The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing.
White nationalism can still create and post content to the web. But there's no responsibility for other companies to financially support them.
If a company like Breitbart cannot survive without Google's ad network, the onus is on them to figure out they can support themselves. Especially if supporting white nationalism undermines Google/Facebook's ability to hire and retain their own employees or impacts their reputation in a negative way.
Breitbart isn't a white nationalist news source. Bannon might be an asshole but I urge you to judge it by the content on the site. I don't agree with most of it but I support their right to post truthful content and editorials as they wish.
I really don't see the similarity (though I'm not familiar with the NYT, I assume it's a bit like The Guardian in the UK for this discussion).
Can you give examples of fake news, or what I'd consider to be biased propaganda? (this last category I'd suggest something like climate change denial) in the NYT?
That's a legit criticism, and likely shows a bias, though the paper did seem to acknowledge error, and the tone of the article was contrite, and lets face it, we're looking at a report of the paper's error in the paper itself.
All UK papers are obliged to acknowledge errors found by the PCC, and it's in their interest to maintain a good relationship with the PCC.
I can remember seeing the headline and how it didn't match the finding in the article - which was that there was a gun in the car, hence the subject being armed - and thinking all someone who needs an excuse is going to do is read the headline, not buy the paper, and unleash more violence.
The Guardian also kept saying reports that Duggan was a criminal were inaccurate as he had no record: he was a self confessed member of Star Gang and posed as such all over his Facebook. Either he was an adult human lying about being a member of a serious gang (which would have severe consequences) or he actually was involved in organised crime.
It does seem like it's going to be hard to know what actually happened at the incident.
The Guardian may have had a left/right bias here certainly, though it doesn't seem totally clear cut in this instance. It could as much be a case of "the reporting could have been more considered" rather than "deliberately misleading".
Was unarmed was misleading as found by the PCC, had no criminal record is provably false ( see Wikipedia link above ) and wasn't a gang member is contradicted by the subject's own Facebook page. It's fairly clear cut to me and I imagine many others.
Most articles about Russia. E.g. currently most MSM (edit: mainstram media) are on a propaganda roll regarding Mosul (Iraq/US) vs. Aleppo (Syria/Russia) reporting.
Most Western media report on Mosul being infested by "ISIS" and being "liberated" by the Iraq/US coalition, whereas Aleppo is a stronghold of "resistance" and viciously "attacked" by the Syria/Russia coalition. Of course, no proofs are given of any way, and it blatantly ignores reports that in Syria, "rebels" and "ISIS" are mostly one and the same, with individual fighters simply fighting for whomever pays better at the moment.
I try to maintain an open mind, and an air of distrust over things I read and things governments do.
However Russia has form for brutality, wether they are liberating or conquering, or both. Russia might mean well (I don't believe they do, as with a lot of government actions), but I would tend to believe reports that whatever their motives they were going about it in an un-necessarily violent way.
US attacked and destroyed 4 countries (well, only 3 officially, and supporting "rebels"/ISIS in Syria) in the past 15 years, and you're accusing Russia of brutality?!
It doesn't matter what source you read from. The vast majority of news is bullshit, especially in today's day and age. It's not enough to say "oh, Fox News/MSNBC, it's obviously trash". Individually inspect articles for their truth. Look for the other side of every argument. Because brand loyalty is bullshit.
That's fair enough, though I don't see anything quite as "extreme" as the examples of breitbart articles (which as far as I'm aware they are standing by).
Everyone has bias, and everyone lies, and sometimes people just make mistakes, but there is a scale to this that I personally see breitbart being further along than the NYT from the limited evidence I've seen overall.
> There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.
> Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.
> The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.
> For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe.
> Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.
> You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.
> The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.
> In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction. It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.
> The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions.
This is, by definition, white nationalism. If Breitbart is the platform of the alt-right, and this is the alt-right, then Breitbart is a white nationalist news source.
How is this "by definition" white nationalism?! They barely mention race, and when they do, it's in a completely neutral context. There are even scientific studies supporting their position, i.e. that more homogenous culture makes for more trustworthy communities [1]. Of course, I'm the first person to doubt sociological research, but even if it's false, I see no reason to force people to live with others they don't like.
Well, if a white person cites that research as a reason to halt immigration and preserve their racial and cultural homogeneity, then they are a white nationalist. I did not make a value judgement in my comment, I'm just comparing the text to the definition.
As to why this is specifically white nationalism, I'll pull some more quotes for you.
> Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.
"Natural conservatives" here are a group that the authors have identified as a key member of the alt-right coalition.
> This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of western history and literature curricula. An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behaviour as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.
Here, alt-right members are concerned specifically by the removal or dilution of white culture. They might respect the promotion of other cultures in other countries, but in America they support their own culture only, which as we have seen, is white culture.
> Although the alt-right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathises with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige.
Notice that white working classes specifically are worthy of sympathy, not all working classes.
> In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.
Here, the Establishment is accused of not caring about white extinction. There is no concern about the extinction of other racial cultures, in fact that is the goal. Other races can stick to their own countries.
There is a section about neo-Nazis, but the authors dismiss them as generally unwelcome in the alt-right movement.
Yes, this article does promote the idea that racial nationalism is a natural impulse for people of any race, but it is written from a white American perspective, and promotes the idea that America should be a culturally white nation with limited immigration. I encourage you to read the whole article. I am not taking things out of context or twisting words, this is a description of the alt-right movement as a bunch of white people who want to preserve their own culture and halt immigration.
"Well, if a white person cites that research as a reason to halt immigration and preserve their racial and cultural homogeneity."
You keep inventing stuff. None of the immigration comments referred to race/ethnicity in any way. You do realize that white people immigrate too, right?
I do realize that. Again, I am not uncovering some hidden subtext here, I'm just reading what is written. These are the intended meanings.
A couple more quotes to elaborate the immigration thing:
> Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.
We don't have to guess what tribe and culture mean here. The very next paragraph says they're talking about Western Europeans, so Western European immigrants would not be a problem. If you're still not convinced that "tribe" has anything to do with race or ethnicity:
> The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same.
> You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible.
Clearly the immigration concerns are directly linked to concerns about racial and ethnic mixing.
> Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the alt-right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.
The movement dislikes immigration specifically because of demographic displacement. As the rest of the piece makes explicitly clear, that demographic is "white".
Ok so for you "nationalism" in a predominantly white country equals "white nationalism". Well, I guess there's not much I can say against that definition, except that the term is usually used in a much more emotionally charged way (and with much more negative connotations)
Can you tell me your definition? I could be wrong.
There's a little more to it than just nationalism in a predominantly white country, though. Nationalism generally means support of national identity above all else. This article promotes white identity above national identity, but the outlet for that feeling is to make the nation into a white nation, so that supporting white culture and supporting the nation are one and the same. Note that the article never talks about American culture. It talks about white culture and white identity politics.
I'm trying very hard not to criticize anything in these comments. I'm really just trying to summarize the description that article provides. It's not like I'm uncovering a hidden subtext, I think the authors would generally agree with my summary.
I'm not using white nationalist as an insult, I'm calling Breitbart white nationalist because that accurately describes the beliefs that they cater to. Maybe Steve Bannon wouldn't call himself that because it's obviously a politically and emotionally charged term, but if he agrees with the views described in this article, he is a white nationalist.
I checked a few articles, the word "nigger" is either in the comments or in quotes. It's true, however, that they don't abbreviate it as "n-word" like most MSM. But we all know what "n-word" means, so I find that practice kind-of pointless anyways.
There is literally abundant fake news, primarily distributed through Facebook. Actual lies. [0] Whether Breitbart is abjectly white nationalist is more debatable, likely by design.
I was asking about fake news specifically on Breitbart. I know they exist online, even on "reputable" news sites like CNN (so probably Breitbart as well), but to claim Breitbart is infested with fake news is patently absurd.
No. Not two days ago, I listened to a self described white nationalist leader speak at length in his own words. He was not a made up smear, but a real person with real (awful) opinions, who now feels he has kindred spirits at the top of government. So, again, no, "white nationalism" is simply not "mainly a smear used by the MSM".
Breitbart itself describes itself very clearly as a champion for the neo-nazis that have re-branded themselves as "alt-right". Much of the news they provide is clearly misleading.
I wouldn't necessarily go so far as saying Breitbart produces fake news, however there are sites that produce fake news. Completely made up stuff targeting conservatives to make money. This is a very real problem and it needs to be solved.
The world we are moving to is one where ad exchanges, google, and facebook get to decide what can survive on the web. This doesn't seem like a good thing.
Actually it's the world we've already been living in for quite some time. A world not flooded with pop-up ads for hardcore porn ads, for example (like the internet actually was, not too many years ago) -- but in which you're more than welcome to go to certain sites (whose names and URLs everyone knows) to blast your eyesockets with exactly those same images, 24x7, if that be your inclination.
Yes. You can stand towards Trump as you want, but he deconstructed the media in a textbook example of the Socratic method, for which we all should be a bit grateful.
Breitbart claims it isn't: Breitbart responded saying it "has always and continues to condemn racism and bigotry in any form".
The exchange refuses to say what triggered their action:
"We use a number of third-party standards to determine what is and isn't hate speech, and if we detect a pattern of speech that could incite violence or discrimination against a minority group, we determine that to be non-compliant and we simply won't serve ads against it," AppNexus's spokesman Joshua Zeitz told the BBC.
"I'm not going to put the examples out there because I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on what is compliant."
The article lists some headlines that they consider somewhat questionable, but you can easily google similar headlines focused on other groups from sites like the Huffington Post; e.g. "White People Are Too Dumb to Know They're Racist". Do you think we will see similar action taken against those such sites?
Breitbart got its big start, I believe, from the atrocious hoaxes itperpetrated on ACORN, NPR, and other organizations to destroy their reputations unfairly. It has come a long way; it's now simply a very biased news organization that sometimes does decent reporting on undercovered topics.
Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in? Do we want ad networks taking activist stances about news websites? Do we want everyone to have to pick a side? Do we want people's careers destroyed for holding relatively mainstream opinions that happen to contradict the majority opinion?
>Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in?
Yes, this is the direction we as a society want to move in. The opposite direction from hate speech. A direction in which large commercial ad enterprises do not support neo-Nazi content and do not support neo-Nazis making a lot of money off said content; at least not on AppNexus' dime.
This is precisely the direction we want to move in.
So all we have to do to silence someone is say they're a neo-nazi? Breitbart has strongly and repeatedly denied any association with hate, bigotry, neo-nazis, etc.
Incidentally, Breitbart himself was Jewish, as is the CEO. Neo-nazi seems a particularly bizarre term to apply especially given for a site that was specifically started by Breitbart and Solov to be pro-Israel.
Of course Breitbart claims that. Go to a prison and you'll see all the inmates claiming innocence. If this is the best argument you can up with I'd advice to not bring it up at all.
How many of those involved plea deals? If you can't afford legal representation, you won't get anything that deserves to be called that in the US. If you're then also faced with the ridiculously high sentences you can get in the US, you'll no doubt find yourself pleading guilty to a lot of things to get a deal.
> is this really the direction we ... want to move in?
It's been like this since at least the 18th century. People/organisations should absolutely have the right of association and I'm glad that they exercise it.
> Do we want people's careers destroyed
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I definitely have no particular issue about a news organisation going to the wall if it can't find readership or funding. If you mean people losing their jobs due to it then that's personally unfortunate but doesn't strike me as a societal problem necessarily.
If you mean someone being persecuted by the state or a powerful actor because they have a moderate view that is disagreed with then, yes, that's a very bad thing. Not sure it applies here though.
But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in?
Isn't is exactly the direction we want society to move in? What could be more free and fair than allowing anybody to publish their views, and allowing the public/advertisers to decide who receives their money?
We want people to be free to publish their views, and free to decide who gets their money - absolutely. But we also want to be careful how we exercise those rights.
I think the idea that the only time censorship matters is when it is done by the government is a little silly. Free speech is something we work toward as a society. The First Amendment does not ensure free speech; it ensures the preconditions exist for free speech to be possible, i.e., the government cannot itself restrict free speech.
If every single person in the United States of America refuses to speak, associate with, or do business with someone who believes the world is flat, and consequently such believers cannot find a place to live, can't buy food, can't live a normal life, free speech does not exist, whether or not the government does anything.
Yes, there has to be a balance between the two extremes of total shunning and total acceptance. It has to be OK sometimes, for some people to refuse to associate with people solely on their views. The extremity of said views should probably be a factor. So, maybe, should be the relationship and power of the entities involved. But the absolutist position that there is no problem whatsoever with things like this happening is extremely dangerous: a self-censoring society is in practice no different from a tyrannical government - a democratic government is, after all, no more than one of many enforcement mechanisms of the people - and the principle of free speech and the spread of ideas is dead.
I don't agree with Breitbart's positions - which again, are fairly mainstream - but I don't want these tactics normalized and used against you and me, and end up in a world where everyone has to pick sides or face immediate financial consequences. And I think this is a people-problem, not necessarily an ad-network problem: I'm pretty sure they're only doing this because of pressure being put on them directly or indirectly by interested consumers.
