Hulu blocks ads on abortion, guns, and climate change – and Dems aren’t happy(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Hulu blocks ads on abortion, guns, and climate change – and Dems aren’t happy
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/25/23277391/hulu-blocks-democratic-ads-abortion-guns-climate-change-january-6-insurrection
52 comments
Sure, of course, I would guess that basically everyone agrees with your entirely non-controversial opinion that you don't like seeing advertisements... but why can't they say "climate change"?
You note "Maybe it isn't even about the topics presented, but about the politicians and political campaigns in general.", which could hypothetically be true in another instance... but in this specific instance they approved the same ad by the same politician after the phrase "climate change" was replaced with "democracy".
They specifically, explicitly, wanted the phrase "climate change" removed. In this instance, it is clearly not about the politician or political campaigns in general - it is about the specific phrase.
https://archive.ph/VNGYQ
You note "Maybe it isn't even about the topics presented, but about the politicians and political campaigns in general.", which could hypothetically be true in another instance... but in this specific instance they approved the same ad by the same politician after the phrase "climate change" was replaced with "democracy".
They specifically, explicitly, wanted the phrase "climate change" removed. In this instance, it is clearly not about the politician or political campaigns in general - it is about the specific phrase.
https://archive.ph/VNGYQ
You're correct.
I'm sure they have reasons that can be speculated about (probably money), including that they don't want to run controversial ads though I don't know if they have imposed the same criteria to different takes on the same subjects.
I think it's regrettable and irresponsible that climate change has been allowed to become such a controversial topic, although this has been a decades long effort. It might be they don't want to lose viewership by broadcasting certain topics. But also,
Very possible they get $ from advertisers who pressure them to avoid the topic
Seems to me most likely their decisions are financially motivated, but this is just a guess.
I admittedly don't know all that much about Hulu's policies or history in regards to the advertising they choose to accept. It may very well be they have other motives, are trying to appear nonpartisan by allowing Ds to advertise but giving them criteria about what they can say, how they say it.
I'm sure they have reasons that can be speculated about (probably money), including that they don't want to run controversial ads though I don't know if they have imposed the same criteria to different takes on the same subjects.
I think it's regrettable and irresponsible that climate change has been allowed to become such a controversial topic, although this has been a decades long effort. It might be they don't want to lose viewership by broadcasting certain topics. But also,
Very possible they get $ from advertisers who pressure them to avoid the topic
Seems to me most likely their decisions are financially motivated, but this is just a guess.
I admittedly don't know all that much about Hulu's policies or history in regards to the advertising they choose to accept. It may very well be they have other motives, are trying to appear nonpartisan by allowing Ds to advertise but giving them criteria about what they can say, how they say it.
Hah! Good point. The reason they don't want to hear the word "climate change" probably has a lot more to do with money than politics, they may just be slipping it in under the cover of other political advertising restrictions.
I would appreciate a ban on all political advertising on television, but especially on paid services.
Perhaps Hulu recognizes that some people just want to watch TV and not be bothered by campaign ads.
Also perhaps I'd be more sympathetic to the Democrats here if exactly this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of their own playbook for years.
Also perhaps I'd be more sympathetic to the Democrats here if exactly this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of their own playbook for years.
I strongly believe in Hulu's right as a private business to decide this.
The key here is that Democrats are outraged at Hulu, but they're not trying to change laws to force Hulu to carry these ads.
That is in contrast to the other side of this debate about deplatforming, which has repeatedly proposed laws that violate the First Amendment because the marketplace of ideas rejects their regressive propaganda.
The key here is that Democrats are outraged at Hulu, but they're not trying to change laws to force Hulu to carry these ads.
That is in contrast to the other side of this debate about deplatforming, which has repeatedly proposed laws that violate the First Amendment because the marketplace of ideas rejects their regressive propaganda.
You're still playing the red vs. blue game. "Yeah, but my guys are clearly better than your guys," while both teams rip you off at every turn.
Yep. The answer here is that Hulu should probably run the ads. Free speech is more than an amendment, it's a social value that should be respected by everyone, not just the government. I'm sure I'd disagree with every one of these ads but I would still like to see them run, because allowing people I don't like to speak is what protects MY right to speak.
I disagree. I don't think ads are the same as individual people being able to express themselves, and having one conpany reject political ads isn't preventing the politicians from expressing themselves altogether. Hulu also has discretion to choose which ads to air. Undoubtedly there are a great number of submissions, I'm sure not all of them make the cut for various reasons. What criteria should they use? Highest paying ads? Extending ad time to ensure all ads submitted can air? What if someone submitted an ad supporting ISIS or other extremist speech?
Should a business be forced to air content they don't want to be associated with or perceived as endorsing? It has already been established companies are not obligated to do business they find violate their 1A rights, so this would seem to fit into that precedent.
Moreover politicians aren't being silenced, there are a vast number of different avenues they can (and do) use to spread their campaign information.
If it's campaign ads being more equitably presented, there are a number of ways to approach this that don't involve forcing a private business to accept any and all ad content.
Should a business be forced to air content they don't want to be associated with or perceived as endorsing? It has already been established companies are not obligated to do business they find violate their 1A rights, so this would seem to fit into that precedent.
Moreover politicians aren't being silenced, there are a vast number of different avenues they can (and do) use to spread their campaign information.
If it's campaign ads being more equitably presented, there are a number of ways to approach this that don't involve forcing a private business to accept any and all ad content.
Should we allow cigarette ads again? Where's the limit?
Maybe we will decide these types of ads are too poisonous for society to tolerate
Maybe we will decide these types of ads are too poisonous for society to tolerate
> Should we allow cigarette ads again? Where's the limit?
Cigarette ads are totally irrelevant to this controversy.
Cigarettes are a non-ideological, commercial product without any therapeutic uses. We can suppress all mention of them from the media, and we would be in no danger of death, tyranny, etc. In fact, there would be far fewer deaths, as we've seen in the last few decades.
Suppressing political ads does carry the risk of death and tyranny. The whole reason people are worried about the erosion of free speech is that suppression of potentially valid ideologies is extremely dangerous.
Cigarette ads are totally irrelevant to this controversy.
Cigarettes are a non-ideological, commercial product without any therapeutic uses. We can suppress all mention of them from the media, and we would be in no danger of death, tyranny, etc. In fact, there would be far fewer deaths, as we've seen in the last few decades.
Suppressing political ads does carry the risk of death and tyranny. The whole reason people are worried about the erosion of free speech is that suppression of potentially valid ideologies is extremely dangerous.
I actually think we should allow cigarette ads again, I don't think anyone is harmed by being able to see a sign telling them something.
But also, think about it this way: isn't this the other side of the slippery slope argument? I'm sure when cigarette ads were first banned, people made the argument that it would be used to justify banning other ads later, and were told that was a slippery slope fallacy... Now, you're essentially saying "we've already banned cigarette ads, if we're not going to ban gun ads too then we might as well re-allow cigarette ads!"
But also, think about it this way: isn't this the other side of the slippery slope argument? I'm sure when cigarette ads were first banned, people made the argument that it would be used to justify banning other ads later, and were told that was a slippery slope fallacy... Now, you're essentially saying "we've already banned cigarette ads, if we're not going to ban gun ads too then we might as well re-allow cigarette ads!"
That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that society has deemed the cigarette ads (in the US) to be something we don't want. The ad types in this thread seem to be going the same way, and hopefully pharma ads will follow later.
The first amendment does not compel speech or publication thereof.
The first amendment does not compel speech or publication thereof.
Ads in general are probably something society doesn't want, because you have to pay people (in the form of ad-supported content) to look at them. You might say that most people in society think cigarette or gun ads (or DNC political spots) are particularly objectionable. But, I don't believe that that's a reason to ban them.
I'm completely in agreement that the law doesn't compel speech, or publication, especially of ads. Hulu is completely legally in the right to not carry DNC ads, Google and Facebook are completely legally in the right not to carry Colt or Remington ads. They'd also be in the right not to carry Altria ads. But the question is what speech do we want to ban by law... and I think the only answer to that for a healthy, free society is "none."
I even go further and say that respecting free speech exists outside the first amendment as a societal value that we should all hold, like "politeness" and "honesty," and that it should be kept even when not legally required... So Hulu _should_ run the ads, even though they are not _required_ to.
I'm completely in agreement that the law doesn't compel speech, or publication, especially of ads. Hulu is completely legally in the right to not carry DNC ads, Google and Facebook are completely legally in the right not to carry Colt or Remington ads. They'd also be in the right not to carry Altria ads. But the question is what speech do we want to ban by law... and I think the only answer to that for a healthy, free society is "none."
I even go further and say that respecting free speech exists outside the first amendment as a societal value that we should all hold, like "politeness" and "honesty," and that it should be kept even when not legally required... So Hulu _should_ run the ads, even though they are not _required_ to.
You can believe what you want, we tolerate flat earthers too
> I think the only answer to that for a healthy, free society is "none."
This is not true or healthy in the internet age where speech can reach all of humanity in seconds and we are plagued by bad actors without the ability to easily rein them in. Telling people to do their own research or be safe does not scale and the negative externalities end up costing society more.
A company or platform that wants to allow unfettered speech is free to compete with those who filter & curate. We can then see without doubt which society prefers
> I think the only answer to that for a healthy, free society is "none."
This is not true or healthy in the internet age where speech can reach all of humanity in seconds and we are plagued by bad actors without the ability to easily rein them in. Telling people to do their own research or be safe does not scale and the negative externalities end up costing society more.
A company or platform that wants to allow unfettered speech is free to compete with those who filter & curate. We can then see without doubt which society prefers
Hmm. So the way I interpret this is: true free speech lets people say things that are wrong, and leads to people believing things that are wrong. A company that allows it will perform worse in a market because of people believing those wrong things. An analogous thing would happen to a society allowing it, so, to have our society be stronger economically, we should have limits on speech. Is that close to right?
If so, my argument is this: a company and a country have different goals. Many things that a country might provide (welfare programs, democracy, public services) are expenses that don't make us economically stronger. But, we do anyway because that's not the point of a country: the point is to provide the best quality of life for citizens. I'm happy to accept the drawbacks of free speech (people believing in Q, or that the Apollo landings were faked) in exchange for being able to say whatever I want. If you aren't, then there are other countries that make the other tradeoff.
I think this is the core of what's going to be a big debate over the next decade or two, though: is it better to be less productive and free (America), or more efficient but authoritarian (China)?
If so, my argument is this: a company and a country have different goals. Many things that a country might provide (welfare programs, democracy, public services) are expenses that don't make us economically stronger. But, we do anyway because that's not the point of a country: the point is to provide the best quality of life for citizens. I'm happy to accept the drawbacks of free speech (people believing in Q, or that the Apollo landings were faked) in exchange for being able to say whatever I want. If you aren't, then there are other countries that make the other tradeoff.
I think this is the core of what's going to be a big debate over the next decade or two, though: is it better to be less productive and free (America), or more efficient but authoritarian (China)?
> A company that allows it will perform worse in a market because of people believing those wrong things.
This is not why. Look at 4Chan, Parlor, Truth, or any other "free speech" platform. It ends up being toxic and noisy to the point that the vast majority of people will not use it. Thus the company fails, because it cannot reach critical mass for a 2 sided marketplace.
> I'm happy to accept the drawbacks of free speech (people believing in Q, or that the Apollo landings were faked) in exchange for being able to say whatever I want. If you aren't, then there are other countries that make the other tradeoff.
We live in a democracy and you might be the one looking to other countries, if any exist who want to support such an unfettered society. I don't know of any... and even if they did exist, if your company wants to operate in a given country, it has to follow the local laws.
This is not why. Look at 4Chan, Parlor, Truth, or any other "free speech" platform. It ends up being toxic and noisy to the point that the vast majority of people will not use it. Thus the company fails, because it cannot reach critical mass for a 2 sided marketplace.
> I'm happy to accept the drawbacks of free speech (people believing in Q, or that the Apollo landings were faked) in exchange for being able to say whatever I want. If you aren't, then there are other countries that make the other tradeoff.
We live in a democracy and you might be the one looking to other countries, if any exist who want to support such an unfettered society. I don't know of any... and even if they did exist, if your company wants to operate in a given country, it has to follow the local laws.
We do not live in a pure democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. Our lawmakers aren't able to create certain laws because of limits on their power in the constitution; one of those limits is that no law can be passed abridging the freedom of speech. No matter how many people vote for it, without amending the constitution to remove that protection first, it will not happen. And the process for passing that amendment is intentionally cumbersome, for that reason.
> 4Chan, Parlor, Truth, or any other "free speech" platform. It ends up being toxic and noisy to the point that the vast majority of people will not use it.
4Chan and Parler seem to exist just fine. 8Chan doesn't, or was killed and then revived, or something, I'm not sure, but it wasn't due to lack of users; their host canceled them. Never heard of Truth before now, it seems to be Trump's Twitter clone that contains just Trump?
Anyway, my point is not that these free-speech-platforms are more successful than curated ones. My point is that that's the wrong metric to judge whether free speech is a good value to have in a society. I don't care if there are costs to it any more than I care whether the post office is profitable: I don't want to live in a society without freedom of speech, no matter how efficient it is, any more than I'd want to live in one without a post office or a fire department. I am willing to pay for the externalities because the alternative is much, much worse.
From your other reply: if I'm letting my bias in, then how am I misinterpreting what you say? I genuinely want to understand your position.
> 4Chan, Parlor, Truth, or any other "free speech" platform. It ends up being toxic and noisy to the point that the vast majority of people will not use it.
4Chan and Parler seem to exist just fine. 8Chan doesn't, or was killed and then revived, or something, I'm not sure, but it wasn't due to lack of users; their host canceled them. Never heard of Truth before now, it seems to be Trump's Twitter clone that contains just Trump?
Anyway, my point is not that these free-speech-platforms are more successful than curated ones. My point is that that's the wrong metric to judge whether free speech is a good value to have in a society. I don't care if there are costs to it any more than I care whether the post office is profitable: I don't want to live in a society without freedom of speech, no matter how efficient it is, any more than I'd want to live in one without a post office or a fire department. I am willing to pay for the externalities because the alternative is much, much worse.
From your other reply: if I'm letting my bias in, then how am I misinterpreting what you say? I genuinely want to understand your position.
If you only think at extremes you will miss the middle ground.
> Is that close to right?
No, you are letting your bias in
> Is that close to right?
No, you are letting your bias in
When "your guys" are pushing women into desperate, life-threatening situations due to a condition which occurs in 2% of pregnancies... yeah, "my guys" are clearly better than "your guys".
>exactly this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of their own playbook for years.
Can you source this, repeated examples of Democratic policies to deplatform ideas?
Can you source this, repeated examples of Democratic policies to deplatform ideas?
Absolutely. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill to ban ads for firearms. Google and Facebook already ban that as well. If you have no problem with that then why should you have a problem banning ads against guns?
More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.
More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.
That bill allows ads that say things like "Vote for X, because he will pass a law that all Californians be given a free pistol". It just doesn't allow ads that say "Glock is the best pistol".
Similarly, you cannot advertise cigarettes with cartoon characters, but can advertise a political candidate wanting to make that legal.
Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.
Similarly, you cannot advertise cigarettes with cartoon characters, but can advertise a political candidate wanting to make that legal.
Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.
> It just doesn't allow ads that say "Glock is the best pistol".
Until, well, yesterday (edit: not yesterday, that says "June." My mistake), it was illegal in Germany to advertise where you can get an abortion. Abortion was and is legal there, but the doctors providing them weren't allowed to tell anyone that that's where they could go to get one.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-parliament-bundestag...
This is a pretty analogous situation to what Newsom / his party want in California: guns legal (after a fashion) but for anyone part of the gun industry to be excluded from the public square.
Do you think that Germany changing their law is a step backwards, since you support an equivalent law in California? Or do you have a double standard between free speech applied to one kind of ad versus the other?
Until, well, yesterday (edit: not yesterday, that says "June." My mistake), it was illegal in Germany to advertise where you can get an abortion. Abortion was and is legal there, but the doctors providing them weren't allowed to tell anyone that that's where they could go to get one.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-parliament-bundestag...
This is a pretty analogous situation to what Newsom / his party want in California: guns legal (after a fashion) but for anyone part of the gun industry to be excluded from the public square.
Do you think that Germany changing their law is a step backwards, since you support an equivalent law in California? Or do you have a double standard between free speech applied to one kind of ad versus the other?
>> More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.
> Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.
I'm no fan of that right-wing nonsense (e.g. Hunter Biden, etc.), but your apologia isn't really compelling. The impermissible "other things they say and do" can be defined in slanted ways to deliver an ideological result that can be described in faux "neutral" terms. To flip things around, for instance, how would you feel if (hypothetically) some social media company de-platformed pro-choice advocates under a rule that bans advocacy of violence (because they're interpreted as advocating violence against "the unborn")? You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."
> Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.
I'm no fan of that right-wing nonsense (e.g. Hunter Biden, etc.), but your apologia isn't really compelling. The impermissible "other things they say and do" can be defined in slanted ways to deliver an ideological result that can be described in faux "neutral" terms. To flip things around, for instance, how would you feel if (hypothetically) some social media company de-platformed pro-choice advocates under a rule that bans advocacy of violence (because they're interpreted as advocating violence against "the unborn")? You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."
> You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."
I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."
Cancel culture types don't seem to understand that refusing a platform to other people based on their beliefs is a right, which comes along with the right to free speech. I'd prefer if pro-choice positions weren't banned, but if a website wants to ban pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay, or non-QAnon positions, then they have the right to become a cesspit by doing so. Likewise and in exchange, other websites retain the right to ban anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-gay, and QAnon/neo-nazi views.
I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."
Cancel culture types don't seem to understand that refusing a platform to other people based on their beliefs is a right, which comes along with the right to free speech. I'd prefer if pro-choice positions weren't banned, but if a website wants to ban pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay, or non-QAnon positions, then they have the right to become a cesspit by doing so. Likewise and in exchange, other websites retain the right to ban anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-gay, and QAnon/neo-nazi views.
>> You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."
> I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."
Even if it was major one with influence; like Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook/Instagram?
I should have been more clear, but I was specifically thinking of major social media sites like those when I wrote that sentence, not some marginal social media site like thedonald.win that's easy to ignore.
Also the main thing I was commenting on was defining things in such a way that describes a slanted result with faux-neutral language (e.g. "when it happens to us it's censorship, when it happens to you it's just enforcing the rules").
> I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."
Even if it was major one with influence; like Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook/Instagram?
I should have been more clear, but I was specifically thinking of major social media sites like those when I wrote that sentence, not some marginal social media site like thedonald.win that's easy to ignore.
Also the main thing I was commenting on was defining things in such a way that describes a slanted result with faux-neutral language (e.g. "when it happens to us it's censorship, when it happens to you it's just enforcing the rules").
Those are examples, but not sources. Can you provide actual sources to these examples?
And is the action of large corporations that regularly donate to Republican candidates (as well as Democrats) really “part of [Democrats’] playbook for years”? Or are they just (perhaps selectively) enforcing their TOS in a way that they believe provides them the most value?
And is the action of large corporations that regularly donate to Republican candidates (as well as Democrats) really “part of [Democrats’] playbook for years”? Or are they just (perhaps selectively) enforcing their TOS in a way that they believe provides them the most value?
I always wonder about these sorts of comments. Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist, or that the pretty uncontroversial events I'm talking about didn't happen? Am I supposed to somehow be argued down by having to post a couple links? Or is this just a way to shift the conversation to discrediting the particular links I reply with, instead of engaging with the actual issues I'm bringing up?
Anyway. Here's the WH Disinformation Governance Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... This is the CA gun-ad law: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/gun-groups-challenge-califo...
As for it being just the unrelated actions of large corporations and not Democrats per se... Well, the White House part kind of disproves that, as does the California law. Yes, large corporations do act independently of the Democratic party, but the question here is does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do. And the WH Disinformation board shows that they're happy to use the large corporations as their tools to get it.
Anyway. Here's the WH Disinformation Governance Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... This is the CA gun-ad law: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/gun-groups-challenge-califo...
As for it being just the unrelated actions of large corporations and not Democrats per se... Well, the White House part kind of disproves that, as does the California law. Yes, large corporations do act independently of the Democratic party, but the question here is does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do. And the WH Disinformation board shows that they're happy to use the large corporations as their tools to get it.
You claim deplatforming has been in a Democratic playbook "for years", then cite the introduction of a WH DGB which opened and closed this year, after being open for less than a month
>Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist
>does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do
People ask for these "easily-googeable facts", and your response is 1 link to something not really relevant, and an assertion that it is "self-evident". Apologies if not everyone finds this to be a convincing argument
>Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist
>does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do
People ask for these "easily-googeable facts", and your response is 1 link to something not really relevant, and an assertion that it is "self-evident". Apologies if not everyone finds this to be a convincing argument
>ban ads for firearms
Source? That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming
>Google and Facebook already ban that as well
This is irrelevant - these are not Democratic organizations, and they do not have Democratic policies. Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats, and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?
Source? That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming
>Google and Facebook already ban that as well
This is irrelevant - these are not Democratic organizations, and they do not have Democratic policies. Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats, and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?
> Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats
Are you suggesting that they aren't?
> and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?
That doesn't actually follow.
Are you suggesting that they aren't?
> and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?
That doesn't actually follow.
Pretty predictable responses.
> Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats
Again, there was a White House office made specifically to coordinate these platforms banning "disinformation" content. It was later shut down, but its creation in the first place shows that the Democratic party wants to censor discussion it doesn't like. Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?
> That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming
Which is exactly what we're talking about here: these are advertisements, Hulu doesn't want them on their platform. You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.
> Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats
Again, there was a White House office made specifically to coordinate these platforms banning "disinformation" content. It was later shut down, but its creation in the first place shows that the Democratic party wants to censor discussion it doesn't like. Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?
> That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming
Which is exactly what we're talking about here: these are advertisements, Hulu doesn't want them on their platform. You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.
>Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?
Of course not, this is obvious?
>You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.
I may or may not be fine with either of those things, why do you assert something you don't know?
So far you've demonstrated an inability to source the information in your original claim, "this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of [Democrat's] playbook for years."
Of course not, this is obvious?
>You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.
I may or may not be fine with either of those things, why do you assert something you don't know?
So far you've demonstrated an inability to source the information in your original claim, "this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of [Democrat's] playbook for years."
I really don't think you're arguing in good faith here. This is a very common tactic for people of your political alignment, at least on HN: to nitpickily demand sources for completely obvious facts, and then if provided, shift the argument to discrediting those sources instead of engaging with the actual philosophical points being made.
I could probably write everything else you're going to say in this thread myself, so, I'm not going to bother continuing to argue with you. If you'd like to respond to the core point, which is why are Democrats justified in complaining about their own ads being refused while they celebrate Republican content being deplatformed, then we can continue.
I could probably write everything else you're going to say in this thread myself, so, I'm not going to bother continuing to argue with you. If you'd like to respond to the core point, which is why are Democrats justified in complaining about their own ads being refused while they celebrate Republican content being deplatformed, then we can continue.
> If you have no problem with that then why should you have a problem banning ads against guns?
Are you really asking "if you want to ban advertising murder weapons, why should you have a problem banning adverts telling people not to murder"?
In this case, of course, Hulu have the right to carry any adverts they like. It turns out, they don't want adverts for either side of the argument, as is their right.
If Hulu decided that they wanted to ban adverts for guns, and promote the hell out of adverts for psychiatric services for people who want to own guns so they can get the mental health treatment they clearly need, then that is also something they have a right to do.
Are you really asking "if you want to ban advertising murder weapons, why should you have a problem banning adverts telling people not to murder"?
In this case, of course, Hulu have the right to carry any adverts they like. It turns out, they don't want adverts for either side of the argument, as is their right.
If Hulu decided that they wanted to ban adverts for guns, and promote the hell out of adverts for psychiatric services for people who want to own guns so they can get the mental health treatment they clearly need, then that is also something they have a right to do.
I'm sorry, did you just call all law-abiding gun owners mentally ill?
Yes. Why the hell would you want to run around with a weapon to murder people with?
I really feel like the "why" here should not be that hard.
They likely don't want to carry pro gun or anti-abortion ads and they are making the right choice to say they don't want to carry anti-gun or pro-choice either. Especially considering what Disney is currently doing for their employees to have access to proper medical care and abortions.
I am unclear on the laws regarding political advertising but I have to wonder if they allowed one (pro-choice) they would be in hot water if they blocked the other (anti abortion)?
What do the other platforms do for this case? The article is missing a ton of details here. It said they carried this ad, but do they carry anti-abortion ads?
They likely don't want to carry pro gun or anti-abortion ads and they are making the right choice to say they don't want to carry anti-gun or pro-choice either. Especially considering what Disney is currently doing for their employees to have access to proper medical care and abortions.
I am unclear on the laws regarding political advertising but I have to wonder if they allowed one (pro-choice) they would be in hot water if they blocked the other (anti abortion)?
What do the other platforms do for this case? The article is missing a ton of details here. It said they carried this ad, but do they carry anti-abortion ads?
...but what's the rationale behind banning "climate change"?
I checked for more info on this, and it seems like they really did ban the phrase "climate change".
> According to Patel, a Hulu representative called his campaign notifying them that the 30-second ad violated an “unwritten Hulu policy” related to “sensitive” content in political ads shortly after it was submitted to the platform on June 30th.
> “Hulu demanded we remove footage of Jan. 6 and the word ‘climate change’ from our ad as they were deemed ‘sensitive,’” Patel said on Twitter Wednesday.
> To appease Hulu, Patel’s campaign replaced the ad’s mention of “climate change” with “democracy” and replaced footage of the January 6th riots at the Capitol with images of protesters holding QAnon signs. That version of the ad was sent to Hulu on July 1st and approved on July 5th.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/13/23207499/hulu-disney-sura...
In both these articles Hulu repeatedly refuses to comment, which is unfortunate. I'd like to know why they don't want people to say "climate change" in political ads.
I checked for more info on this, and it seems like they really did ban the phrase "climate change".
> According to Patel, a Hulu representative called his campaign notifying them that the 30-second ad violated an “unwritten Hulu policy” related to “sensitive” content in political ads shortly after it was submitted to the platform on June 30th.
> “Hulu demanded we remove footage of Jan. 6 and the word ‘climate change’ from our ad as they were deemed ‘sensitive,’” Patel said on Twitter Wednesday.
> To appease Hulu, Patel’s campaign replaced the ad’s mention of “climate change” with “democracy” and replaced footage of the January 6th riots at the Capitol with images of protesters holding QAnon signs. That version of the ad was sent to Hulu on July 1st and approved on July 5th.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/13/23207499/hulu-disney-sura...
In both these articles Hulu repeatedly refuses to comment, which is unfortunate. I'd like to know why they don't want people to say "climate change" in political ads.
Wether we like it or not, climate change has turned into a major political issue.
We have a party of science deniers. Wether or not most Americans believe this is different from wether or not an entire party has made it a cornerstone of their policies.
Which again goes back to my original thinking, that they are just blocking it across the board instead of allowing both sides to voice their opinion. Especially if they strongly disagree with that side.
Given the block is just "climate change" I am inclined to think that is the case here.
We have a party of science deniers. Wether or not most Americans believe this is different from wether or not an entire party has made it a cornerstone of their policies.
Which again goes back to my original thinking, that they are just blocking it across the board instead of allowing both sides to voice their opinion. Especially if they strongly disagree with that side.
Given the block is just "climate change" I am inclined to think that is the case here.
This is a good point for cultural issues, but the refusal to carry pro-environment ads can't be defended that way. There are no "both sides" to the issue.
Whilst I sympathize with your point, if there's no both sides, no one would be advertising.
Yeah that one I am a bit more unclear on.
But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real? Or do they just ignore the topic all together?
I legitimately don't know.
While I agree there shouldn't be 2 sides to this issue, the unfortunate reality is there very much is or we would not be in this mess right now.
But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real? Or do they just ignore the topic all together?
I legitimately don't know.
While I agree there shouldn't be 2 sides to this issue, the unfortunate reality is there very much is or we would not be in this mess right now.
> But do republicans run ads trying to say climate change isn't real?
They used to. Now they just say that the EPA is killing jobs or whatever.
I don't think it matters in this case. My point is that it's not a culture war. It is not a political decision to decide to allow ads that talk about climate change.
I wouldn't be upset if they ran the Republicans' ads too. It just can't be considered a matter of opinion either way.
They used to. Now they just say that the EPA is killing jobs or whatever.
I don't think it matters in this case. My point is that it's not a culture war. It is not a political decision to decide to allow ads that talk about climate change.
I wouldn't be upset if they ran the Republicans' ads too. It just can't be considered a matter of opinion either way.
If you're trying to convince me of something, I must not be on your side. And even if you think climate change is a thing, there are differing opinions on how to address it, and those obviously have political components to them.
But Hulu is banning ads that mention climate change at all.
The Democratic ad might only say, "We can fix climate change while creating jobs," and even that is banned.
The Democratic ad might only say, "We can fix climate change while creating jobs," and even that is banned.
> I have to wonder if they allowed one (pro-choice) they would be in hot water if they blocked the other (anti abortion)?
I don't believe so, unless they are selling that one below market rates (which makes it an in-kind contribution). I'm guessing this is more about "let's not take a side" than any legal requirement.
I don't believe so, unless they are selling that one below market rates (which makes it an in-kind contribution). I'm guessing this is more about "let's not take a side" than any legal requirement.
I vaguely remember there being some laws that if you run political ads you have to give equal air time (if asked) or something like that. I would think if so you could not block one side of a topic but allow another.
Maybe I am completely wrong here but I am trying to search around for an actual answer.
Edit: Based on the wording on this FCC document it sounds like this is the case https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming
Maybe I am completely wrong here but I am trying to search around for an actual answer.
Edit: Based on the wording on this FCC document it sounds like this is the case https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming
That applies to TV and radio because the electromagnetic spectrum is limited. It does not apply to the internet. It may or may not apply to websites that simulcast tv or radio shows.
As much as I may agree/disagree with the topics of the campaign ads, I really don't think these (probably) polemic video snippets are as significant as the people pushing them pretend they are.
I think politicians need to stop demanding private companies allow them to say what they want, when they want, how they want. There are plenty of other advertisements that are rejected- companies have discretion over what they choose to accept, as they should.
Ultimately if politicians want to bring a subject to people, they should figure out other ways of doing so. Additionally, I really don't think anyone with or without a stance is going to be swayed by a 30/60/90 second ad. A short ad on a streaming platform also isn't going to bring discussion or encourage real responses from people besides (probably) irritation.
Ultimately regardless of the message contained, Hulu has the say over what content they want to be associated with. Maybe it isn't even about the topics presented, but about the politicians and political campaigns in general.
Personally I would be irritated to see campaign ads, from either duopolist party- I'd rather not watch it as none of them have anything worth saying most of the time. I wish they'd take their campaign money, use it elsewhere, and stop making a big ado about people not wanting to do what they want- that goes for both Democrats and Republicans- acting like there's some kind of persecution happening, while hypocritically at the same time both are doing their very best to stifle anything outside their big tents.