Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Friday 10 February 2017

Sun Web Content Hypocrisy BUSTED

The lack of self-awareness exhibited by the Murdoch goons at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun has led them once more to rant about what happens out there on the Web without realising that much of what they are complaining about refers also to them. Today’s target is Google, and in particular YouTube, which hosts videos that the Sun has decided should not be shown. Except when they can make money off them as well.
IS content is right out, according to the Sun

Web giants must take responsibility for vile content they host online and spend whatever it takes to tackle extremism … On YouTube, owned by Google, extremists make huge sums from premium British brands … HOW long can the web giants shirk full responsibility for what they host online?shrieks the editorial, going on to demand “Why are ISIS supporters, neo-Nazis and porn producers able to upload to the site? Why is YouTube risking the reputations of Jaguar, Argos, the Marie Curie charity and many others by letting their ads be linked to this offensive material?

So does the Sun have an answer? Yes it does: “The answer to both is that the site is too vast to be managed by humans and the software it relies on to do the job is plainly useless. Which makes Google’s claim that it has ‘zero tolerance’ for extremism utterly meaningless … Meanwhile the advertising agencies working for some prestige UK brands are apparently too clueless to know exactly where their web ads are placed”.
So is any other kind of "vile content"

And there’s more: “The content on other media platforms, newspapers included, is tightly regulated. Google or Facebook seem mainly to shrug their shoulders, as they do over the derisory tax bills they pay or - until recently - the ‘fake news’ they spread … It may be hard to manage huge websites, but so what? They created them and have made unimaginable profits … They must spend whatever it takes to sort them out”.

Well, that’s told them. Except, perhaps, it hasn’t: for starters, the Murdoch press has no room to call others out on tax grounds, the paper being ultimately responsible to a company headquartered in the same country as Google and Facebook. And when it comes to seriously dodgy content, well, there’s more than one kind of that.
And then there's hate speech. Hello Sun leader writer

What seems to have slipped the Sun leader writer’s mind is that hatred can indeed be whipped up by video content - but the same effect can be achieved with hate speech, the bullying, demonising, abuse, defamation, humiliation and general monstering of targets both in print and online. And when newspapers and their websites promote hate speech, it is inevitably accompanied by advertising, often by those same “prestige UK brands”.

Moreover, the hate speech appears in papers like … the Sun. We know this as the excellent Stop Funding Hate campaign has been targeting Sun advertisers, most recently over another slice of bigotry from washed-up has-been Rod Liddle. SFH has succeeded in getting PlusNet to remove its adverts, and is now targeting Tesco Mobile.

So now that the Sun is beginning to suffer, someone else has to. And readers need to be told to “look over there”. The reality is that the Sun’s content is just as poisonous as those it rants about. It just does hypocrisy more shamelessly. Don’t buy the Sun.


Paul said...

So the rag that lied about the behaviour of football fans at Hillsborough and thousands upon thousands of other imaginary incidents down the years is, er...........

.........complaining about 'fake news'.

Observer said...

How old does one have to be to buy alcohol? How old does one have to be to sell it?

How old do children have to be to have a paperound?

Then ask how old they have to be to be exposed to some of the vile content in tabloids?
Sex lines, nudity?
Toxic education or material?

I'll leave that one here.

With pleasure. Although,not that kind.

Alan Clifford said...

Bit by bit, ever so slowly, the Scum is dying from its own poison.


A.Robot (Mrs) said...

I don't suppose that 'Paul' above is Paul Nuttall by any chance? Can't wait to see your piece on Nuttall's lies about being at Hillsborough (Guardian website).

http://www.thesocialshuttle.com/ said...

"Meanwhile the advertising agencies working for some prestige UK brands are apparently too clueless to know exactly where their web ads are placed”.

Working with a close friend who sued Google in Australia for libel and won, part of our campaign involved alerting advertisers that their products featured on a disgusting US "consumer advocate" website that is basically an extortion racket demanding a fee for offensive 'reviews' to be removed. The site carried atrocious & highly defamatory claims about one ex-Aussie, Rupert Murdoch and right beside his name adverts would appear for his various products, Foxtel, Fox News and so on via Google's algorythms.

Rupert's beloved Sun newspaper should look to their own in-house advertising agency before it cast stones (Google eventually prevented ads for products we alerted appearing such as Foxtel, Qantas, Insurance companies and so on.)

But this is no highly moral campaign being run by The Sun on behalf of Joe Public, it's Rupert's endless campaign against Google & other tech giants he cannot control and given the latest News'financial reports he should be worried. Foxtel is losing money hand over fist and his print products like The Sun are dragging the empire down so Sun hacks may find in a few years there is no Sun & hence no problem to worry about.

While Rupert & his underlings scramble to catch up with the internet world which swept past them, I still keep a copy of a memo sent around by a Murdoch son who ran his Australian newspapers for awhile when I worked there briefly. It said not to bother wasting money doing research via the internet as it was a "passing fad".