
InfoWars’ conspiracy theories have advertisers ditching YouTube channels - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/infowars-conspiracy-theories-have-advertisers-ditching-youtube-channels/
======
matthewmacleod
Good. InfoWars and the rest of these turgid shit outlets are a cancer on
society, and advertisers absolutely have the right to not want to fund or be
associated with them.

------
IntronExon
Sure, nobody wants to be associated with the next armed person who tries to
take down a “secret pedo ring” in the non-existent basement of a pizza joint.
After all, it may not end without bloodshed next time. Advertisers are going
to start placing similar demands on YouTube that they do on TV, and for the
same reasons. They don’t want or need bad press.

Of course this might finally open the door to taking a slice of the video
hosting pie. It might also end up like a Reddit vs. Voat, because at the end
of the day a lot of the crap being objected to here is really quite
objectionable. I know that people like to invoke freedom of expression
arguments, censorship and so on, but again, look at Voat if you haven’t eaten
lately; it’s a combination of appalling and dead.

Usefully though, these alt sites can act as a useful way to monitor the degree
of real censorship, if it exists. When and if you start to see significant
amounts of something other than paranoia and hate there, you’ll know something
is being suppressed elsewhere. So far though, not much.

~~~
noir_lord
Shrugs, people invoke freedom of expression where it simply doesn't apply,
YouTube is a private entity, they can pretty much nuke any content for any
reason.

Frankly they have a tough path to carve between objectionable content and
damaging their platform.

YouTube's suggested videos is a tire fire, they suggest stuff I'm not remotely
interested in and wouldn't watch at all.

I mean my interests aren't hard to profile, engineering videos, chess videos
and programming stuff.

~~~
Slansitartop
> Shrugs, people invoke freedom of expression where it simply doesn't apply,
> YouTube is a private entity, they can pretty much nuke any content for any
> reason.

You've got it mixed up, you're only supposed to deploy that snark when someone
complains about a private company violating _First Amendment_ rights.

Seriously now, I think its very important to consider how the increasing
concentrated private ownership of public communication affects the people's
natural rights of free expression. The legal regime that was developed to
protect free expression when there was only one entity (the government) with
the concentrated power to widely censor may no longer be adequate for the
modern world.

~~~
Feniks
Outcasts and undesirables aren't invited to parties. Is that censorship or is
that just how society works?

~~~
Slansitartop
It could be if there's only one or a handful of groups throwing parties, and
if going to parties is essential to political participation.

Put another way: what wasn't censorship when there were a dozen independent
media outlets in every city becomes censorship when there are only a dozen or
fewer independent media outlets in the whole country. We're not there yet, but
that's the direction we're headed.

~~~
IntronExon
Is it? So far all of the outsider parties are full of exactly the kind of
people who should be shoved into margins. When I start to see more physicists,
doctors, artists, etc making the same complaints as trolls and dimestore
Nazis, I’ll worry.

~~~
Slansitartop
You're in pretty dangerous territory when you start to justify censorship
because the right people are getting censored. Censors, be they government or
not, _never_ think they're censoring the wrong people, they always think
they're doing the right thing.

Also, if media and network consolidation make non-government censorship as
powerful as government censorship, and the "physicists, doctors, artists, etc
making the same complaints," then it's probably too late to do much about it.
It's much better to nip the problem in the bud, and prevent the infrastructure
of private censorship from getting too developed.

Think of it this way: if you give too much power to good people in government,
then when some crazy fucker like Donald Trump comes along, he can do a lot
more harm because he has all the tools and precedents he needs to fuck things
up, handed to him ready-made. It's the same for power generally.

~~~
IntronExon
_You 're in pretty dangerous territory when you start to justify censorship
because the right people are getting censored. Censors, be they government or
not, never think they're censoring the wrong people, they always think they're
doing the right thing._

I’m not making that argument, and I’m not diving into the bottomless pit or
what people “feel” is censorship, when it’s appropriate, etc. HN exists by
virtue of constructively and carefully applied censorship, with a specific and
stated goal to avoid degradation and collapse. Censorship is a tool like any
other, none of us should expect to be free from it. _Government_ censorship is
a whole other matter, but fortunately the 1st ammendement protects against
that.

To the rest, I’ve been hearing the same “if’s” from the same bad actors for
decades. After all, when a good argument or cause is absent, out come the
slippery slopes. I’m just tired of it. It always seems to come down to a plea
for assholes to be given deference, and anything short of that is
“censorship”. Please.

------
nyxxie
What could CNN possibly write about a company relating to their advertising on
InfoWars content that would outweigh the very real $$ savings now that there
are less competitors to advertise to InfoWars's massive audience?

This is good news for any firm who just wants as many people as possible to
see their ads, and I suspect this consequentially won't mean any real loss
(and potentially a gain as other firms rush to fill the void) for InfoWars.

The way I see it, CNN only managed to scare off these big firms because the
specific employees who manage their Youtube advertising campaigns were scared
the (very real) possibility of being fired because a nasty article _might_
reflect badly on their firm and would "tarnish the brand" or some other such
intangible reasoning.

------
drak0n1c
CNN is contacting and doxxing every individual brand/company whose ads happen
to appear on the youtube channel. Isn't this a form of anti-competitive abuse
of market position?

[http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/03/infowars-cnn-youtube-
ads/](http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/03/infowars-cnn-youtube-ads/)

~~~
ceejayoz
> Isn't this a form of anti-competitive abuse of market position?

No, for the same reasons Gordon Ramsay isn't "competing" with children making
mud pies in the back yard.

~~~
drak0n1c
Regardless of how tiny or slimy the little guy is, or how much they "punch up"
at their mainstream competition -- isn't "punching down" effectively stooping
to their level? You're either admitting you also engage in activism, or you're
admitting to hard knock competitive practices.

I did not mean to imply it was illegal, or even immoral. But their sharing the
same industry is facet of the story that many commenters seem to be glossing
over.

~~~
ceejayoz
Still no.

Groups like Infowars have a newsworthy impact on the political climate, and
deserve coverage by news organizations. It's not about activism - the
intersection of advertising and extremist content on places like YouTube is a
very legitimate subject for journalism, if you ask me.

------
monkeyfoop
They are not the ones that took us to war with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria, Libya.

The mainstream news is the one that is complicit in the spread of dangerous
Conspiracy theories such as: "Saddam was behind 9/11 and has Weapons of Mass
Destruction!"

Boom. 10,000's of US soldiers dead and many more crippled.

1 Million Iraqi people dead.

Infowars has more often than not been right on important matters. Is Alex
Jones over the top? Of course!

Are their Chem Trails and other conspiracy theories "out there"? You bet!

But look up MK Ultra on Wikipedia and other programs that the US/CIA ran and
you will realize that truth is stranger and much more dangerous than the
"conspiracy theories and the penis pills" that Alex Jones is talking about.

At least those Penis pills aren't like the Opiates and depression medication
that kills 10's of thousands a year that MSNBC, Fox, CNN et al peddle.

Use your ability to think: this is an information war and the MSM is the most
dangerous kind of "fake news" and they are fighting tooth and nail to be the
ones allowed to define their competing broadcasters as "fake" (since Infowars
is now becoming huge)

~~~
bdavisx
>Infowars has more often than not been right on important matters.

Would you mind providing a list of those things it's been right on?

~~~
olliej
Gay frogs :D (although they claim this is a government plot, rather than the
US gov refusing to ban use of certain chemicals at the behest of farmers)

~~~
13years
Yes, that's the unfortunate problem. They often bring up issues and questions
that won't be discussed anywhere else. Then ruin it by throwing in some heavy
conspiracy without any supporting evidence.

