Jump to content

Google will soon ban fake news sites from using its ad network

Guest
By Guest
in Tech News
 Share
Posted

Google has one of the largest online advertisement business, AdSense, in the world with over 1.7M websites using it 

Some of the websites turn out to be fake news websites

 

Quote

Today, Google announced that its advertising tools will soon be closed to websites that promote fake news, a policy that could cut off revenue streams for publications that peddle hoaxes on platforms like Facebook. The decision comes at a critical time for the tech industry, whose key players have come under fire for not taking neccesary steps to prevent fake news from proliferating across the web during the 2016 US election.

 

There has been some speculation that Google may use the policy to censor certain websites 

The company has issued an official statement on the given users

Quote

"Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property," a Google spokesperson said in a statement given to Retuers. This policy includes fake news sites, the spokesperson confirmed. Google already prevents its AdSense program from being used by sites that promote violent videos and imagery, pornography, and hate speech.

 

I personally know many people who spread or share news from fake websites (it makes me cringe every single time) 

The latest episode of John Oliver's LastWeekTonight ("F*ck 2016") did highlight that there was a massive influx of fake news during the election and most of them were extremely partisan or just outrageous 

Don't worry satire news like The Onion won't be affected because they do disclose that their news is made purely for comedy  

Though the issue of censorship does arise, just a few days ago Facebook was criticized for "suppressing" conservative news though there is still little evidence to support the claim

 

Sources: Reuters, The Verge, WIRED

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

So, does this mean that LowerMyBills will no longer advertise with Google?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
3 minutes ago, xentropa said:

Onion at least makes it clear its fake news.

 

Good for google.

 

And F@#% clickbait too.

But will Google make the distinction with them? Especially when in doing so, they nail Apple's spiel on the head:

http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no--14299

"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
15 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

But will Google make the distinction with them? Especially when in doing so, they nail Apple's spiel on the head:

http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no--14299

I guess its a case by case basis.

 

Though generally, bonafide BS sites try to mimick other legit sites to give a sense of credibility.  onion doesnt do that.

 

Example:

 

"Christian Times" is a legit news site (for the most part)

"Christian times newspaper" is a site that spreads tin foil hat BS that isnt based on facts or reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Will fake youtube news channels be affected to? or channels that spread a lot of conspiracies? 
What I mean is will they stop getting adds on their videos?

I hope so.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
16 minutes ago, Mihle Gaming said:

Will fake youtube news channels be affected to? or channels that spread a lot of conspiracies? 
What I mean is will they stop getting adds on their videos?

I hope so.

I hope not. Creates a very dangerous precedent. 

- snip-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

meaning they'll be  banning facebooks ad as well

Details separate people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 hour ago, MrDynamicMan said:

I hope not. Creates a very dangerous precedent. 

why?

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
18 minutes ago, Mihle Gaming said:

why?

They can start pushing a biased agenda, by locking videos that go against a lot of their rhetoric, on the based that it was unfactual.

- snip-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
14 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

They can start pushing a biased agenda, by locking videos that go against a lot of their rhetoric, on the based that it was unfactual.

That do not have anything to do with what I said. I said that it is some channels that spread conspiracies that should t have ads on them, but they do.

Things that is obvious false/conspiracies =/= Things one company thinks is false.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, Mihle Gaming said:

That do not have anything to do with what I said. I said that it is some channels that spread conspiracies that should t have ads on them, but they do.

Things that is obvious false/conspiracies =/= Things one company thinks is false.

But where is the line drawn? If a video has viewers, no matter how shitty content is the creator deserves monetization. Where is the line drawn Ed on "blatantly false?" 

- snip-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
23 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

But where is the line drawn? If a video has viewers, no matter how shitty content is the creator deserves monetization. Where is the line drawn Ed on "blatantly false?" 

Depends, if Google block them from ads on youtube trough their system, they can still get their own adds in their videos? people that spread lies as truth should not get helped with monetization. If they fix it themself, fine, but they shouldt get help from others like google for it.

 

The only difference between sites and youtube channels that spread false things/lies/conspiracies as they was true, is that it is harder to do it automatic on videos.

“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. 
It matters that you don't just give up.”

-Stephen Hawking

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

This kind of policy either helps create soft, squishy brain matter that can't tell the difference between what's real and what is not, or starts down that slippery slope of thought policing.  If Google has the ability to identify what's truth vs propaganda or outright lies, what is rationale debate vs hate speech (more on that), what's legitimate vs a scam, then why not just provide the option to advertisers and viewers to participate or not.  Why must Google insert itself into other people's moral decisions?  I think it's clear they have their own agenda. 

 

On the subject of hate speech.  First, it's a term that can be applied too liberally and lead to less rational debate/thought.  Objectionable positions need to be sterilized with sunlight rather than be unopposed and allowed to fester or grow under the cover of night.  As a service, Google can and probably should flag content as objectionable for those who choose not to view it.  But that opens things up to anything with a reasonable objection, including articles from "legitimate" sources that get facts wrong or just spread misinformation (knowingly or unknowingly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
3 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

They can start pushing a biased agenda, by locking videos that go against a lot of their rhetoric, on the based that it was unfactual.

While that is true, the bottom line though is that Google is a private company, not a government appointed or licensed entity (like police, doctors, firefighters, city officials) and thus they are under no obligation to be politically impartial.  I may not necessarily agree to it, but I do believe they are legally allowed to block or remove content on their servers and in their services as they deem appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
5 hours ago, xentropa said:

While that is true, the bottom line though is that Google is a private company, not a government appointed or licensed entity (like police, doctors, firefighters, city officials) and thus they are under no obligation to be politically impartial.  I may not necessarily agree to it, but I do believe they are legally allowed to block or remove content on their servers and in their services as they deem appropriate.

Im not denyign that, but legality does not imply morality. 

- snip-

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

If the sites they are referring to are anything like Dailydot or Dailykos then i am all for it.

 

Blog sites pretending to be legit media tend to have accuracy and bias issues that make Fox and MSNBC look angelic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

 

21 hours ago, DatSpeed said:

Google has one of the largest online advertisement business, AdSense, in the world with over 1.7M websites using it 

Some of the websites turn out to be fake news websites

 

 

There has been some speculation that Google may use the policy to censor certain websites 

The company has issued an official statement on the given users

 

I personally know many people who spread or share news from fake websites (it makes me cringe every single time) 

The latest episode of John Oliver's LastWeekTonight ("F*ck 2016") did highlight that there was a massive influx of fake news during the election and most of them were extremely partisan or just outrageous 

Don't worry satire news like The Onion won't be affected because they do disclose that their news is made purely for comedy  

Though the issue of censorship does arise, just a few days ago Facebook was criticized for "suppressing" conservative news though there is still little evidence to support the claim

 

Sources: Reuters, The Verge, WIRED

I think this is great! Fake news websites can be quite detrimental - and for what?

 

I'm looking forward to see how this develops. And yes, Google should definitely NOT be gaining any profit for fake news sites, they should vet their AdSense applications better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Tech News

×