Google Ends Ad Money To ‘Gateway Pundit,’ because of Covid, Vax, Election falsehoods

[JakeStarkey]

The social media giants has probably keboshed the outlet.

Google has finally pulled the plug on the ad dollars flowing to the Gateway Pundit, a leading source of false information about covid-19, vaccines and the 2020 presidential election.

Google’s decision to demonitize Gateway Pundit likely represents a major blow to the site. An analysis by the Center for Countering Digital Hate had previously estimated that Gateway Pundit had earned over a million dollars using Google’s AdSense from November 2020 through last June. Destinations like Gateway Pundit struggle to bring in traditional advertising because of their controversial content, and its status within Google’s Adsense seemed unusual given what it published on its site. AdSense is a program through which independent publishers like Gateway Pundit tap into a network of online ads compiled by Google, displaying them on their sites and sharing the revenue with Google. It’ll likely be difficult for Gateway Pundit to replace the loss of AdSense.

“We gave the Gateway Pundit ample notice to address persistent policy violations before we took action,” a Google spokesman says. “We will not serve Google ads on the site until they can comply with our guidelines.”

Gateway Pundit’s popularity had surged last November and again in the spring thanks to misleading stories about the election and the pandemic. It had 50 million visitors from November through January, many times more than it had oridinarily seen in a year, and a similar amount in mid-2020.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2021/09/10/google-cuts-off-ad-money-to-gateway-pundit-a-haven-for-vaccine-and-election-misinformation/?sh=2760f9107d8c&fbclid=IwAR3vzrtoPpJqfza3O1Ufi3UPB1f3tWTaqGAPJplfb erKDXGaW06RTLH-Gm0

[jimnyc]

They have been censoring for a long time now. Many sites were literally removed from search results. They removed many valid stories. They inserted algorithms to hide all kinds of things from the right. This has long long been covered by all news outlets. So the "why" of removing and changing many things and results is because they are yanking for the left.

But, yes, they can remove the ad revenue for any reason, though.

[Gunny]

I really need to quit putting it off and get google and the rest of these asshats off my electronics and out of my life.

I think I'm going to google "how to get rid of google" :)

[MtnBiker]

Good grief believing that Google or any other Big Tech company is an arbiter of truth is like believing a criminal high on fentanyl being arrested is a hero.

What was it that BT Barnum use to say?

[Black Diamond]

I really need to quit putting it off and get google and the rest of these asshats off my electronics and out of my life.

I think I'm going to google "how to get rid of google" :)
Who knew big tech would ever become this powerful

[fj1200]

The social media giants has probably keboshed the outlet.

And how is that not fascism? Private businesses doing the bidding of the State enforcing policy and suppressing opposing voices.

[Juicer66]

And how is that not fascism? Private businesses doing the bidding of the State enforcing policy and suppressing opposing voices.

It is 100% fascist .

But OP Jacob Stark , nephew of the infamous Hans Stark , has Fascism in his blood .

Fortunately even the Normies are now beginning to see that such actions virtually guarantee the further success of those that are notionally punished by the self

proclaimed Masters of the Universe .

And this is leading to a better , stronger and independent internet and slowly but surely to the death of Silicon Valley . .

[JakeStarkey]

It is 100% fascist .

But OP Jacob Stark , nephew of the infamous Hans Stark , has Fascism in his blood .

Fortunately even the Normies are now beginning to see that such actions virtually guarantee the further success of those that are notionally punished by the self

proclaimed Masters of the Universe .

And this is leading to a better , stronger and independent internet and slowly but surely to the death of Silicon Valley . .

JammyBoy_Juicer cannot identify 'fascism' if it bit him of the toe.

The government did not tell Google to exclude anyone. That is what YOU, jammyboy, want to do.

Google, as an independent business, excluded advertising for the GatewayPundit on its own: that is capitalism.

[JakeStarkey]

And how is that not fascism? Private businesses doing the bidding of the State enforcing policy and suppressing opposing voices.

That is what you jammy boys want the state to do, fj.

You want to tell corporations in social media what they can do and not do.

[fj1200]

... that is capitalism.

Capitalism for the State's purpose is fascism.

[fj1200]

That is what you jammy boys want the state to do, fj.

You want to tell corporations in social media what they can do and not do.

100% incorrect. It's the left who feels the need to shout down any opposition.

[Gunny]

Who knew big tech would ever become this powerfulHonestly, I can't say I envisioned a "big tech" at the end of the line; but, I have said since this the 90s when I saw where this was going it wasn't going to end well.

When they began allowing school kids to use calculators and the internet to do their work for them, I saw the writing on that wall. It's gotten only worse, and people thinking for themselves less. It is my opinion that if and/or when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, the US will be hardest hit if the grid goes. Our spoiled and relies WAY too much on artificial means to survive.

[JakeStarkey]

Capitalism for the State's purpose is fascism.

You cannot (because it does not exist) show that Google is acting on behalf of the State.

Whereas, you would tell Google it has to allow any advertising, that it cannot be a capitalistic enterprise.

[Gunny]

That is what you jammy boys want the state to do, fj.

You want to tell corporations in social media what they can do and not do.:rolleyes: "I'm rubber, you're glue ..."

[fj1200]

You cannot (because it does not exist) show that Google is acting on behalf of the State.

Whereas, you would tell Google it has to allow any advertising, that it cannot be a capitalistic enterprise.

It is doing exactly what the left wants it to do. Even better for Democrats because it saves them from actually having to pass laws.

[Gunny]

You cannot (because it does not exist) show that Google is acting on behalf of the State.

Whereas, you would tell Google it has to allow any advertising, that it cannot be a capitalistic enterprise.You mostly certainly love your lefty arguments. "Prove blah, blah, blah ...":rolleyes:

The sky is blue because it is. Nobody is required to prove the blatantly obvious. It is what it is and no amount of word-smithed intellectual dishonesty is going to alter that fact.

[JakeStarkey]

It is doing exactly what the left wants it to do. Even better for Democrats because it saves them from actually having to pass laws.

Thank you for admitting that Google is not being forced by the State, that Google is acting in its own interest.

OK: that part of your conservatarian argument is over.

But do you oppose the state controlling the business for the state's interest?

[JakeStarkey]

You mostly certainly love your lefty arguments. "Prove blah, blah, blah ...":rolleyes:

The sky is blue because it is. Nobody is required to prove the blatantly obvious. It is what it is and no amount of word-smithed intellectual dishonesty is going to alter that fact.

Is your mind deteriorating? Your argument is that of an immature juvenile.

What it is is this: Google has a right to do as it wishes on these matters. Your wishes do not matter.

[Gunny]

Is your mind deteriorating? Your argument is that of an immature jurvenile.

What it is is this: Google has a right to do as it wishes on these matters. Your wishes do not matter.Incorrect. The product dies without the consumer. Simple science.

Google won't notice my absence and as long as sheeple like you prefer to goose step right down the line as Big Tech dictates instead of thinking for yourself, it will continue to exist. All I can do is my part. The onus is on others to do theirs.

None of which negates the fact that they are flat out lying to the People. you're either being intellectually dishonest or you are stupid. You choose which. Or both.

[fj1200]

Thank you for admitting that Google is not being forced by the State, that Google is acting in its own interest.

OK: that part of your stupid conservatarian argument is over.

But do you oppose the state controlling the business for the state's interest?

I didn't say anything about forced. Business should have the ability to make decisions free of government interference and non-governmental interference. It's the non-governmental interference which is performing the role that many that desire government mandates would like it to do. It is an unholy alliance when the major factors in society, government and larger corporations in this case, start to control the message. For all the caterwalling of trump and fascism it is the current scenario which has brought us far closer to fascism than any of those folks will ever care to admit.

[JakeStarkey]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by JakeStarkey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=989616#post989616)
Is your mind deteriorating? Your argument is that of an immature jurvenile.

What it is is this: Google has a right to do as it wishes on these matters. Your wishes do not matter.



Gunny: Incorrect. The product dies without the consumer. Simple science.

Google won't notice my absence and as long as sheeple like you prefer to goose step right down the line as Big Tech dictates instead of thinking for yourself, it will continue to exist. All I can do is my part. The onus is on others to do theirs.

None of which negates the fact that they are flat out lying to the People. you're either being intellectually dishonest or you are stupid. You choose which. Or both.

JakeStarkey: if supporting business's right to do conduct business as it sees fit is not up to your understanding of capitalism, then you are the one who is not thinking clearly, or being intellectually dishonest, or you are stupid. And you are also suffering from confirmation bias. Or dementia is slipping. Or all of them.

So if you and your conservatarian buddies want government to regulate social media giants, yes, you are fascists.

[Gunny]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by JakeStarkey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=989616#post989616)
Is your mind deteriorating? Your argument is that of an immature jurvenile.

What it is is this: Google has a right to do as it wishes on these matters. Your wishes do not matter.



Gunny: Incorrect. The product dies without the consumer. Simple science.

Google won't notice my absence and as long as sheeple like you prefer to goose step right down the line as Big Tech dictates instead of thinking for yourself, it will continue to exist. All I can do is my part. The onus is on others to do theirs.

None of which negates the fact that they are flat out lying to the People. you're either being intellectually dishonest or you are stupid. You choose which. Or both.

JakeStarkey: if supporting business's right to do conduct business as it sees fit is not up to your understanding of capitalism, then you are the one who is not thinking clearly, or being intellectually dishonest, or you are stupid. And you are also suffering from confirmation bias. Or dementia is slipping. Or all of them.

You're wasting your time trying to mindfuck me with a wall of convoluted words, jack.

I did not address whatever "Rights" you bestow upon business. I addressed MY Right to choose whether or not I support it, financially or otherwise. I do not support a business's "Right" to be unethical.

That's pretty fair, honest and simple. Probably why you can't grasp the concept.

[fj1200]

...
So if you and your conservatarian buddies want government to regulate social media giants, yes, you are fascists.

Umm, regulation does not equal fascism. If it did then practically every Democrat is a fascist because they've never seen an industry that they didn't want to regulate.

[JakeStarkey]

You're wasting your time trying to mindfuck me with a wall of convoluted words, jack.

I did not address whatever "Rights" you bestow upon business. I addressed MY Right to choose whether or not I support it, financially or otherwise. I do not support a business's "Right" to be unethical.

That's pretty fair, honest and simple. Probably why you can't grasp the concept.

IOW, you are a walking poster boy for confirmation bias.

[Gunny]

IOW, you are a walking poster boy for confirmation bias.You're the poster boy for leftwingnuts slinging baseless labels at anyone on the right who doesn't toe your line.

You can't guilt me with your nonsensical shit, boy. Better try something else.

[JakeStarkey]

You're the poster boy for leftwingnuts slinging baseless labels at anyone on the right who doesn't toe your line.

You can't guilt me with your nonsensical shit, boy. Better try something else.

Gunny, I am not trying to guilt you. I am correct, and you know it. It is what it is.

You want Google to allow ads for GatewayPundit. That would require government fiat. That would be fascistic.

[fj1200]

Gunny, I am not trying to guilt you. I am correct, and you know it. It is what it is.

You want Google to allow ads for GatewayPundit. That would require government fiat. That would be fascistic.

Incorrect. That's pretty much the opposite of suppression of opposition.

Oddly enough the left's desire for net neutrality would have eliminated this type of action by Google.

[JakeStarkey]

Incorrect. That's pretty much the opposite of suppression of opposition.

Oddly enough the left's desire for net neutrality would have eliminated this type of action by Google.

Not at all. Government in action in directing business to the state interest (through the Party, if we are to be accurate), is fascism.

[Gunny]

Gunny, I am not trying to guilt you. I am correct, and you know it. It is what it is.

You want Google to allow ads for GatewayPundit. That would require government fiat. That would be fascistic.You are right about something I have not stated? ow does that work? I've made no statement regarding what I want google to do.

As a customer of a service provider, I will be the judge of whether or not I will continue to use its services based on what I consider unethical behavior on the part of a provider of information and its deciding for me what I need to know.

Give me all the information and let ME decide what I need to know. But then, they don't market to people like me that think for themselves, do they?

[fj1200]

Not at all. Government in action in directing business to the state interest (through the Party, if we are to be accurate), is fascism.

But making Google pay GP is not the state's interest. It might be regulatory but not the state's interest.

[JakeStarkey]

But making Google pay GP is not the state's interest. It might be regulatory but not the state's interest.

If the Party tells the State to do so, then it is the state's interest to do so.

[SassyLady]

If the Party tells the State to do so, then it is the state's interest to do so.
What?

If the democrat party tells the State to do so? Isn't the party the State? Of course it would be in their interests. That's the very definition of corruption.

[fj1200]

If the Party tells the State to do so, then it is the state's interest to do so.

Still no. Fascism is about the supremacy of the state above all. Merely regulating that opposing thought not be squelched is not the same thing and is by definition the opposite.