Breitbart Snowflakes Threaten To Sue People Who Have Asked Advertisers To Stop Advertising On Breitbart
from the free-speech-hypocrites dept
Earlier this year, we wrote a story about the boutique law firm Clare Locke that appeared to specialize in intimidating news orgs with legal threats to try to get them to kill stories. One of the firm's partner, Elizabeth Locke, flat out says that she thinks there's too much press freedom:
"... the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of freedom of the press."
As we pointed out in that article, if you're a journalist hiring such a firm -- and a bunch of the #MeToo journalists have done so -- to try to stifle stories from other publications, it would suggest you're an incredible hypocrite. Journalists thrive on the First Amendment. If you're a journalist threatening to stifle others' free speech, you're a hypocrite.
Enter Breitbart. Because, of course it would be Breitbart. According to a Daily Beast article, Breitbart has hired Clare Locke to threaten a group of people who have been advocating for advertisers to drop their ads from Breitbart. I should say up front, that I think all of these attempts to push advertisers to drop ads is actually pretty silly. It's mostly symbolic and rarely has a real economic impact. It's just a silly game of tit for tat.
But, according to the letter written by Clare Locke's other partner, Thomas Clare, asking advertisers to stop advertising could be "unfair, fraudulent and deceptive." From the letter:
I write on behalf of my client, Breitbart News Network, LLC. As you of course know, Breitbart has been the target of a months-long smear campaign by the online activist group “Sleeping Giants.” It has recently been revealed that you are a founder and leader of this group. My client is considering potential legal action against you, and we therefore demand that you preserve and retain certain documents in your possession that may be relevant to potential civil claims.
These include potential claims concerning unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive practices intended to cause Breitbart economic harm. We believe that Sleeping Giants has sought to deceive the public and, in particular, purchasers of online advertising, by making false, deceptive, and disparaging claims about Breitbart and the news content it publishes — including, among other things, accusing Breitbart of distributing “anti-Semitic” propaganda, of promoting “white supremacy,” and of being a “neo-Nazi propaganda” website. Sleeping Giants has directed these and similar deceptive and misleading statements to companies that purportedly purchase advertisements appearing on Breitbart’s website — and has encouraged its members and others to do the same — in an effort to drive advertising revenue away from Breitbart, and to solicit donations and sell Sleeping Giants’ branded merchandise.
The letter goes on to angrily deny that it is any of those things (while also plugging the fact that the White House Chief of Staff reads it). It then goes on to concoct quite a fascinating conspiracy theory, arguing that "Sleeping Giants" is really designed for "commercial interests" because many of its founders apparently work in the ad tech business. How that creates any commercial advantage isn't exactly clear at all. It just implies that this somehow is a fraudulent practice.
Although, as stated above, the group and its organizers have long attempted to conduct these tortious actions behind a veil of anonymity, a recently-published article identified you, Matt Rivitz, as the founder of Sleeping Giants and the acknowledged proprietor of its social media accounts. That same article noted that you have long worked in online marketing and advertising. Notably, after your identity was involuntarily disclosed through investigative reporting, you claimed that you hid your identity and role with Sleeping Giants as an act of humility in order to “keep this about the mission rather than the individuals involved.” But your past, conflicting explanations for hiding your identity tell a different story. For example, in January 2017, an individual identified only as a Sleeping Giants “founder” — who cited biographical details specific to you — told the New York Times that Sleeping Giants was conducting its campaign targeting Breitbart’s advertisers anonymously because “some members of the group work in the digital-media industry.” Similarly, in March 2018, a Sleeping Giants “spokesman” acknowledged to GQ that “the people behind Sleeping Giants” elected to remain anonymous because they “work in marketing-related fields” and their targeting of online advertisers “might be perceived as creating some kind of conflict of interest.” These frank admissions, made at a time when you and your supporters in the ad tech world expected their identities to remain a secret, are extremely revealing and hint at a hidden and improper commercial motivation behind Sleeping Giants’ deceptive practices targeting Breitbart. It appears that the reason you and your backers did not want their identities known was because it would have revealed their shared economic interests and deceptive practices.
These unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive practices may give rise to civil liability both for you and the members of the online advertising and ad tech worlds that you coordinated with. These potential claims include, but certainly are not limited to, claims relating to violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.), fraud, violation of the Lanham Act, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
I'm trying to figure out what exactly the "shared economic interests" are in getting companies to stop advertising on a site? It seems that a much more logical (and obvious) explanation for why the Sleeping Giants folks wanted to remain anonymous was because working for an ad tech company while supporting advertising boycotts actually goes against their economic interests, and might make their own employers kinda pissed off. But, this letter assumes the exact opposite, without any actual explanation.
It then asks Rivitz to preserve all sorts of stuff, including communications with an insanely long list of individuals, organizations and companies -- including a bunch of Breitbart critics.
This seems like a pretty blatant intimidation tactic. And while the letter, hilariously, claims that this threat is really "about Sleeping Giants’ desire to stifle speech that does not adhere to its narrow liberal politics," it's hard to see how you can claim that when the whole point of the letter appears to be to stifle the speech of people asking for advertising boycotts.
And, of course, asking for advertising boycotts is pretty common on both sides of the traditional political divide. In fact, it's not difficult at all to find a whole host of Breitbart articles happily reporting on campaigns to pull ads from news orgs deemed "liberal." Separately, I'll note that it's fascinating to see a subtle shift in tone when Breitbart reports on similar campaigns targeted at Breitbart allies. Those stories suddenly talk about "liberal outrage," "liberal fascism," and "corporate warfare attacks from the left." Oddly, those earlier stories about removing ads from CNN, MSNBC, TBS and NBC don't have any of that kind of language. Indeed, they seem to focus on whatever "outrageous" thing done on those stations that lead to pressure to remove ads. Must be a coincidence, huh?
So, to be clear: ad boycotts are overrated, but if people want to do them, it is their First Amendment protected speech to call for such boycotts, no matter what the reason, no matter what their politics and no matter how silly. Threatening those who exercise their First Amendment speech in such a way with a lawsuit, however, is not supporting free speech. It is bullying censorial intimidation tactics, and Breitbart should be ashamed (if such a thing were possible). The site regularly likes to whine about liberals and universities stifling free speech, but apparently has no problem at all trying to stifle the speech of people who ask its own advertisers to stop advertising on the platform.
Either way, all this red team, blue team bullshit is getting pretty annoying. Silly people who identify as either left or right wing (which is a stupid designation anyway) will do stupid things. And silly people on the other side will generalize and stereotype based on those things, while doing the exact same things themselves. But, seriously, stop freaking out about one "side" doing the exact same thing your side is doing and then coming up with all sorts of silly rationalizations for why it's okay when your side does it, but a horrific violation of the law when the other side does it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, boycotts, chilling effects, first amendment, free speech, intimidation, sleeping giants, threats
Companies: breitbart, clare locke
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This screams SLAPP
I am no lawyer, but even I know that none of that is actionable and all opinion.
Here is a dumb question on their "requirement" to preserve all files: Is that actually actionable? Are they required to keep those files now because a lawyer sent them a nasty letter? Or would that require a court order?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This screams SLAPP
But I see this as no different than if one of the loonier AC's here started asking people to boycott THIS site because it's run by child molesters and communists.
And I take exception to the use of "snowflake" in the headline. It's become the left's version of "n-word" when speaking of anyone white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
Really? I have never heard it associated like that before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
But that's ok, so long as it comes from a left wing source and not from the right?
Helluva double standard there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang) (relevant section is "politicized insult")
Describing them as snowflakes is turning their own words back on them. It is an entirely and highly predictable backlash against the people who turned it into a politicized insult. So if you decry the usage of it in this article, please ensure to decry the usage of it by folks like Breitbart as well, so as to avoid saying it's okay to use as long it's not the left that's doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
https://bit.ly/2OMgzBP leads to the appropriate wikipedia article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
I don't, and won't click on links that don't tell me where I am going. The full link would not have done any harm to anyone, or you could have used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
"comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in the URL."
It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang) - same as in the post I replied to, but it's gonna just hyperlink the non-slang snowflake article like it did the first time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
Here you go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
Works for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
I don't click on links where I don't know where they go because I have heard (not experienced for the above reason) too many stories about how someone said 'this is a link for this' and it turned out to be a link for something else. Sometimes disgusting, sometimes dangerous, sometimes what they said. Why take a chance?
But you go ahead and click on whatever you wish to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seeing the full link at the bottom of my browse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
I did not ken the rest of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang) (relevant section is "politicized insult")" until I went to look at Wikipedia and then search for the full 'snowflake slang politicized insult' in Wikipedia. Then I got the link he was looking for, and as you can see, had no problem posting that link using markdown.
Other than my opposition to byt.ly links, no hostility intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
Safety first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
I have a tendency (in person), and a policy, to give trust until I have a reason to not to. It has worked well for me through life, and 40 years of managerial responsibility that included up to 4000 employees. I sometimes was wrong to trust, but those situations were always correctable.
But on the Internet, things are different. I will not recklessly compromise my system by clicking on unidentified links. bit.ly links are by definition, unidentified. One cannot see where they are going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: comment section apparently doesn't like the underscore in th
And sometimes it's Rick Astley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
Not really, AC. You just make yourself look like a retarded adult doing an impression of everybody's kid sisters playing the "mimic game".
The insult "snowflake" was used against the wave of progressive-left campus-activists who demanded "safe spaces", and "deplatforming" of every speaker, academic, opinion, etc that they disagreed with. These pussies *literally* claim that words made them "unsafe".
And on the conservative side... well, this is simply no equivalent "movement".
And no AC, playing the "mimic game" like a 5 year old won't change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
It's also got nothing to do with race, or the "left", despite your original claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
That interpretation of the word would certainly be new to me as well. In every instance I've run across the term I don't think I have ever seen 'snowflake' used in relation to race, instead every instance I've seen it used it's been about how someone is too 'frail' to handle a situation/words, with nary a mention or even suggestion that it had anything to do with skin color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"snowflake"
While YOU may not be familiar with the term, I'm sure the people who began using it in the media were.
Even if it were not, how often have you seen it applied to non-whites?
I realize this site is hard left (hard to miss), but to use such a charged, divisive, racist term gratuitously in a headline is way over the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
That is "cockhold". If you are going to pretend to be some meme expert to shame folks, at least try to use the right term.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. I would in no way consider this site "hard left". It is clearly centrist in nearly every possible way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
Those on the outside, who depend upon labels will still try to label you, but then one has to understand where they are coming from. Which might kill the label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are doing a better job than we ever could to prove how racist, misogynist, and hypocritical the average right wing nut job is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
It's been used to describe a submissive white woman who only has sex with black men for at least 30 years.
Um. No. It has not. It is used, regularly, by conservative media -- including Breitbart (https://www.breitbart.com/search/?s=snowflake#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=snowflake&gsc.page=1) to denote "leftists" who can't handle free speech and have to suppress it.
You are wrong. Stop digging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
See, in the 80s and 90s (my school days) there was a big push on self-esteem in classrooms. The "the everyone is special in their own way" thing. Several people used the terms 'Snowflake' or 'Special snowflake' to describe children, in a positive fashion. It used the metaphor of the snowflake, each one is unique (at least, thats what we were teaching at the time). We had a glut of new middle class kids. At the same time in an effort to get more money for bankers, we pushed hard on universal college degrees, making everyone think manual labor isn't going to be their career path.
Then Fightclub came out, and derided the idea you were a unique snowflake. As time moved on, the term became an insult, used by various groups for various reasons. (Tabletop gamers describe some players characters as snowflakes if their character's only gimmick is that 'hes different' or they have an overly complex backstory designed to make life hard, or a backstory designed so they become the focus of the story.)
Until recently, I saw it used politically almost exclusively as a right-wing attack on left wing activists, generally those offended by actions percieved as hurtful to others. It became rampant as efforts to change entrenched veiws on gender became major political points with gay marriage, transgendered persons, and workplace equality.
It has gotten a bit of traction from the left online in recent years. I see it a lot as a highlight of hypocrisy in right-wing figures and outlets, as it is used here. Safe spaces was the first debate i saw it crop up on the left, when right wing figures, getting called out on policy at every turn, started calling for spaces where they didn't need to deal with politics.
So, while I don't have a source that backs up your definition, I have repeatedly experienced the form used in the title of this article, and am supported by every slang dictionary I have heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
"Then Fightclub came out, and derided the idea you were a unique snowflake."
The people who use "snowflake" as an insult because "Fight Club" did it first often forget that Tyler Durden was never supposed to be a role model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
I've only ever seen "snowflake" used to describe people with overly delicate sensibilities, i.e. "Special snowflakes." Such people are accustomed to receiving prizes for merely participating so they're not perturbed by competition. They must not be criticised, even in the mildest terms. Their opinions, however misinformed, are always valid. And we have to be careful of which words we use as any or all of them might be offensive, including "any," "all," "might," "be," and "offensive."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "snowflake"
If you think that, you need to get out more. You're apparently so far in the right wing echo chamber, you're lost track of which childish insults are aimed at which group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "snowflake"
They make a logical fallacy
Their fallacy gets called out
They lose their fallacious argument
Not comprehending their incompetence, they think they lost solely because someone shouted "fallacy" at them
Next time they're trolling, they parrot the names of various fallacies they heard, without having learnt what they mean, at the counter-trolls
Then comes the consternation as they are rightly mocked once again instead of everyone else bowing down at the "magic words" like they stupidly expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
Don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows the proper term for stupid white dudes is “Mayonnaise Boy”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
I thought it was cake boy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
I'm curious - which of the many Alt-Right websites did you get that from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
I think you're the first person I've ever seen refer to it in terms of race. Most other people are using it in the way it's written in Fight Club - "You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake", etc.
If you think it's a racial term, you might want to check the sources you're reading for their biases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This screams SLAPP
In the US, a letter like the one received in advance of an actual civil lawsuit should be followed, as long as the retention demands are reasonable. Not following the demands could result in adverse court action including a finding of spoliation. The idea is that a formal court filing, service, and a retention order might take quite some time during which valuable documents could be destroyed. So a formal letter notifying you of pending legal action and requiring document retention can be considered a valid request, but failure to adhere to a overly broad retention order will generally not be seen negatively. Again, IANAL, I am merely summarizing information I learned.
Assuming the information we have fully documents preservation demands, it might be too vague and broad as to be difficult to enforce. The letter leaves out a normally neccisary component describing the types of documents they are looking for (internal or external communications? Email? Call Logs? Texts? Invoices? Spread sheets?). Normally the types of documents they expect to find and need are dictated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This screams SLAPP
Including that kind of directive in a letter informs the recipient that someone wants to subpoena the records, so if they're destroyed afterwards it's easier to argue it was to conceal evidence. It takes a court order to obligate the recipient to specifically preserve them, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump claims he coined the term:
...in his conversation with Dobbs: “I think one of the best names is — you know, I've really started this whole 'fake news' thing. Now they've turned it around and then, now, they're calling, you know, stories put out by different — by Facebook 'fake.'”
Unless you think he's a lying piece of shit, you guys can keep it, along with your "alternative facts."
Douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Notably, however, the term was used before that point (but still after the election, IIRC) by Hillary Clinton, in reference to some of the material circulating about the political race, and I think as a partial explanation for why she wound up losing.
I've long suspected that Trump saw that, picked it up, (mis)used it in that famous press conference (targeting Jim Acosta, I think it was?), and things snowballed from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun Fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun Fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fun Fact
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180720/10043340276/if-youre-journalist-hiring-lawyers-to -intimidate-publishers-into-killing-stories-about-your-misdeeds-youre-hypocrite.shtml
So, yeah, it is mentioned, you just gotta pay a little attention and possibly read a little more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nice an all, but were you planning on ever getting to listing the "false, deceptive, and disparaging" things you claim were said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's kind of sad how some people expect a defamation suit based solely on false statements made by the plaintiff to be successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Losing the battle but winning the war
The thing about SLAPP suits is that you don't have to win the lawsuit to win the 'case', all you have to do is make it more trouble than it's worth to fight back. It doesn't matter if you get trounced in court so long as the other person/group is forced to spend enough, or face the possibility of being required to do so, that they fold and back down.
It's nice to win a SLAPP suit(for the one filing it anyway), but not actually needed in order to accomplish the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Losing the battle but winning the war
They quote California law, which might be a hint, but given California's Anti-SLAPP rules it might not be a good idea for the suers. Then they are going after 'Founders' who might not all be from the same place. Hmm, which one to go after, or multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions, which probably creates the case to make it Federal.
Does that get them out of an Anti-SLAPP situation? not necessarily. Two things come to mind here. One is that the California Anti-SLAPP rules have been applied elsewhere (not always, but sometimes) and the other is...they mentioned California law.
It doth appear that this legal team is acting more like a PR firm than a law firm, but that doesn't mean they won't get paid. And that is very, very sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breitbart exposes GOOGLE, then Techdirt attacks Breitbart...
Like night follows day. I predict Breitbart is in for more attacks.
By the way, among the actual "right", Breitbart is viewed as distinctly pro-Jew pro-Israel neo-cons. It's not much in favor. So your take here is startling.
AND YET what you're doing right here is attacking Breitbart for defending itself! Your view of and approach to the left/right split is to entirely favor THE LEFT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breitbart exposes GOOGLE, then Techdirt attacks Breitbart...
Article linked to in first sentence:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180720/10043340276/if-youre-journalist-hiring-lawyers-t o-intimidate-publishers-into-killing-stories-about-your-misdeeds-youre-hypocrite.shtml
Linked article calls out any journalist, regardless of affiliation, that uses this organization. Please clarify how this favors the left?
Also:
"By the way, among the actual "right", Breitbart is viewed as distinctly pro-Jew pro-Israel neo-cons. It's not much in favor."
Citation needed. Care to share where this is sourced from? It would be interesting to understand how Breitbart could possibly be considered pro-Jew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Breitbart exposes GOOGLE, then Techdirt attacks Breitbart...
Relativity. You're not looking from far enough to the right on the left-right axis. When you're Breitbart, Obama and Hillary are not center-right but extreme left. In the same way, when you're whatever this dude is, Breitbart looks like commie liberal Jew-loving hippie-fest of socialist propaganda, and neo-Nazis are liberal pussies.
Obviously, it's an admission that more righties than lefties want to sue critics :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Breitbart exposes GOOGLE, then Techdirt attacks Breitbart...
it appears to be all from breitbart mouth pieces. search for pro-israel in the wikipededia article. the references link to an explanation the provenience of i cannot say, but it makes a warped kind of sense.
being not so homogeneous at breitbart there are lots of different views. some of whom are pro-israel cause then you can ship the jews there. some think israel is awesome cause they are so ultra nationalist. i did not delve further into the morass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cowards attack in packs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breitbart exposes GOOGLE, then Techdirt attacks Breitbart...
That word does not mean what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breitbart exposes GOOGLE, then Techdirt attacks Breitbart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So at what point were we going to hear about a journalist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are they saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
If the best examples the lawyer can come up with are
then that means they got nothin'. If they had any actual evidence of fraud, they would have opened with it, not tried to paint protected opinion as fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are they saying?
1) telling the advertisers distorted info
2) or outright lies about Brietbart.com?
Could it be that you have omitted several other possibilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Straw
If you really have no "side" to take in this "race", Mike, you wouldn't have used the word "snowflake" in the headline. That word didn't have to be used unless you wanted to to stir up shit, virtue signal, and polarize the topic unnecessarily. Doesn't matter if Breitbart or the whole online world does it too, it's still wrong.
*sigh* I mean, you must know the reason the site is getting more troll commenters is that generally the other commenters (or you, from the tone of your more polarizing articles) aren't genuinely engaging with any who have an opposing view.
It's too black and white to say "since I believe in this side, it means the other side is my enemy and has nothing valuable to add".
... I used to feel like Techdirt was speaking for anybody concerned about the laws of any country being used to screw up the way the internet works.
But I'm not your audience anymore. You're chasing people away with these polarizing insults in the articles. Digital rights is an issue that more people of all stripes would be interested in if you weren't focused on promoting them to the "right" people.
Enjoy the echo chamber, I'm done with trying to get civil conversation out of people who won't think outside of their own ideas. But you're probably thinking of congratulating yourselves already: "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" and other such sentiments. That will only prove my point: that none of you are truly interested in engaging with opposing points of view and only want to hear what you like to hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Last Straw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Last Straw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Last Straw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Last Straw
Party of Personal Responsibility!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Last Chip of paint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite. Remember the controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut and a bunch of advertisers dumped him?
Well it turns out Rush Limbaugh and the boycott of him didn't just hurt Rush, it hurt a crapload of other political talk radio (right and left talk show hosts). Advertisers decided it was just too risky to run ads on political talk radio shows, where the personality might say something outrageous and highly controversial any time that could shit on your company's reputation for associating with them.
They've all seen a drop in ad revenue as a result. Even though political talk radio audiences tend to be closer to the slice of demographic that advertisers want (right age range, and wealthier then the average American).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also: Bill O'Reilly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same site that says all jews should be exterminated that that the final solution didnt go far enough?
Same piece of crap that has articles praising the third reichs "business efficiency"?
same site that openly supports the KKK burning crosses as "religious freedom"?
same site that says Auschwitz should be knocked down because they claim its a fake and the holocaust didn't happen?
sheesh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come At ME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]