Mediaboss Marketing

Wanting to ban the haters is understandable.

It was inevitable that the fallout from violent protests in Virginia organized by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups would extend to the virtual world of the web. The internet is our modern commons. But the past few days have shown how fast we can glide down the slippery slope to web censorship.

Facebook and Twitter were perfectly within their rights, legally and ethically, when they banned accounts of certain hate groups and their leaders. These are private companies enforcing their own rules about how their services and platforms can be used. Providers of web infrastructure, however, must be held to a stricter standard since they act as choke points that can prevent an individual or group from being able to express themselves online.

Soon after the Charlottesville events, domain name registrars GoDaddy and Google separately decided to no longer serve the Daily Stormer after the neo-Nazi site wrote a disparaging story about Heather Heyer, the woman who died after being struck by a car while protesting the Charlottesville rally. Registrars act as a sort of phone book for the internet by turning a raw IP address -- like 62.23.150.94 -- into a line of text, like "Bloomberg.com." Without GoDaddy or Google, it would be impossible for people to find the Daily Stormer online. Shortly afterwards, CloudFlare, which offers firewall services for websites to help them ward off attacks, kicked the Daily Stormer off its servers.

In a refreshingly candid email to his employees and blog post, CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince admitted that his decision was "arbitrary" and "dangerous," and departed from years of maintaining strict neutrality about the content of the sites his company protected. As Prince told Gizmodo: I think the people who run The Daily Stormer are abhorrent. But again I dont think my political decisions should determine who should and shouldnt be on the internet.

It's hard not to cheer Prince's courage and his motives. But his decision and those of the registrars have big implications for the debate over how the internet should be regulated. To reach web users, publishers of content small and large rely on a complex machinery of web hosts, domain registrars, transit providers, platforms, proxy servers and search engines.

While the companies that provide the back-end services of the web are less well known than the Facebook and Snapchats of the world, they're indispensable to its smooth functioning; they are effectively the plumbing that allows the whole system to function. When they take sides, everyone loses.

Many may be happy to see the Daily Stormer pushed into web oblivion, myself included, but we probably wouldn't feel the same way for publishers of content we agreed with. What if a dissident politician or a corporate whistle-blower got similar treatment?

Currently there are no U.S. laws or regulations to prevent web infrastructure providers from taking such actions. Under federal law, private corporations can deny service to groups or individuals, as long as it's not because of their race, religion or sexuality. Nor does the principle of "net neutrality" really apply since that just calls for broadband providers like Verizon or Comcast to treat all data equally.

We may need new rules in the U.S. that specifically bar web infrastructure providers from cutting off services to publishers based on their content. This would limit firms like GoDaddy's ability to use their terms of service to silence people with controversial views.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

It would be preferable to keep efforts to eradicate hate speech at the platform level and not among the providers of internet infrastructure services. After long resisting, platforms like Facebook and Twitter now acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for what people post.Since they are governed by local laws where they operate, they fall under the jurisdiction of elected officials with the legitimacy to regulate. Just look at Germany's tough new law that levies fines up to 50 million euro ($58.5 million) if social networks don't remove hate speech promptly.

Regulators will make mistakes and may even overreach. But they have more standing to make tough calls on free speech than the internet's plumbers.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leila Abboud at labboud@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.net

Go here to see the original:
Keep the Internet's Backbone Free From Censorship - Bloomberg

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said private industry has a right to censor opinions but its a very dangerous business.

The First Amendment restrains the government. It reads Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress has now been interpreted [that] to mean no government shall abridge the freedom of speech, Napolitano said during a Fox and Friends interview Thursday. And Facebook and the other high tech companies are not owned by the government so they are free to censor. They can do whatever they want, but censorship is a very dangerous business.

They will lose market share, they will lose a lot of customers. They will lose their identity as a marketplace for ideas and then these hateful ideas will go somewhere else.

Napolitano argued that although hate speech is detestable and wrong, its better to suffer through it than to sacrifice the right of free expression.

Which is worse in the American icon of values? Hate speech or censorship? I would argue that censorship is worse, he said. The remedy for hate speech is not censorship. Its more speech. Its speech to challenge and expose it.

He added he doesnt believe it will be easy to change the minds of those who peddle hate speech, but its preferable to driving them into hiding and obscuring the threat.

I am not naive. I dont think that we could all stand on a street corner and talk to a bunch of haters and change their minds. Some of them, a legion of angels coming from heaven telling them theyre wrong would not change their minds, he said. But it is better we know who they are, where they are, and what they say, than they be driven underground.

Once we get into the censorship business it will just keep getting worse. So if they can censor something that I say because its hate to them, it might be music to your ears, he concluded.

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected]

See more here:
Judge Napolitano: 'FB Can Do Whatever They Want, But Censorship Is A Very Dangerous Business' - The Daily Caller

The Vegas Golden Knights announced in April that Lotus Broadcasting would be the official radio broadcast partner and radio home of the NHL expansion team for the next few seasons.

This meant they opted not to go with CBS Radio Las Vegas, home to six highly-rated stations including CBS Sports 1140am. Which did not set well with Tony Perlongo, senior vice president and market manager for CBS Radio in Vegas, who instructed everyone on air not to ever mention the hockey team, going forward.

From Perlongo, in an email published by Ron Futrell:

A decision has been made that effective immediately, there are to be no further mentions of the Las Vegas Golden Knights hockey team on any CBS/LV radio stations or any of our social media platforms. This includes, but not limited to, on sale ticket mentions, player/coaches interviews, plugging locals to sing national anthem, TV broadcast schedule, etc. It is now the responsibility of the Golden Knights chosen radio partner to help accomplish their goals, not ours.

Now, you may ask yourself how a Las Vegas sports radio station intended to ignore the inaugural season of the first major professional team to play in the city, and honestly we dont have a clue. Other than that its hockey, which means its probably not being discussed on an American sports talk radio station to begin with.

Anyway, Futrell reached out to Perlongo to find out if this giant crybaby act-as-professional guidelines thing was in fact accurate, and he confirmed that it was.

We have a lot of other things to cover, the Knights dont work into our coverage, said Perlongo. We support their (the Golden Knights) success in the marketplace, but that will depend on their partnership that theyve already developed.

This censorship lets call it what it is went more viral than an off-the-strip motel pool, and the backlash was harsh.So Perlongo informed the Washington Post on Wednesday evening that the Golden Knights will in fact be mentioned and discussed on his sacred airwaves:

With six radio stations in Las Vegas we have always prided ourselves on informing, educating and entertaining listeners and supporting the local communities we serve. However, we missed the mark in an internal email that instructed our stations to no longer report on certain aspects of the Golden Knights, the citys first and only major league sports team, Tony Perlongo, CBS Radio Las Vegas senior vice president and market manager, said in a statement provided to The Post. This was an error in judgement on our part and we deeply regret it. We will of course cover the team, first and foremost on Sports Radio 1140 and on our music and news/talk stations as it makes sense for those formats and audiences. We apologize to the Golden Knights, their fans and our listeners and look forward to rooting the team on when the puck drops in a few weeks.

And an apology to boot!

Look, this idiotic decision was bound to be short-lived, but we didnt expect it to have the lifespan of your average White House Communications Director.

The swift reversal of policy speaks to three things: That ignoring a local team, especially one with that new car smell, is bad business; that public shaming for said idiocy is a handy way to affect change; and that we wish hockey fans would take a lesson from this and realize that if you arent happy with the amount of coverage your sport gets from a given station in a given market, let your voices be heard.

It may not forceJimbo and The Goofball to stop talking about LaVar Ball or whatever long enough to preview the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but it could annoy the program director just enough to carve out a little time for our beloved sport here and there. And thats a start.

Greg Wyshynskiis a writer for Yahoo Sports. Contact him atpuckdaddyblog@yahoo.comorfind him on Twitter.His book,TAKE YOUR EYE OFF THE PUCK,isavailable on Amazonand wherever books are sold.

MORE FROM YAHOO SPORTS

See the original post here:
Vegas radio station apologizes to Golden Knights for censorship - Yahoo Sports

Credit: deepblue4you/iStock

Global brands have tried to tighten control on media spending and reexamine their relationships with agency suppliers in the year since a bombshell report on media transparency from the Association of National Advertisers, according to a new survey from the World Federation of Advertisers.

The research released this week from the Brussels-based marketing association representing members like Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Unilever and national advertiser associations said brands are making changes to their media governance practices in the areas of media transparency, viewability, brand safety and ad fraud.

The WFA attributes the more hands-on approach to the ANA's report last summer, which claimed rebates and non-transparent practices were pervasive in the U.S. media-buying ecosystem and put the relationships marketers have with their media agencies under a microscope.

The survey included 35 WFA members representing more than $30 billion in global media and marketing spending.

About a quarter of brands surveyed said they had conducted "forensic/financial/contract compliance audits" of their agencies in the last 12 months, and 21 percent said they planned to do this. Some 35 percent of respondents said they already conduct those audits.

Historically, media audits tracked the prices that an agency was paying for media and benchmarked them against competition. As digital media has gained prevalence, compliance audits which take an in-depth look at an agency's books, including invoices, cash flow and time sheets have become more common in Europe.

A number of brands surveyed said they had made changes to their agency contracts in the past 12 months. For instance, 26 percent added clauses pertaining to the return of incentives, defined as any kinds of discounts, rebates or service agreements given to agencies by media vendors to buy certain media, and whether those "incentives" are passed back to the advertiser.

Though some types of rebates have been common business practice abroad, other less straightforward types of rebates have become more prevalent in recent years, said Matt Green, global lead of media and digital marketing at the WFA.

The WFA has said it doesn't oppose rebates, an industry practice in which media companies provide money or volume discounts to agencies for influencing client spending toward that media company. But the group believes advertisers should receive their fair share of those discounts or payments, and that rebates shouldn't create issues surrounding conflicts of interest.

Green said transparency had been a topic of discussion internationally before the ANA report was released.

"Transparency has been a big focus internationally for a while, less so in the U.S.," he said. "It doesn't surprise me that we're seeing a renewed focus on transparency" following the ANA's report, he said.

In the study, 57 percent of brands said they had implemented viewer tracking via a third-party vendor (31 percent already had that in place); 49 percent have adopted site whitelists or blacklists where advertising should or shouldn't appear (46 percent had done so already); and 54 percent said they were now working with third-party verification companies or other partners to combat ad fraud (34 percent were doing so already).

Though trust between agencies and marketers has been a challenge, Green said he believes having these conversations will benefit the industry down the line.

"Maybe it was necessary for the industry to go through these challenges in order to be reborn in a more stable manner," Green said. "It is a process that needed to happen. We will ultimately come out in a better place."

Originally posted here:
Global Brands Are Taking More Control of Media Spending: WFA - AdAge.com (blog)

After months of rumors about why ABCs hit Bachelor in Paradise shut down production after allegations of possible misconduct between contestants Corinne Olympios and DeMario Jackson, the show which was cleared in an investigation finally provided some answers Tuesday night in a sitdown with host Chris Harrison and the cast.

It was an educational experience, as Harrison led a lessonon sexual consent (Ifsomebodys passed out, unresponsive, can they give consent? If somebodys drunk, can they give consent?). The contestants shared their thoughtson whether race was a factor because the alleged controversy was abouta black man and a white woman. (Unfortunately, yes.)

The episodewas also pretty cringeworthy damage control, relieving the show of any responsibility, complete with a dose of media-bashing. Here are some other takeaways:

[Bachelor in Paradise addresses scandal in most frustrating way possible in the premiere]

1) Bachelor in Paradiseis a beautiful show with only pure intentions to help people find love.

Did you think Bachelor in Paradise was just a seedy Bachelor spin-off where former contestants try to extend their 15 minutes of fame and drink and hook up? Then thats your problem, because actually, it is truly a life-affirming experiencefor lost souls just trying to find a partner.

The episode started the wedding of Evan Bass and Carly Waddell, who met and got engaged last season. Even though our production was technically shut down, we didnt want anyone to miss this joyous occasion, Harrison explained. How annoying when producers on your showare so disturbed by a situationthat they have to file complaints about possible misconduct before a made-for-TV wedding can happen.

Luckily, the wedding took place. This is going to be the most beautiful wedding ever. Carly and Evan are completely a testament to what Paradise can do for people, sighed contestant Sarah Herron in an on-camera interview.

2) Bachelor in Paradise producers and ABC are completely blameless.

The gist of the controversy:Production shut down after anincident in a pool between DeMario Jackson and Corinne Olympios, or, as People reported,possiblya drunk sexual encounter with a female contestant who may have been too intoxicated to consent. Olympios hired a lawyerand said she was a victim; Jacksonsaid the reports were false and character assassination. An investigation found the footage showed no misconduct. Production started again, though without Jacksonand Olympios.

The second half of the episode kicked off as Harrison gathered the cast around for a Very Serious Talk. On Monday, viewers briefly saw footage of Jacksonand Olympios laughing and cuddling in the pool; Tuesday, there was no such footage. But producers really want the audience to know that they did absolutely nothing wrong.

Warner Bros. hired an outside firm to look into everything that supposedly happened here, Harrison said. They looked at all the video footage, sent people down here to interview all of you, our staff. They concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct by cast on the set. So lets talk about that. Do you trust that conclusion?

There was a large chorus of Yes! and Absolutely. I was confident that nothing happened between DeMario and Corinne that was bad, and I trusted everyone that worked here, so I knew everything was gonna be okay, declared Raven Gates.

My biggest worry was for not only production, because I felt like they were kind of blamed, shecontinued. And then my worry was for DeMario and Corinne because we knew what happened, but it was so unfair the way that people were speaking about DeMario and the blame he was getting and the horrible things said to him, and Corinne both.

3) Bachelor in Paradise producers would never coerce contestants to do anything, especially drink, and how dare you even think that.

After the Paradise shutdown, theseries got a lot of backlash for the amount of booze on the show,as former contestants have describedhow producers will encourage cast members to drinkto help provoke drama. After the shutdown, the show implemented new safety policies, and one was reportedly a limit on alcohol.

The Bachelor in Paradise cast, however, was incredibly offended that anyone would think the producers dont have their best interests at heart.

I feel like it was tough on all of us emotionally producers, crew, cast. So, for me, it was nice to see all of us kind of, like, come together, said Taylor Nolan. The divides in the roles of producers versus cast kind of blended, and we all, like, supported one another.

Thats a good point, Harrison agreed. I know you guys get close, but a lot of tears were shed that night. It was a really rough, emotional not even just that night. The days that followed as well, on the men and women you see standing behind the cameras right here. It was brutal. It was really rough, and in the 16 years Ive been doing this, easily the most emotional time that weve ever been through as far as a show.

Derek Peth jumped in to agree that the producers are certainly not at fault.I think theres a weird perception that exists out there, that were not in control of ourselves when were here. And that theres this puppet master thing occurring

Evil, manipulative producers, sneered one female cast member.

We all know how, like, realistic the friendships are amongst the cast and then the crew and the producers, Pethcontinued. I mean, its not some sort of crazy

You guys arent mindless robots? Harrison interruptedsarcastically.

Right, Pethsaid, as everyone laughed appreciatively.

Nolan who emphasized that she doesnt drink and the producers have never tried to encourage her rolled her eyes at viewers who come up to her and say that they love her character.

Like, were all real people just being ourselves, she said. Everything that we do here and that we say here is because we decide to.

4) Its all the medias fault, anyway.

A popular opinion these days, and the Paradise cast rolled with it.

It was just hard going back home and seeing, like, the media blow it so out of proportion, Alexis Waters explained.

I think there was a lot in the media regarding the producers as if theyre not our friends and that theyre just using us to make us do things, like were gonna just do whatever they say, Alex Woytkiw agreed.

They also blamed on the press for how Jacksonand Olympioswere portrayed.

Iggy Rodriguezsaid of DeMario,He has his faults. I think we all do. It was just really hard to see him typecast as this individual who sort of almost created the event, right? I think it was a really unfair representation of what happened.

5) No one is sure why Olympiosreferred to herself as a victim.

Before Olympiosstated that her own investigation into the incident was completed to her satisfaction, she released this statement: I am a victim and have spent the last week trying to make sense of what happened on June 4as a woman, this is my worst nightmare and it has now become my reality.

In one bizarre segment,Harrison asked, In Corinnes statement, she referred to herself as a victim. Why do you think she did that?

There was a pause. Maybe she wanted to try and save face, offered Danielle Maltby. That was kind of what I took from it.

It was a very vague statement, and it was left to interpretation by design, Woytkiwadded. And its unfortunate.

I dont think Corinnes statements came from her, Peth declared. It was a very vague lawyer statement and so it was really interesting to see how that vague statement was turned into an opinion, right? Which wasnt said. There was no statements about who was in the right, who was in the wrong. But instantly people made their decisions about that.

Read more:

Rob Kardashians meltdown, Bachelor controversy: This summer is exposing ugly truths of reality TV

Bachelor in Paradise host says theres a lot of misinformation out there about show shutdown

Bachelor in Paradise star hires lawyer after alleged misconduct that shut down the show

See the original post here:
'Bachelor in Paradise' somehow sinks to new low with media-bashing damage control - Washington Post