This week, the House Judiciary Committee published a stunning report including shocking information about a corporate conspiracy to crush conservative opinions by means of targeting Breitbart News, and Twitter (now X).
The committee produced its report just hours before the scheduled testimony that said those businesses, who are a part of the Alliance for Responsible Media’s Steer Team (called GARM), may have broken antitrust laws in their attempts to deny conservative news outlets and personalities, and companies bold enough to feature conservative viewpoints in advertising dollars.
“Through GARM, significant firms, advertising agencies, and industry groups participated in boycotts and other concerted action to demonetize platforms, news sites, and other content though disfavored by GARM,” the paper says. “This collaboration can have the consequence of diminishing the variety of material and opinions available to consumers.”
With enormous market power in the advertising sector, GARM, an initiative of the strong World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), revealed shocking proof of GARM’s perhaps illegal behavior in the paper “GARM’s Harm: How the World’s Greatest Brands Seek to Control Online Speech.”
In a transcribed interview with the committee, GARM’s head and co-founder Rob Rakowitz frequently “gave incorrect information” and contradicted recorded evidence acquired by the committee.
With its enormous power influence, GARM apparently engages in activities far more serious than its declared goal of improving “brand safety,” even straying into content moderation on television, social media, and the internet. According to the report,
Calling itself “an industry first effort that joins marketers, media platforms, and ad technology solutions providers to protect the promise of digital media by limiting the availability and monetization of harmful content,” GARM says it was developed to promote openness in rules to help businesses reach “brand safety,” so in other words, “transparency on where advertisements [are] put [to] make sure that [advertisers] don’t unwittingly endorse” specific content on social platforms. To reach this goal, GARM asserts that it operates in the “content monetization” domain, focusing on the content that ads genuinely support and the methods used for online ad placement. GARM disclaims “moderation,” which is the “practice of deciding what content is appropriate for hosting, recommending, and making available on a platform.” However, GARM acknowledges the intricate intertwining of content monetization and moderation, stating that lapses in moderation pose a risk to advertising and advertisers. Stated differently, GARM’s monetizing efforts help to shape what material shows up online.
The committee’s records reveal the extent of GARM’s cooperation among some of the most influential global companies to silence conservative news media, including Breitbart News. The analysis states:
Internal GARM records sent to the Committee reveal a blatant leaning toward left-leaning news sources, which compromises GARM’s work. When Mr. Rakowitz answered a query about The Daily Wire, a conservative news outlet and media company established by commentator Ben Shapiro, for instance, he got in touch with two GroupM employees: John Montgomery, of Global Brand Safety, and Joe Barone, Managing Partner of Brand Safety Americas. Mr. Rakowitz inquired about GroupM’s stance on The Daily Wire. GARM is “explicitly neutral,” Mr. Rakowitz informed the two men, and he warned them against de-platforming anyone who would contradict GARM’s perspective. However, Mr. Montgomery explained to Mr. Rakowitz that GroupM monitors the media it opposes, like The Daily Wire, to uncover any unethical practices. Mr. Montgomery specifically wrote to Mr. Rakowitz on how GroupM handles underprivileged news sources:
There is an intriguing connection with Brittany. We had protracted debates over whether we should add them to our exclusion lists before Breitbart crossed the line and began spewing obvious false information. We couldn’t really defend excluding someone for having a misguided opinion, even if we disliked their ideas and garbage. We observed them closely, and it wasn’t long until they crossed the line.
Comments are closed.