NBC attempted censorship via Google

[audiophile]

WDIV is unwatchable, so one more reason skip NBC.

[Deleted User 15342]

WDIV, MSLSD, and CNN all garbage.

[sinklair]

R: NBC hasn’t banned sh*t... reread the article.

Here’s more information:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... form%3famp

Google Ads banned ZeroHedge from advertising on its platform... and warned The Federalist about use of site violations. Big difference since advertising is not protected as free speech by the US Supreme Court.

GoogleAds decision has zero impact on the two sites ability to publish its claims.

Accuracy matters.

[sinklair]

R: does your first initial stand for “Russian troll”? Am I really supposed to take you seriously when you obviously can’t comprehend basic facts. And your retort is to send me a YouTube video from a conservative commentator (not journalist) with a MAGA hat in the background?

If you want to make the argument about the amount of control/influence that Google, Facebook, and other digital media outlets have... I’d actually agree with you... and so would a large number of US Congressional members... of both parties. But your assertions about NBC making any bans on this content is false. NBC reporter on GoogleAd’s ban. Big difference that will likely go over your head since you’re more interested in the argument than actually understanding the issue.

And by the way... another reminder: this is a forum for Flint TV and Radio. Not your political positions. Those posts go to Political Potpourri. Stay on topic, my friendly Russian troll.

[Deleted User 15331]

Google can censor anything they like. They're a private company. What don't you get?

[Deleted User 15331]

You are wrong. Stop writing and learn.
Private internet companies have every right to edit or remove anything that they disagree with.
Please read the terms of service on the websites.

[Deleted User 15331]

I OWN such a website. I KNOW the laws which pertain to it. You do not.

[sinklair]

Anyone using Facebook or other social media sites have to agree to their terms of service. Pretty simple for R to look them up and read them. He chooses not to. Very Russian trollish behavior...

https://m.facebook.com/legal/terms

[sinklair]

So you have now read the Facebook terms of use and now understand why Facebook can refuse advertising? Or is your head still so far in the sand that you are still seeing Moscow?

[sinklair]

Kind of like your emoji and meme game, Sergi.

[sinklair]

Hardly anything here “pisses me off”. I quite enjoy our exchanges... which is why I feel compelled to correct all of your constant misstatements. But once again, this thread still has nothing to do with Flint Saginaw TV and Radio.

[sinklair]

25 is a NBC affiliate — not owned or operated in any way by NBC network. Boy are you dense!

NBC didn’t censor anything. NBC reporter on Google denying ads. You seem to have a hard time with basic facts, Sergi.

[MWmetalhead]

NBC did have some direct involvement in Google's actions here:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-news- ... ohedge-ads
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nbc-tries- ... 1592410893

I agree that NBC News's actions were improper.

I also don't think Google should serve as the thought police, but as MIdlandGuy noted, they are currently free to emphasize (or conversely, censor) political and social viewpoints as they see fit. They will face consumer consequences - either positive or negative - as a result of such actions. Given Google's overwhelming financial success to date, I'd argue their C-suite is quite competent and savvy.

A compelling argument can be made that Google is a de facto monopoly, and therefore, should be subject to anti-trust regulations. It is murky at best, however, as to what impact enforcement of such regulations would have in terms of neutering Google's ability to filter speech it finds objectionable.

On a more basic level, Christian radio stations do not need to accept advertising from liquor stores and strip clubs. The Federalist does not need to publish articles from liberal pundits. Talk radio stations do not need to devote equal programming time to divergent points of view.

Similarly, Google can disqualify certain third party web sites from being eligible to utilize Google Ads as it sees fit so long as protected civil rights are not being violated.

[dumbboardposter]

Private companies are not subject to 1st Amendment.

But then again, I guess landscapers are the new Constitutional scholars so I'll defer to them.

[sinklair]

1st Amendment/Freedom of Speech is open to landscapers, private businesses, everyone.

But we’re not talking about speech. This has to do with business regulation/commerce which can be regulated, restricted. Google and other social media platforms can ban “hate speech” on its platform. Those rules must be agreed to when people sign up for these social media platforms.

Anyone who doesn’t want to agree to those restrictions are still free to express their opinions in other Constitutionally-protected ways.