There is an issue of whether media platforms are publishers and should be regulated (and legally liable) accordingly, especially as regards intentionally false and inflammatory material.
On the other hand, when Google also runs your email and search engine, should there be rules about how it exploits its near-monopoly position to suppress and distort information for propaganda purposes, as in e.g. the information revealed by Hunter Biden's laptop?
Is Nick Clegg responsible for this aspect of Google's operations? Who is on the team that composed the following? How can one answer back? How do you define 'liberal' and 'democrat', Sir Nick?
By the way, President Biden has accused Russia of committing genocide - should that allegation be censored? It's clearly not true, and obviously a very serious charge.
Also, Ukraine has been shelling the Donbass since 2014; since that is on the pretext of disciplining separatists, then it must be that the government sees the latter as 'its own citizens' and it is certainly 'deliberately attacking' them; a statement forbidden by the 'guidance' below.
Censorship opens a can of worms.
____________________________________________________
Your Publisher ID: pub-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sign in
Important Notice: Update regarding Ukraine
Dear Publisher,
Due to the war in Ukraine, we will pause monetisation of content that exploits, dismisses or condones the war.
Please note, we have already been enforcing on claims related to the war in Ukraine when they violated existing policies (for instance, the Dangerous or Derogatory content policy prohibits monetising content that incites violence or denies tragic events). This update is meant to clarify, and in some cases expand, our publisher guidance as it relates to this conflict.
This pause includes, but is not limited to, claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
12 comments:
Re: Hunter Biden's laptop
Initially, the story sounded implausible, to say the least. He took the thing across the country, and deposited it at the shop of a legally blind Republican (who says that he could not identify him), and forgot it. Then, he copied the drive, and handed the copy and laptop to Rudy Giuliani, who passed the laptop on to the FBI.
Now that it appears to be at least partially true, we need to look deeper.
In the first place, the claim that any revelation on it would have changed the outcome of the election is extremely unlikely. Trump supporters clearly underestimate the hatred for the man.
In the second, why haven't the GOP come out with damning evidence from the copy that they have? As reported in the New York Times, a forensic audit by two sets of outside experts revealed that the copy had multiple files which had been written to and saved, AFTER the actual laptop had gone to the FBI.
I have a feeling that there is a lot of not very much there. Republicans are just terrible at the evidence thing. After spending more than $100 million of government money going after the Clintons, what did they actually legally prove?
Hmm, do you think the meeja would have taken the same line if it had been Trump's kid's laptop found in 2016? And Biden Jr seems to have left lots of personally unsavoury stuff on his, plus financial references that look like evidence of sleaze involving more than just himself. Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I think you're downplaying this a bit.
Well, the media 'just mentioned' that Jared Kushner was a slumlord, that Ivanka 'just happened' to get most of the trade licenses that China offered, that Donald Jr. 'just happened' to win a trip in Mongolia to shoot endangered goats. And these things can't get traction.
Hunter Biden did/does have a drug problem and peddled his proximity to his father. The right has been unable to pin anything on Joe.
I am more interested in his dealings. He is an old style politician, but I have seen no evidence that he is actually corrupt.
I still suspect that if the computer thing had been Trump not Biden in the 2016 Presidential campaign the media would have been all over it; the reason the things you mention don't get traction now is that many think Trump is yesterday's man. No point flogging a dead 'orse.
Except that a) the media here were 'all over it' when it first came out in 2020, and b) Trump is not done. He has a huge rally in Ohio next month.
... 'all over it' when it first came out in 2020' - i.e. attention safely embargoed until after the election. Are you arguing that the MSM are, on the whole, neutral between the two main political parties?
Isn't de Santis considered a more savoury likely candidate for the next Presidential election?
He is a total weasel, but might appeal to the GOP. My eldest predicts an evangelist
Um, the election was at the end of 2020. Your comment makes no sense.
OK, exactly when in 2020, and which media gave proper attention to it?
Certainly by October 2020 in the New York Post: https://www.kusi.com/ny-post-columnist-miranda-devine-explains-how-they-obtained-hunter-bidens-laptop/
Given the timing and the provenance of the laptop through Giuliani, I believe that they were trying one of the infamous 'October surprises' - release something right before the election, before a careful examination can be done.
Interesting. I hadn't figure the dirty tricks/timing aspect.
There is a gradation of revelation, isn't there? As in, I think it was in some newspaper vs it was on TV everyone's talking about it.
Post a Comment