NBC Goes After The Federalist, Demanding that Google (The Monopolist in Internet-Served Ads) No Longer Permit Advertisers to Advertise On It;
Google Eagerly Agrees

Update: the leftwing censorship group that pitched "Let's deplatform The Federalist to NBC" has a long, long list of right wing sites that need to be deplatformed.

Pretty much all of them.

Except for National Review, The Bulwark, and The Dispatch.

Who will soon win the ideological war on the right -- because they're the only three sites the leftwing tech monopolists have left standing.

...

...

The regular media and social media have been playing this game for a long, long time.

A leftwing activist brings a "problematic" comment to the attention of a media organization, inducing the media organization to begin putting pressure on a social media company to censor/suppress/deplatform the speaker.

This organization has often been CNN -- which has its own Deplatforming Unit working on no other stories except bird-dogging candidates for censorship to the Social Media Monopoly Hunters.

The media organization keeps up a campaign of negative PR on the social media company-- "Why is Twitter permitting Alex Jones to tweet?" -- until the social media company agrees to deplatform.

The media pretends that this is just "news gathering," "just asking questions," but that's a lie: they have a specific end in mind. They have a specific last paragraph of the story in mind: the person or site that they're targeting succumbs to CNN's negative PR pressure and deplatforms the target.

You can tell that the media seeks this goal because the negative stories stop the moment the deplatorming demand is agreed to: they do not go on, for example, to do a story about how Twitter gave in to cancel culture activists and thereby reduced free speech. That's a story they could write after a cancelation -- but they don't.

Because the game is that all negative PR will stop once you abide by CNN's decision that this person or this website no longer be permitted to speak freely.

Now leftwingers have gone after The Federalist for -- get this! -- Criticizing the media.

NBC wrote a story and demanded that Google do something about Google ads appearing on The Federalist.

"The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google."

We can't have people on the right criticizing the media! That must not be permitted!

One of the outlets The Federalist criticized was, of course, NBC "News."

And now Google has given NBC the last paragraph of their story: The Federalist is now blacklisted from advertising with Google.

The monopolist that controls 90%+ of the internet advertising market.

I'm sure that won't reduce The Federalist's reach.

I'm sure the entire point of this exercise wasn't to reduce the Federalist's reach.

And National Review -- which takes Cash Money Donations from Google through the National Review Institute -- will be completely silent about their patron's destruction of yet another conservative voice (one that is, coincidentally, an ideological and market competitor to National Review), or, if forced to address this, will defend Google's deplatorming of a conservative rival as a Corporate Monopoly just using its own right to free speech.

I'm so sick of this. I'm sick of this.

Andrew Egger of the Dispatch -- one of the many pseudoright grifters who has been telling the right that "corporations can do whatever they want" and advising us to "let the market solve the problem" in, oh, say, 60-100 years -- is actually shocked by this.

Dude, they've been doing this forever. We've been telling you that the target was not Alex Jones.

Alex Jones was not their target. Alex Jones was their Proof of Concept.

Alex Jones was the first to be targeted for deplatforming because they knew that cucks like you would say nothing, thereby blessing the precendent.

Thereby validating their model of just deplatforming all right wing voices.

Is this shocking?

Where have you been?

Meawnwhile, this alleged "free speech advocate" is now teeing up the next deplatofrming target: Ben Shapiro.

Well, I intend to give Ben Shapiro the same level of support during his deplatorming as he's given every other conservative who's been deplatformed: None at all.

Hey Ben, "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can compel a monopoly to serve you with the same terms they serve everyone else."

"Natural market foces will solve this problem in 60-100 years. Hopefully."

I hope these words bring you solace as YouTube bans your channel and Google (which controls 90%+ of all internet advertising in the world) denies you advertising revenue.

Oh, update: The Federalist "may rememdy" and avoid demonitization.

I assume -- by deleting the articles which criticized the media and the protesters.

Can't wait for Charles C.W. Cooke's impassioned defense of his donor deplatforming yet antoher conservative voice that competes with National Review.

Update: Well, Baseball C*ck has sputtered on Twitter, which I suppose is something.

But what will they actually do about it? Will they advocate that a 90%+ market dominator (which is well above the threshhold to be declared a "monopoly" in a market) be sued by the Federal Government's anti-trust division until they agree to stop the illegal practice of "tying" or "leveraging," that is, using your monopoly power in one area (internet advertising) to control/reduce competition in another market (internet political publications)?

I doubt it. I expect more stalwart defenses of the Poor Little Megacorporatin Monopoly Google, and advice that anyone who doesn't like Google deplaforming everyone on the right (except the Pet Kitten Pseudoright), should just wait for "natural market forces" to produce a viable competitor to Google.

In 60-100 years. Maybe.

Until then... well you can just eat fucking sand, can't you?

Interesting point: If Google is deplatforming The Federalist over comments... doesn't that mean they're treating The Federalist's comments are as the work of a publisher, not just independent comments on a platform?

posted by Ace at 04:50 PM

| Access Comments