The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Breitbart, based in Los Angeles and Washington, says it doesn’t know how many advertisers have blocked it, nor has it calculated how much revenue it has lost as a result. But the financial impact appears to be significant enough for Breitbart to take the group seriously.

“What they’re doing is a very dangerous thing,” says Alexander Marlow, Breitbart’s editor in chief. “They are trying to impose corporate censorship and corporate segregation on us, and they’re doing it anonymously.” He says it is disputes the group’s underlying claim, calling it “a lie” that Breitbart promotes hate speech of any kind.

Click to expand...

Brietbart states this could be a left wing group, a foreign entity or trolls in the basement.
Well I bet this group ain't Russian.
Some of the groups leaders work for various companies and no doubt would not approve of this
So far, estimated 2900 companies have pulled adds.
Serious money involved.
And what is your opinion????

Could be McConnell and Co.

JANFU said:

The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Brietbart states this could be a left wing group, a foreign entity or trolls in the basement.
Well I bet this group ain't Russian.
Some of the groups leaders work for various companies and no doubt would not approve of this
So far, estimated 2900 companies have pulled adds.
Serious money involved.
And what is your opinion????

Click to expand...

The internet gives a great deal of power to movements of this kind. One would think their advertising department could call their former advertisers and get more information about why it was happening. The danger, of course, is that the voice of dissent will be silenced...

Cardinal said:

Could be McConnell and Co.

Click to expand...

Or some ANTIFA hackers in their mom's basement.

MaggieD said:

The internet gives a great deal of power to movements of this kind. One would think their advertising department could call their former advertisers and get more information about why it was happening. The danger, of course, is that the voice of dissent will be silenced...

Click to expand...

From what the article stated is that generally a company will buy adds from company X who then will blanket the web on popular websites. The original company may not know which sites it is advertising on. So when this group tweets asking if they support such a website, the company will have to contact its web advertiser to but that website on a list of blacklisted sites it does not want to advertise on. If it decided not to advertise on that website.

WCH said:

Or some ANTIFA hackers in their mom's basement.

Click to expand...

All the group is doing is checking out who the advertisers are and sending a tweet to the company whose add's appear in the goal of having that company stop advertising on it. No hacking involved

Lord Tammerlain said:

From what the article stated is that generally a company will buy adds from company X who then will blanket the web on popular websites. The original company may not know which sites it is advertising on. So when this group tweets asking if they support such a website, the company will have to contact its web advertiser to but that website on a list of blacklisted sites it does not want to advertise on. If it decided not to advertise on that website.

Click to expand...

Or, if I understand you correctly? The broker placing the ads simply decided to drop Breitbart from its list. Have I got that right?

MaggieD said:

Or, if I understand you correctly? The broker placing the ads simply decided to drop Breitbart from its list. Have I got that right?

Click to expand...

For that company as I understand it yes

An example

GM might buy a bunch of website ads, then find out some are being placed on a website that is dedicated to saying how bad GM cars are etc. They would contact their broker to have that site blacklisted for purchased ads. So that GM would not be financially supporting a website that is harmful to GM's business. However that website would not be blacklisted for Ford it it was using the same broker for its ads. The blacklist would generally be advertiser specific

Breitbart has fought back with limited success against what it has called “left-wing totalitarians.”

Lord Tammerlain said:

For that company as I understand it yes

An example

GM might buy a bunch of website ads, then find out some are being placed on a website that is dedicated to saying how bad GM cars are etc. They would contact their broker to have that site blacklisted for purchased ads. So that GM would not be financially supporting a website that is harmful to GM's business. However that website would not be blacklisted for Ford it it was using the same broker for its ads. The blacklist would generally be advertiser specific

Click to expand...

Note in the article, after Kellogg pulled their adds they went after Kellogg.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Breitbart has fought back with limited success against what it has called “left-wing totalitarians.” When Kellogg became one of the first major sponsors to blacklist Breitbart last year, the site launched a petition drive promoting a boycott of the breakfast-food maker. The petition has attracted some 500,000 signatures, according to Marlow. But it hasn’t brought Kellogg back.

Click to expand...

If people want to associate with each other for the purpose of informing companies that they're advertising scheme associates them with Breitbart, that's their right. So too is it the right of companies to choose not to be associated with Breitbart. Free Speech + Free Market in action.

And if Breitbart eventually goes under, they'll have done some good. Breitbart sells lies to the easily duped, lies endlessly repeated on debate forums like this. Lies that contribute to the political **** show that's been going on in this country for near-on two decades now. They're helping to teach voters that they should feel free to dismiss and ignore any facts they don't want to hear, among other things.

The alt right is so despised nobody wants to be associated with them except the alt right themselves. That can't possibly be a good sign for them.

Mr Person said:

If people want to associate with each other for the purpose of informing companies that they're advertising scheme associates them with Breitbart, that's their right. So too is it the right of companies to choose not to be associated with Breitbart. Free Speech + Free Market in action.

And if Breitbart eventually goes under, they'll have done some good. Breitbart sells lies to the easily duped, lies endlessly repeated on debate forums like this. Lies that contribute to the political **** show that's been going on in this country for near-on two decades now. They're helping to teach voters that they should feel free to dismiss and ignore any facts they don't want to hear, among other things.

Click to expand...

It will not go under, lose some dollars yes, but the fellow that owns Breitbart is a Billionaire and a strong Cruz supporter- as in big bucks donated.

JANFU said:

The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=pm_pop



Brietbart states this could be a left wing group, a foreign entity or trolls in the basement.
Well I bet this group ain't Russian.
Some of the groups leaders work for various companies and no doubt would not approve of this
So far, estimated 2900 companies have pulled adds.
Serious money involved.
And what is your opinion????

Click to expand...

Companies have a right to pick where their adds are.
People have a right to tell company A that i dont like that your ad is with company Z or location 1. How do you feel about Company Z or location 1, do you support them. Then company A is again free to keep or withdraw their ads.

Theres NOTHING "very dangerous" or wrong with this nor is is censorship lol :shrug:

Hold 'em to the same high standard as the President and his White House staff- is it illegal? Indictable? No? Then it's perfectly acceptable.

WCH said:

Or some ANTIFA hackers in their mom's basement.

Click to expand...

Ahahahahahahahahaha, you're so stuck in your ignorance routine you'll even blame advertisers pulling ads from Breitbart on "ANTIFA hackers", LOL. I didn't think it was possible but you've sunk to an even lower level of sadly misinformed.

JANFU said:

The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=pm_pop



Brietbart states this could be a left wing group, a foreign entity or trolls in the basement.
Well I bet this group ain't Russian.
Some of the groups leaders work for various companies and no doubt would not approve of this
So far, estimated 2900 companies have pulled adds.
Serious money involved.
And what is your opinion????

Click to expand...

Oh my! Poor Breitbart! There's a conspiracy against them? Could it be because they hired actors to pose as a pimp and prostitute, to fly all over the US, to put a company that provides housing for the poor out of business? Could it be because they promote bigotry and hate?

It's not just Breitfart, and it's not just the US. Consumers and shareholders globally are petitioning/reminding companies that their policy regarding the advertisers they use are not acceptable. Market forces and all that.

I'm somewhat split on this.

On the one hand, if the company itself discovers that their brand is being electronically posted to a website it neither sought out nor wishes to align itself with, that's their choice. But on the other hand, what seems to be happening here is a third-party "monitoring entity" is informing these companies that they may be unknowingly advertising with a salacious media source (re: Breitbart.com) and they're making the decision to pull their ads and blacklist Breitbart themselves. No one's forcing them to do it; it's their choice as a business to remove themselves from a "Click-Ad" online media that has the potential of either broadening their brand to other markets or causing their brand negativity.

I think these companies are choosing the latter and, of course, folks are upset that a virtual anonymous third-party source is effectively blowing the whistle. If you think of it in terms of collaboration, then no problem. It's just one "customer" bringing something to the attention of a major corporation's advertising and marketing division and said division makes the decision to pull the ad. If, on the other hand, you view this as an anonymous third-party entity interfering with the profitability of another entity, then I suppose that would be a reasonable argument. However, again I would point out that "Sleeping Giant" isn't forcing any company to pull its ad presence from Breitbart.com. It's simply making said company aware that maybe they didn't know their ads were being placed their in the first place.

JANFU said:

The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?tid=pm_pop



Brietbart states this could be a left wing group, a foreign entity or trolls in the basement.
Well I bet this group ain't Russian.
Some of the groups leaders work for various companies and no doubt would not approve of this
So far, estimated 2900 companies have pulled adds.
Serious money involved.
And what is your opinion????

Click to expand...

I think it's just one person - Sean Spicer in his basement tweeting in his underwear.

MaggieD said:

The internet gives a great deal of power to movements of this kind. One would think their advertising department could call their former advertisers and get more information about why it was happening. The danger, of course, is that the voice of dissent will be silenced...

Click to expand...

I would argue that if Citizens United allows unlimited donations to politicians in anonymity then why should folks campaigning against Breitbart have to reveal themselves?

Personally, I think both situations are wrong. If you are for or against something, have the cajones to reveal yourself.

Mr Person said:

If people want to associate with each other for the purpose of informing companies that they're advertising scheme associates them with Breitbart, that's their right. So too is it the right of companies to choose not to be associated with Breitbart. Free Speech + Free Market in action.

And if Breitbart eventually goes under, they'll have done some good. Breitbart sells lies to the easily duped, lies endlessly repeated on debate forums like this. Lies that contribute to the political **** show that's been going on in this country for near-on two decades now. They're helping to teach voters that they should feel free to dismiss and ignore any facts they don't want to hear, among other things.

Click to expand...

Lol. Lib definition of "lies". Facts which are devastating to Marxism.

lurchadams said:

I think it's just one person - Sean Spicer in his basement tweeting in his underwear.

Click to expand...

:lamo...a vindictive "SpicyTrump"...:lamo

JANFU said:

The... ...opinion????

Click to expand...

I cannot help but notice the similarities between "corporate censorship" and "freedom of association" on the part of the corporations who choose not to advertise w/ Breitbart.

JANFU said:

It will not go under, lose some dollars yes, but the fellow that owns Breitbart is a Billionaire and a strong Cruz supporter- as in big bucks donated.

Click to expand...

Damn.