What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Camerus]

I agree that that is happening in some cases, but the article makes it sound like what SG is doing goes beyond that in orher cases.  I'll add emphasis:

Because of "programmatic" ad buying, many companies don't even know they are appearing on these sites. We inform them and help them with advice on taking their ads down.

— Facebook, Sleeping Giants


Sleeping Giants has now persuaded2200 companies in the US and Europe to stop their ads appearing on Breitbart.

I find the use of "many" and "persuaded" suggestive of a more rigorous approach thab merely giving a casual FYI. But I'll admit I've only heard of SG from this article.

[Jacob]

I agree that that is happening in some cases, but the article makes it sound like what SG is doing goes beyond that in orher cases.  I'll add emphasis:

Because of "programmatic" ad buying, many companies don't even know they are appearing on these sites. We inform them and help them with advice on taking their ads down.

— Facebook, Sleeping Giants


Sleeping Giants has now persuaded2200 companies in the US and Europe to stop their ads appearing on Breitbart.

I find the use of "many" and "persuaded" suggestive of a more rigorous approach thab merely giving a casual FYI. But I'll admit I've only heard of SG from this article.

What's the problem with the more rigorous approach, in your opinion?

[Camerus]

Well, I'm going to conjecture that the more rigorous approach involves the eventual threat of a public shaming campaign, presumably resulting in hassle and more importantly lost revenue beyond what they were projecting to gain from their ads.

Whether or not you think it's good that the company then agrees to take down is where we'd probably disagree. But I hold thar it's a greater good to encourage ideological diversity (or at least not discourage it) even where those views seem distasteful rather than enforce a particular ideological position.   That's not to say that there are absolutely no views that are beyond the pale, but IMO that bar must be extremely high. I'm not sure that bar has been met here.

[11B4V]

Breitbart defanged?

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4684371.htm

...

Breitbart's first big problem is that its audience is deserting it, falling by more than half since the US election, according to Comscore, from almost 23 million to fewer than 11 million visitors a month.

But an even bigger worry is that a social media campaign run by Sleeping Giants has made Breitbart's advertisers run for cover.

... Sleeping Giants is dedicated to stopping racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic news sites by stopping their ad dollars. Because of "programmatic" ad buying, many companies don't even know they are appearing on these sites. We inform them and help them with advice on taking their ads down.

— Facebook, Sleeping Giants


Sleeping Giants has now persuaded 2200 companies in the US and Europe to stop their ads appearing on Breitbart.

And according to America's Digiday that boycott is having a massive impact.

Breitbart ads plummet nearly 90 percent in three months as Trump's troubles mount

— Digiday, 6 June, 2017


And remarkably, this dramatic fall in revenue also appears to have persuaded Breitbart to moderate its output. As the Washington Post reported last week:

The clarion of the far right seems to be having second thoughts about how far right it wants to go.

... Breitbart News has lately been trimming back some of its more extreme elements ...

— Washington Post, 7 June, 2017

...

Defanged? No.

There is no shortage of crazy out there.

But good on those companies.

[Admiral Yi]

I find the use of "many" and "persuaded" suggestive of a more rigorous approach thab merely giving a casual FYI. But I'll admit I've only heard of SG from this article.

I think "many" just means that there are in fact companies which do already track where their ad revenues go.

"Persuaded" I think is just shorthand for "they were given information, and then they changed their ad buying."  I've never heard of this company involved in any public shaming campaigns.  Also, pretty sure this company is for-profit, and what's the percentage in public shaming?

[Camerus]

I just Googled it and this was tge first article I saw. Looks to me like it does in fact encourage public shaming campaigns.  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/sleeping_giants_campaign_against_breitbart.html

[Admiral Yi]

Conceded.

[alfred russel]

Conceded.

You should be ashamed.

[DGuller]

Well, I'm going to conjecture that the more rigorous approach involves the eventual threat of a public shaming campaign, presumably resulting in hassle and more importantly lost revenue beyond what they were projecting to gain from their ads.

Whether or not you think it's good that the company then agrees to take down is where we'd probably disagree. But I hold thar it's a greater good to encourage ideological diversity (or at least not discourage it) even where those views seem distasteful rather than enforce a particular ideological position.   That's not to say that there are absolutely no views that are beyond the pale, but IMO that bar must be extremely high. I'm not sure that bar has been met here.

In my mind, the bar lowered just a bit once we saw the endgame of ceaseless brainwashing.  Democracy is under threat when a large portion of the population is impervious to facts, and is a willing pawn of hostile foreign powers that are a threat to us.  This calls for employment of counter-strategies that would normally be judged potentially too dangerous.

[Berkut]

I don't even see how the idea of using public pressure to influence advertising dollars is remotely a "dangerous strategy" anyway.

Advertising is, by its nature, a public attempt to influence buying habits. How is it not fair pool to turn around and use it to influence "journalists" who are apparently motivated by nothing other than their need for those advertising dollars?

[DGuller]

I don't even see how the idea of using public pressure to influence advertising dollars is remotely a "dangerous strategy" anyway.

Advertising is, by its nature, a public attempt to influence buying habits. How is it not fair pool to turn around and use it to influence "journalists" who are apparently motivated by nothing other than their need for those advertising dollars?

It's a dangerous tactic because what if causes like gay rights are viewed as toxic to advertisers?  Sometimes the right things are not popular at first, it can cut both ways.  We're lucky that the buying power is heavily tilted to the progressive side these days, but that's not always going to be the case.

[crazy canuck]

I don't even see how the idea of using public pressure to influence advertising dollars is remotely a "dangerous strategy" anyway.

Advertising is, by its nature, a public attempt to influence buying habits. How is it not fair pool to turn around and use it to influence "journalists" who are apparently motivated by nothing other than their need for those advertising dollars?

There used to be a large wall built between the advertising department and the news desks.  Now that has eroded significantly on both sides.  As you point out we now have "journalists" how aim for greater advertising and the departure of advertising dollars from legitimate news sources has put them under significant financial strain.

I agree with DGuller that the weakening of the press is one of the greatest threats to a healthy democracy.

[Eddie Teach]

They had a whole section dedicated to Black Crime.

That's racist, but not necessarily fascist.

[grumbler]

It's a dangerous tactic because what if causes like gay rights are viewed as toxic to advertisers?  Sometimes the right things are not popular at first, it can cut both ways.  We're lucky that the buying power is heavily tilted to the progressive side these days, but that's not always going to be the case.

Gay rights WERE viewed as toxic by advertisers not too long ago.  Many factors influence advertising placement, and informed advertising placement seems more socially acceptable than blanket advertising placement.  You think Koch Industries does not take care in where they place their ads?

[The Brain]

I don't even see how the idea of using public pressure to influence advertising dollars is remotely a "dangerous strategy" anyway.

Advertising is, by its nature, a public attempt to influence buying habits. How is it not fair pool to turn around and use it to influence "journalists" who are apparently motivated by nothing other than their need for those advertising dollars?

It's a dangerous tactic because what if causes like gay rights are viewed as toxic to advertisers?  Sometimes the right things are not popular at first, it can cut both ways.  We're lucky that the buying power is heavily tilted to the progressive side these days, but that's not always going to be the case.

Yes, what if people have the... *gasp* wrong opinions on stuff??!?