you’re right googles just a search engine, they mean nothing, control nothing. Just another company trying to make a buck.”

    They are a company, who’s principle role is to create money. That is what they care about. And they are justifiably worried that investors and advertisers will pull their money and their ads from Google if those ads end up of far-right racist sites. So Google are making a business decision to prevent that from happening. It is all about money. The American way. Stop being a Commie.

  54. Big companies should never have carte blanche to do whatever they wish, but as a general principle, companies or persons should have the right to associate with or not associate with firms or people so long as its not based on things like race or sex etc.

  55. And if you click on the link I gave above you can see ads running at the top, side and at the bottom of the article.

  56. so you didn’t read the article you linked to….. lmao

  57. “so you didn’t read the article you linked to….. lmao”

    What makes you think* that?

    *probably not the right word to use.

  58. Phantom, on June 17th, 2020 at 5:04 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Big companies should never have carte blanche to do whatever they wish, but as a general principle, companies or persons should have the right to associate with or not associate with firms or people so long as its not based on things like race or sex etc.

    They are doing the first part they long ago crossed the line of your second part phantom.

  59. Patrick

    How do you think Google should be broken up ?

  60. the context of your remark fo was oh look they got ad’s, it’s all bullshit.

    The body of the article makes that statement by you a foolish one.

  61. Patrick

    Surely healthy free speech means being able to condemn Google and to campaign to pressure Google to reverse its decisions. Its not healthy free speech for the law to force Google to do things it doesn’t want to do.

  62. BTW

    I don’t use google as my search engine, have not done so for years

    duckduckgo is just as good, and I think that it can be used with any phone and maybe any pc or ipad

  63. https://duckduckgo.com/

    If this or similar is not your search engine, please don’t complain about google.

  64. An interesting problem isn’t Colm?

    How do you break up a company that has control of communications, intelligence networks, defense contracts, space contracts, weapons contracts, and controls one of if not the largest portfolios of wealth and business ever….

    it’s a bit of an issue.

  65. The search engine is the largest funnel of data in the world, and every other search engine crosses through networks they control.

  66. The more interesting problem is how do you break up a major company for no reason other than you (or the people who think for you) don’t like them, all while pretending to support free market capitalism?

  67. Colm, on June 17th, 2020 at 5:20 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick

    Surely healthy free speech means being able to condemn Google and to campaign to pressure Google to reverse its decisions. Its not healthy free speech for the law to force Google to do things it doesn’t want to do.

    The Law isn’t needed to force google to do anything, it’s needed to stop them from censoring free speech.

  68. “The Law isn’t needed to force google to do anything, it’s needed to stop them from censoring free speech.”

    Free speech protects against government action, not private action. In fact the government insisting that Google carry messaging that Google doesn’t want to carry would be an attack on, not a protection of, free speech. So not only are you opposed to capitalism but you are also opposed to free speech.

  69. A lot of people can switch search engines in a minute on apple and other devices.

    Just go into settings and try someone other than google.

  70. Me and the People that think LIKE ME are a lot more ingrained in my society than you think.

    And that group is not made up of broken down old men sitting at a keyboard.

    The Principal of Free Speech is something very sacred here to a very large group of People of every aspect of my society. The threat to free speech that google facebook and twitter have created in themselves is a threat of their own making and Laws have been and are being debated to reign them in.

    This move on the Federalist was mistake on googles part. One hopefully they will regret, because even with their fingers in every pie the Federal Government can and will cost them billions in revenue.

  71. This is not a true free speech issue

  72. Phantom is lost an babbbblin… lol

    search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, search engine, ……….search engine,

  73. Bullshit it is the very definition of a Free Speech issue.

  74. “Me and the People that think LIKE ME are a lot more ingrained in my society than you think.”

    Think for you. As has been shown recently you have an inability to think for yourself, and have been relegated to simply posting the viewpoints of other people.

    “The Principal of Free Speech is something very sacred here to a very large group of People of every aspect of my society.”

    So why are you attacking it? Free speech protects against government action. And you are incouraging the government to attack Google’s free speech rights.

    Can I again ask should the NFL fire players who kneel during the US National Anthem?

  75. “Bullshit it is the very definition of a Free Speech issue.”

    It is a free speech issue. And Patrick is anti-free speech.

  76. Patrick

    Just like some of the BLM activists (who talk about a holocaust of black people at the hands of the police) you weaken your potentially good arguments by hype and false claims. You can say that Google are acting unfairly. You can say they are pandering to left wing political groups and condemn the way they implement their monetarizing rules policies , but they are not censoring free speech any more than big companies that choose not to advertise during the Superbowl breaks because they may not wish to associate with the performing acts are censoring artistic freedom.

  77. The point I am making is that someone reporting ‘content breaching their rules’ doesn’t mean that it is. It’s an opinion and often a biased and politically loaded piece of activism, and I hope Google base any decisions on a genuine independent analysis of their own rather than pandering to political expediency

    Colm, it’s my understanding that when a complaint is made there is an investigation however I don’t know the depth of the investigation process, (as I assume neither does anyone here), and any comment on it would be speculation & assumption.

    They are enforcing their rules on everyone else speech, that’s a violation of not just American rights but Human Rights.

    They are enforcing their standards of speech on their platform

    It’s a contrived non story of faux victimhood originally from Trump and propagated by Trump lackies.

  78. The Principal of Free Speech is something very sacred here to a very large group of People of every aspect of my society. The threat to free speech that google facebook and twitter have created in themselves is a threat of their own making and Laws have been and are being debated to reign them in

    It’s no secret that I’ve had blogs rejected here because of content, which I absolutely respect and accept as part of ATW policy. As private entities why shouldn’t the same principle apply to Facebook, Twitter & now Google?

  79. Patrick does not understand his own argument.

    There are criticisms to be made of google but he is not making them very well.

    What is described here is more a commercial dispute between two small companies and a really big company more than it is a free speech issue.

  80. It is exceptionally weird for an American so called patriot to ask that google or facebook to be broken up

    These are world beating American companies, and they want to weaken them.

    Maybe we can bust up Amazon and Boeing and all the other good American companies while we are at it.

  81. You wouldn’t hear too many Frenchmen saying to bust up the strong French companies

    But here you have the US super patriots from hell saying ” let’s destroy all the American companies “

  82. Sorry gentleman but you are wrong.

    Google a private company it used it’s power to tell another company that it was liable for third party content.

    Google has immunity from 3rd party content. For the very action it is taking. To prevent it from being punished for what a third party said.

    and you see nothing wrong with that.

    Add to that it is taking these actions based on political speech.

    It can not be stood for, and must be railed against. It goes against the very keystone of our society.

    You do not silence political speech period.

  83. I’m afraid Patrick is too busy gladly compiling the names of US Governors and Mayors who support and march with looters to fully comprehend the issues here.

  84. It’s not I with the lack of comprehension.

  85. Patrick

    So you think Google should be forced by law to place its adverts on websites it doesn’t wish to ? Would you apply the same principle to the scenario I mentioned above regarding Superbowl ad breaks.

  86. There is an important point that I think has been missed.

    Google’s requirements and standards are not just to do with what they deem acceptable. It is about what their advertisers want and expect. When Google agree to place advertising for their clients, those clients have expectations about what sort of site their brand will be seen on, and the sort of content that consumers will start to associate it with.

    A big name retail brand will, naturally enough, prefer not to have its advertisements appear on a site promoting neo-Nazi content or one glorifying illegal acts or substances. So Google ensures that the sites on which it places its advertising adhere to some minimum standards. Otherwise the advertisers would not want to use their services.

    This isn’t rocket science. It’s commercial common sense. Other digital advertising services are available, for goodness’ sake. This is how the free market works.

    Those claiming this is a free speech issue don’t have any idea what they’re talking about, and are basically arguing for more government regulation in world they believe should be minimally regulated.

  87. Google a private company it used it’s power to tell another company that it was liable for third party content.

    Google has immunity from 3rd party content. For the very action it is taking. To prevent it from being punished for what a third party said.

    Patrick is spouting gibberish at this point. He could not be more wrong.

  88. Good summary Masterson. We all know Patrick is wrong with his claims of censorship and its a pity he is too stubborn to admit that and stick to his stronger argument which can be a legitimate criticism of Google bias, but yes it is ridiculous to claim Google shouldn’t be allowed to choose where to utilise its advertising platform.

  89. Google has immunity from 3rd party content. For the very action it is taking. To prevent it from being punished for what a third party said

    It’s not about it ‘being punished’ it’s about the comment conforming to Google regulations.

    Add to that it is taking these actions based on political speech.

    It’s my understanding that it took these actions on comments promoting a racial conspiracy?

    It can not be stood for, and must be railed against. It goes against the very keystone of our society.

    You do not silence political speech period

    So, my question at 5.55?

  90. In fairness it was wrong of me to say Patrick doesn’t comprehend it. He does, he knows he is wrong but makes the specious argument anyway.

  91. You make a better argument if you know what your own argument is, Patrick.

  92. I think Patrick just enjoys playing ‘polemic tennis’ where he is on one side of the fence and everyone else is on the other !

    Game set and match , Love all 🙂

  93. Everyone else and the facts are on the other side of the net.

  94. It’s bizzarre that those who one minute are arguing for minimal government in everything bar defence are now arguing that government should break up a private business concern floated on the Stock Exchange.

    I don’t think this has been thought through, either by the originators of the claim or their propagators.

  95. Obviously the solution is for Congress to pass a law forcing Google at gunpoint -in the name of free speech and 2nd amendment rights of course – to sell its company to the greatest American politician and businessman who ever lived , then it can be renamed TRUMPLE and finally become the Greatest Fairest Internet Platform Ever !!

  96. ” Let’s expose Google to lawsuits based on unmoderated comments made by non google employees ”

    ” Let’s break up great US companies in the name of the Constitution ”

    Does his make sense to anyone on the face of the earth

  97. I’m not always right but I am never wrong.

    What google has done is not illegal, what it has done is immoral. It needs to be made illegal.

    They’ve engaged in predatory practices to suppress political points of view. That is a practice that the big 3 players have engaged in and it will stop.

    The Internet is the worlds communication and information network we can not allow any corporation or government to censure Free Speech. China does it, and they do it with the help of google.

    What google is doing is exactly the same as the Chinese Government. Telling the people what they can and can not read or see. Sorry that is unacceptable.

    These are the issues that our politicians are supposed to address. They want to be concerned about election interference there is nothing greater than shutting down political speech.

  98. You people need to read up on the robber barons, what they are and the danger they can be. Capitalism is the tool that has lifted mankind from the mud, but it has a darkside.

    as all things do.

  99. start here

    https://www.amazon.com/Robber-Barons-Harvest-Book/dp/B003L1ZYM4

  100. If you believe in the hogwash that you say, post a jihad video on ATW.

    After all we don’t want you or David to ” suppress free speech ”

    The fakest argument in the history of fakery. Makes Milli Vanilli look genuine.

  101. Colm,

    “I think Patrick just enjoys playing ‘polemic tennis’ where he is on one side of the fence and everyone else is on the other ! ”

    Mr Van Roy (USA) has won the toss and elected to receive.

    https://youtu.be/BVlFq1WZZaY

  102. If Trump and Carly Tucker are on one side of any issue, Pat will surely tag along!

    MAGA!!

  103. What google is doing is exactly the same as the Chinese Government. Telling the people what they can and can not read or see. Sorry that is unacceptable.

    So, are you equating ATW to the Chinese Government as per my 5.55?:

    It’s no secret that I’ve had blogs rejected here because of content, which I absolutely respect and accept as part of ATW policy. As private entities why shouldn’t the same principle apply to Facebook, Twitter & now Google?

    Is that unacceptable too?

  104. If I could use ATW to force the NYTs to remove an article would you find that acceptable?

    If I used my publisher password to remove every post but mine or posts that agree with my views here on this site…. would that be acceptable?

    But it’s acceptable for google to do it?

  105. Hey, did you hear what they did to that poor General Flynn? Those bastids.

    And why is everyone so ascared of the bat flu?

  106. Answering questions with questions?

    But it’s acceptable for google to do it?

    If it’s against their standards, absolutely it is. Now, would you like to address the question I raise?

  107. Google can’t force any person or company to do anything.

    They can set the terms of the basis on which they will do business with them.

  108. Of course it is acceptable. We have no ownership interest in ATW.

  109. Pat would be on firmer ground if he said Google’s actions had a chilling effect on free speech, which they clearly do. Amazon and Apple too. All of them.

    Of course he’d be on firmer ground still if he hadn’t recently defended the president of the United States threatening twitter.

  110. The only person with a legitimate voice on the type of thing that gets published here is David.

    But Patrick wants the regulatory hand of government deciding what is to be placed on other websites.

  111. Patrick

    Google aren’t forcing anyone to remove content. The real comparitive ATW scenario would be if ATW carried advertising and one of the advertisers decided to withdraw their adverts because they didn’t approve of Allan’s anti-Semitic comments. If David were to claim the withdrawal threatened the websites’s existence do you think on free speech grounds they should be forced to continue advertising on ATW ?

  112. None of these phony balonies AFAIK said any of this stuff before Trump started bellyaching about the issue

  113. Google aren’t forcing anyone to remove content.

    Yes it is and it is doing so following a political doctrine.

  114. That 7.50 is nail on head stuff Phantom. Trump invented the false victimhood and the cultists are propagating it.

    Yes it is and it is doing so following a political doctrine.

    I was going to ask you can you prove that but I know you can’t.

  115. Patrick

    Just continuing to say they are is not an argument. I could say the moon is made of cheese but when questioned it wouldn’t be an answer to simply repeat “yes it is”. If these websites wish to keep the contested content on their sites hey are free to do so and people can read them. just as Google is free to decide it doesn’t wish to place its shared advertising content on those sites.

    So I ask again. Do yo believe the law should force companies to place their adverts where they don’t want to ? That is the real legal question here .

  116. What I see are a sad lot who don’t know when they are being pissed on….. That is how little you understand what your freedoms are and where they come from.

    Scoff and tell me I’m wrong all you want, but my view is not held by only me. There are 3 different congressional subcommittees working on this issue with my same perspective, plus lawsuits.

    They are censoring political speech. People aren’t just sitting still even as it goes right over your head.

  117. There are 3 different congressional subcommittees working on this issue with my same perspective, plus lawsuits.

    Much like your indictments before the end of August I’m gonna predict they come to nothing.

    You can’t claim to be a champion of free speech while rejecting it?

  118. They have a right to decide who they do business with. Patrick wants to create a system were businesses can only decide who they do business with with the permission of political commissars.

  119. Regulatory Government is the answer to everything now!

    MAGA!

    Rein in those evil private corporations!

  120. Patrick

    A simple yes or no answer would suffice. Do you believe commercial organisations should be forced by law to place their adverts on sites they don’t wish to ?

  121. Paul I doubt due to the Chicom Flu that the indictments will happen before August, but I stand by my bet indictments are coming.

    What if anything is done to google has yet to be seen, attacking the Federalist was crossing a line that smacked a lot of people in the face. Zero Hedge has always walked the edge, but the Federalist is different.

    A lot of very powerful people are connected to the site. People who gave this issue no never mind, but are now.

  122. Colm, on June 17th, 2020 at 8:06 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick

    A simple yes or no answer would suffice. Do you believe commercial organisations should be forced by law to place their adverts on sites they don’t wish to ?

    NO!

  123. Thanks Patrick – Then you agree Google are perfectly within their rights to withdraw their advertising platform from these 2 sites if they choose. The debate is over 🙂

  124. We are operating in area of unsettled law on one hand and founding principals on the other.

    The internet has become the wests communication system, but it is not regulated under communication guide lines.

    The actions of Google prove that fact needs to change. The crushing of oppositional views may be in a corporations best interest where elimination of the competition is the golden rule.

    It is however an abomination in the affairs of the people.

    Speech ALL SPEECH must be allowed to be spoken.

    I personally don’t even consider anyone else opinion on that. I will fight to the death on that issue. Some us really mean it when we say “I may not agree with your point of view, but I will fight to the death for your right to have it”

    Free Speech is that Important.

    I don’t care if you’re a nazi, a royal, peasant, mad jihadi, or just someones damn grandma.

    You have the right to speak. And anything or anyone that tries to stop that is evil and must be extinguished.

    This is my belief system and there is nothing that will ever deter me from defending it.

  125. Patrick

    Firstly I agree with you on free speech and those 2 websites rights to publish those contentious views. They are not being legally prevented from airing those views which is right. Secondly I also agree that Google is entitled to free speech and should be allowed to decide where to place its adverts. If you disagree with my second view then you need to raise your defence of free speech to my standards 🙂

  126. Colm do you know why there isn’t one phone company, oil company, bank etc.

    Google is a monopoly and it is acting in the exact manner as every monopoly. Against the good of the people.

    The standards you think you have only exist because we do not tolerate the abhorrent and aberrant behavior of monopolies.

  127. Patrick.It isn’t a monopoly. It may be the biggest company of its kind, but there are no legal restrictions against other companies offering the same services as Google and no restrictions on anyone accessing those other companies.

    PS – On another matter I see the news is reporting the officer in the Atlanta shooting is going to be charged with murder and 10 other charges.

  128. “Google is a monopoly and it is acting in the exact manner as every monopoly.”

    Google has 37% of the market in digital advertising. It isn’t a monopoly.

  129. District attorney is saying that the taser had been fired twice, and thus had no charge and wasn’t functional. Thus, in addition to Rayshard Brooks fleeing, Garrett Rolfe would have known that Brooks was not a risk to his or anyone elses life when he shot him in the back.

    Rolfe also kicked Brooks when he was lying on the ground, after having been shot, indicating a desire to injure if not kill Brooks even when it was beyond any and all doubt that he was a risk.

  130. Speech ALL SPEECH must be allowed to be spoken.

    I personally don’t even consider anyone else opinion on that. I will fight to the death on that issue. Some us really mean it when we say “I may not agree with your point of view, but I will fight to the death for your right to have it”

    Free Speech is that Important.

    I don’t care if you’re a nazi, a royal, peasant, mad jihadi, or just someones damn grandma.

    You have the right to speak. And anything or anyone that tries to stop that is evil and must be extinguished.

    This is my belief system and there is nothing that will ever deter me from defending it.

    You don’t get to claim that while rejecting opinions from being metaphorically heard Pat.

    Now, I understand the reasons and accept and respect them but rejecting blogs because of their content is incompatible with claiming to be a champion of free speech.

    Google is a monopoly and it is acting in the exact manner as every monopoly. Against the good of the people.

    It’s not. There are other smaller search engines that can be used. Are you suggesting the government impede Google because of its success?

  131. Before mobile phones, it was very hard to have competition in land line phones.

    They figured out a way.

    Now there are multiple voice companies with entirely different technologies including Cell, Whatsapp, a bunch of others.

    But that explosion of new things, was caused by technology, not the deregulation that happened in the US decades ago.

    Phone service is almost free now. You can talk to China all day for free on whatsapp if you care to do that.

  132. Seamus – wrong thread I think. I watched the Fulton County DA on CNN two days ago and thought his comments were wildly inappropriate and could void the possibility of a fair trial (and conviction).

  133. I recently read that Tucker Carlson is a registered Democrat. It does not seem consistent with his show.