Weird that a blog about capitalism doesn’t recognize that.
Just because a content creator can find a targeted sponsor doesn’t mean all sponsors want to advertise with that content creator. Google, as evidenced by this article doesn’t individually vet the places the ads are placed, they take a dragnet and algorithmic approach, and provide services to many advertisers.
If anything all this speaks to that there is market for even better ad targeting, that can more easily pair those controversial topics with advertisers willing to be associated with them.
It this happens to the NYT, it will be noticed in a minute and reverted, or a permanent flag will be manually set to immunize them against this sort of electronically-laundered dishonesty. When this happens to an outlet that the administration or intelligence agencies don't like, Google will:
1) hem and haw, insist that they're not aware of any demonetization decisions and that the documents have been misinterpreted, then
2) later explain that what they did was to "set flags" on the account, which is a highly technical internal process that isn't related to demonetization; that demonetization decisions are taken by companies on their own initiative. Also, that there is no review process for flags because they are informational and internal and not a judgement against the site. Therefore, this "non-judgement" is both final and a nothingburger.
3) After a subpoena, they're forced to admit that these "internal flags" trigger some process that alerts advertisers that they are supporting controversial content and giving them the process to go through in order to remove their advertising. This, after a hearing in a lower court that doesn't go well for Google, causes them to announce that they've begun a manual review of the content.
4) They stretch out this manual review of 14 uninteresting weblinks and statements for weeks, before announcing that half of the links were "failures of the algorithm" and if the outlet would delete the other half, the flags will be removed. There's no discernible difference between the citations that are confirmed, and that citations that are ruled failures.
5) The site refuses, and with GoFundMe's, the personal finances of the blogger, and help from a few pro-bono civil liberties orgs, they sue Google. Every article on the site that was formerly talking about political issues is now talking about the survival of the site and endless boring details about the patently silly case.
6) The government leaks information that an entirely different website that often links to the site in question has connections to racist Russians embedded in the Chinese Communist Party. This becomes a front page Mother Jones, or Atlantic article. Google asks for massive discovery in light of the foreign connections involved, and delays the trial for a year. Ultimately, the racist CCP Russian turns out to have been a one-time CIA informant who also once sent $500 to the other site, which was the creation of a single retired navy veteran in Cleveland suffering from mild schizophrenia.
7) Finally goes to court a year later, there's an immediate judgement against Google. The site owner doesn't get costs, is bankrupt or nearly, the site has barely been updated in six months, and for some reason the IRS have started investigating him for expenses he claimed five years ago.
8 - infinity) People don't say what they are told not to say, and people don't link to what they're told not to link to.
