Tag: advertising

REPORT: New York Liberty Run Pro-Trans Scoreboard Message, Deny Paid Message from Group Supporting Women’s Sports

New York City’s WNBA team refused to take a paid scoreboard message from a woman who wanted to support the XX-XY movement to protect women’s sports from men identifying as women. Naturally, the team had no problem displaying pro-trans scoreboard messages.

Julie Potter, a lesbian hip-hop performer, says the New York Liberty tried to alter her message, which she paid to display at Barclays Center during the Liberty’s game against the Indiana Fever.

Potter says she has a receipt showing she paid $100 for the scoreboard message to be shown during the August 22 game, OutKick reports.

The singer adds that she asked the team to display the following message: “Thank you Jennifer Sey! XX-XY Athletics will Save the Day!”

The payment and message were accepted, Potter said, but the day before the game, she was contacted by the team and told that they would not display the message she had requested. Instead, the sales dept. told her the message they would agree to display would read, “Thank you Jennifer Sey, thank you for all you do for XX-XY Athletics.”

Potter said she told them that if they did not display the message she had paid for, she wanted to cancel it and get a refund.

Despite balking at Potter’s message, the Liberty had no problem displaying pro-transgender messages during the game.

Keep reading

Maryland Court Strikes Down Nation’s First State Tax On Digital Advertising

A state tax court in Maryland invalidated the nation’s first state tax on digital advertising and directed state officials to refund tax payments already collected from major tech companies.

The legal dispute had been closely watched by other states that are considering taxing online advertisements.

The Annapolis-based Maryland Tax Court ruled on Aug. 14 that the digital advertising gross revenues tax was unconstitutional after it was challenged in three separate lawsuits by Google, Apple, and Peacock TV. Refunds are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The state imposes the levies based on the businesses’ global revenue. Lawmakers previously said the tax could raise $250 million per year. The money raised from the tax was earmarked for a state education program.

The 2021 tax statute specifically targets the revenue large companies earn from digital advertisements shown in Maryland. Companies that take in more than $100 million in annual global gross revenue were taxed at 2.5 percent.

A sliding scale applies to companies with larger revenues, maxing out at 10 percent for those earning more than $15 billion in global gross annual revenues.

The law’s backers argued that Maryland needed to overhaul its tax system to deal with major changes in how businesses advertise. Lawyers representing the affected companies said their clients were targeted unfairly.

The state court said the tax runs afoul of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The court held that regulating interstate commerce was the business of Congress – not the Maryland General Assembly – and that it was inappropriate that the tax law was premised on global revenue rather than revenue that comes from in-state advertising.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act forbids taxation of electronic commerce if similar services are not taxed. The court held that there is no meaningful distinction between digital advertising and print or billboard ads, meaning the federal bar applies.

Keep reading

Vaccine Amnesia: 75 Forgotten News Segments That Could Never Air Today

Before the press was captured, vaccine injuries were openly covered on national TV. Now the dam of censorship is breaking, and we can finally confront the tragic history that keeps repeating.

A key theme I’ve tried to highlight in this publication is that the same medical catastrophes keep repeating (because those responsible are never held accountable), so by understanding what happened in the past, you can see and understand what is happening now and what will likely happen in the future.

For example, because vaccines are “risky but necessary,” the medical profession and government, again and again, concluded that they needed to tell the public all vaccines were “safe and effective” as the potential injuries a mass vaccination campaign would cause were outweighed by “necessary” benefit the vaccines could offer. As such, examples can be found again and again of severe injuries being systematically covered up for the “greater good” (e.g., the earliest documented example I know of this happened in 1874 with the smallpox vaccine) and health authorities concocting the same set of excuses we’ve seen since smallpox as to why those vaccines failed to prevent the diseases they were supposed to.

Since the risks of most vaccines (detailed here) far outweigh their benefits, a mass-vaccination paradigm can only be sustained by censoring the evidence of harm — and then citing that manufactured silence as proof of safety. Over the decades, more and more has been done to conceal those harms. For almost a century, severe neurological injuries after vaccination were routinely reported in the medical literature. Now vaccine injuries are censored, and it is nearly impossible to publish anything critical of vaccines in a “reputable” journal.

Likewise, despite the “science” that says vaccines are safe, it is nearly impossible to obtain the raw datasets that could actually answer the question — as Steve Kirsch showed the public throughout COVID-19 with his relentless, endlessly stonewalled quest to get that data. Likewise, VAERS, a public injury-reporting database only exists because the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act required a way for patients to bypass doctors refusing to report their injuries, and as such, ever since a law mandated its creation, everything possible has been done to undermine and discredit VAERS (except when the industry uses it as “proof” to prove vaccines are safe).

This is the inescapable problem at the heart of mass vaccination. When you take a product that is not completely safe and give it to an entire population, tens of millions of healthy people, most of whom were never at meaningful risk from the disease, even a small rate of serious harm guarantees that enormous numbers are injured or killed. Since there is no way around that arithmetic the authorities have chosen concealment every time, suppressing the data, reclassifying the injuries, and dismissing each casualty as a coincidence, because the alternative is admitting the paradigm itself produces the ever-increasing wave of chronic illness sweeping our society.

For a long time, the injuries were too numerous to fully hide, so the public kept reawakening to them and the mainstream media kept covering them. The industry’s solution came after it won liability protection in the 1986 vaccine law: spend whatever it took to censor the coverage and bury the injuries. But removing that check, the public finding out and objecting, removed the only real constraint on toxic vaccines reaching the market, and progressively more dangerous ones followed, until the COVID-19 catastrophe injured so many people that even a robust censorship apparatus couldn’t contain it. Numerous polls I’ve summarized in detail here demonstrate the scale of the vaccine injuries: depending on the survey, 7% to 13% of recipients reported a serious side effect, 24% to 28% say they know someone they believe died from the shot, and 46% to 55% believe the COVID vaccines have killed a significant number of people. Propaganda has its limits, and once numbers like those take hold, a new awareness of vaccine injury surfaces across the media ecosystem, occasionally on conservative networks, but mostly in the independent press.

Because we keep forgetting the past, the cycle repeats. My goal here is to show that what we are seeing now is nothing new, that it has happened countless times before, on a smaller scale that was easier to sweep under the rug, by collecting dozens of clips that were once routinely aired on television and are almost inconceivable today, given how brutal the censorship has become.

Keep reading

France bans unsolicited telemarketing calls, threatening large fines for those who don’t comply

France has implemented a law banning unsolicited telemarketing calls, shifting the country from an “opt-out” registry system to an obligatory prior consent (“opt-in”) framework.

The law reportedly took effect Tuesday after it was adopted by the National Assembly and the Senate — France’s two chambers of Parliament — on June 30, 2025, and formally promulgated by French President Emmanuel Macron.

France has replaced its former opt-out system, a national registry called “Bloctel,” which operated similarly to the U.S. National “Do Not Call” Registry, with a prior consent “opt-in” framework. The change was made after years of consumer complaints regarding non-compliant call centers that routinely ignored the opt-out list.

Under the new law, companies are prohibited from making unsolicited marketing calls to consumers who have not explicitly given prior consent to be contacted.

However, this restriction does not apply across the board: companies remain permitted to call existing customers with whom they have an active contractual relationship, provided the call relates directly to their existing contract or related services and the customer has not previously requested to opt out.

“Peace and quiet is a right,” stated Marie-Amandine Stévenin. President of leading consumer advocacy group, Que Choisir Ensemble. “This observation holds true both online and on the street, where we are inundated with calls to consume.”

Frédéric Billon, head of the trade association Fédération de la Vente Directe, claims that the law will strain local businesses accustomed to casually calling their customers. He added that this could put French companies at a disadvantage against foreign competitors operating outside the law’s reach.

Keep reading

See The Hilarious AI Ads That Furious California Democrats Want Banned

Two California Democrats are moving to outlaw AI-generated campaign ads at the federal level, just days after a Republican rival for the governor’s mansion used the technology to hammer their party.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on Monday reintroduced the AI Ads Act, which would make it a federal violation to use artificial intelligence to impersonate candidates or committees in federal races.

The push comes on the heels of two AI-generated spots from GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who went after Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrat gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra.

Of course, Hilton isn’t the only one having fun with the technology. The campaign of Spencer Pratt, the reality television star turned Los Angeles mayoral candidate, made waves with his creative and side-splitting ads from Los Angeles-based director Charles Curran.

Unsurprisingly, Schiff claims his bill isn’t about politics, but about protecting against a so-called “serious threat to our democracy.”

“AI-generated fraudulent advertising which uses the likeness or voices of candidates to misrepresent their positions, campaigns, or causes, or otherwise misrepresents a candidate’s point of view is not only wrong – it poses a serious threat to our democracy that should concern all Americans regardless of their party,” said Schiff. “Fraudulent AI advertising has already proliferated in races across the country, and if Congress does not act, this runaway challenge will only get worse as AI becomes increasingly capable of blurring the lines between fact and fiction. With November elections around the corner, time is of the essence to reign in false political advertising.”

Groups that support the bill include Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Campaign Legal Center, Protect Democracy and Public Citizen, according to the New York Post.

“AI will transform our lives and our society in many ways, but it can’t be used to mislead voters or undermine our democracy. I’m proud to lead the AI Ads Act with Senator Schiff to ban AI-generated content that deceives the public about candidates or elections,” Khanna said in a statement.

Keep reading

Sarah McBride Says Trump’s ‘They/Them’ Ad Worked Because Dems ‘Remained Silent’

Transgender Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) said President Donald Trump’s “Kamala is for they/them” campaign ad resonated with voters in part because Democrat leaders “remained silent” instead of responding to the attack during the 2024 election.

In an interview with The Hill’s “In the Know” columnist Judy Kurtz, McBride was asked about the Trump campaign ad that appeared to be highly effective and asked whether Democrats needed to handle the issue differently going into the midterms and the next presidential race.

“In the 2024 White House race, there was an ad from the Trump campaign saying that Kamala Harris is for they/them and Donald Trump is for us. I believe it was featured in your documentary as well. It seemed to be pretty effective,” Kurtz asked. “Do you think, going into the midterms and then the next presidential race, Democrats have to be careful in how they handle this issue so they are not pushed off balance by Republicans?”

“Well, I think the degree to which that ad was effective in the last election was a byproduct of two major issues,” McBride responded. “One was the perception that people had that Democrats were not fighting for bold, broad-based economic policy as our top priority. And the second was that we were silent in the face of the ad.”

McBride said many Democrat leaders were unsure how to answer the Trump campaign’s messaging and ultimately chose not to respond.

“I think many of our political leaders in that moment were concerned about how to respond and therefore sort of remained silent,” McBride added. “I think some of the lessons learned from the 2024 cycle are that we have to be able to respond. We have to be willing to respond.”

The interviewer referenced Trump’s 2024 campaign ad, “Kamala Is for They/Them. President Trump Is for You,” which has been viewed more than 632,000 times and received over 22,000 likes on YouTube.

Keep reading

Google Removes the Final Workaround for Full Ad Blocking in Chrome

Google is removing the last technical workaround that kept effective ad blockers alive in Chrome.

When Chrome 150 ships on June 30, the browser will delete a hidden setting called the ExtensionManifestV2Disabled flag, a switch that power users had been toggling to keep old-style extensions running after Google officially discontinued them.

Without it, uBlock Origin and every other extension built on the old Manifest V2 framework, the set of rules that governed how browser extensions worked for years, will stop functioning permanently. Chrome 151, expected in July, will strip the remaining MV2 flags entirely. No policy override and no hidden setting will bring them back.

The company that sells more advertising than any other on Earth now controls whether you can block those ads. And it just decided you can’t, at least not effectively.

What Google took away and why it took it

The technical change is the replacement of Chrome’s webRequest API with the declarativeNetRequest API.

Under the old system, extensions like uBlock Origin could watch your browser’s traffic as it happened, see an ad or tracker trying to load, and block it on the spot before it ever reached your screen.

Under the new system, extensions have to hand Google a pre-written list of things to block and Chrome decides whether to follow those instructions. The lists are capped at a fixed number of rules, and the extension can’t react to anything that isn’t already on the list.

uBlock Origin’s developer, Raymond Hill, has been clear that a Manifest V3 version cannot replicate the original’s full capabilities. A stripped-down version called uBlock Origin Lite exists for MV3, but it handles only a fraction of the filter lists, the community-maintained databases of known ads and trackers, that the original supported.

It also can’t perform cosmetic filtering, the process of hiding ad containers and promotional elements that remain on a page even after the ad itself is blocked. Without it, you get blank boxes where ads used to be, or sponsored content that looks native to the page. For more than 40 million Chrome users who relied on the original, the replacement is a downgrade by design.

Google engineer Devlin Cronin confirmed the timeline in a Chromium code review commit, a logged change to Chrome’s underlying source code that other developers can inspect, writing that “MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won’t be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we’ve actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire.”

Keep reading

Google Removes the Final Workaround for Full Ad Blocking in Chrome

Google is removing the last technical workaround that kept effective ad blockers alive in Chrome.

When Chrome 150 ships on June 30, the browser will delete a hidden setting called the ExtensionManifestV2Disabled flag, a switch that power users had been toggling to keep old-style extensions running after Google officially discontinued them.

Without it, uBlock Origin and every other extension built on the old Manifest V2 framework, the set of rules that governed how browser extensions worked for years, will stop functioning permanently. Chrome 151, expected in July, will strip the remaining MV2 flags entirely. No policy override and no hidden setting will bring them back.

The company that sells more advertising than any other on Earth now controls whether you can block those ads. And it just decided you can’t, at least not effectively.

What Google took away and why it took it

The technical change is the replacement of Chrome’s webRequest API with the declarativeNetRequest API.

Under the old system, extensions like uBlock Origin could watch your browser’s traffic as it happened, see an ad or tracker trying to load, and block it on the spot before it ever reached your screen.

Under the new system, extensions have to hand Google a pre-written list of things to block and Chrome decides whether to follow those instructions. The lists are capped at a fixed number of rules, and the extension can’t react to anything that isn’t already on the list.

uBlock Origin’s developer, Raymond Hill, has been clear that a Manifest V3 version cannot replicate the original’s full capabilities. A stripped-down version called uBlock Origin Lite exists for MV3, but it handles only a fraction of the filter lists, the community-maintained databases of known ads and trackers, that the original supported.

It also can’t perform cosmetic filtering, the process of hiding ad containers and promotional elements that remain on a page even after the ad itself is blocked. Without it, you get blank boxes where ads used to be, or sponsored content that looks native to the page. For more than 40 million Chrome users who relied on the original, the replacement is a downgrade by design.

Google engineer Devlin Cronin confirmed the timeline in a Chromium code review commit, a logged change to Chrome’s underlying source code that other developers can inspect, writing that “MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won’t be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we’ve actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire.”

Cronin’s sign-off, that “other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire,” suggests the removal as a Chrome-specific choice. It isn’t. Google controls 65% of the desktop browser market and the MV2 code being stripped from Chromium, the open-source project that Chrome and many other browsers are built on top of, affects every browser that shares that foundation.

Google justifies the migration on security grounds and there’s some substance to the argument. The old webRequest API gives extensions deep access to every network request a browser makes, from images and page loads to login credentials, and the extension sees the data before Chrome acts on it.

A compromised or malicious extension with that access can read your passwords as you type them, redirect you to fake websites, or slip harmful code into pages you trust.

The declarativeNetRequest API is designed to prevent exactly this kind of attack by restricting extensions to predefined rule sets. Instead of giving an extension free rein over your browser traffic, Chrome only lets it submit a list of instructions in advance and handles the blocking itself. That narrows the ways a bad actor can exploit an extension because the extension never gets to touch your data directly.

But Google generated roughly $239.5 billion in advertising revenue in 2025, and content blockers directly reduce the number of ads users see. The MV3 restrictions don’t ban ad blocking entirely. They cap how many rules an extension can use and eliminate dynamic blocking, the ability to recognize and stop new ad formats and trackers as they appear in real time.

Ad companies constantly change how they deliver ads, rotating domains and disguising tracking scripts, and the old extensions could keep up with that. The new ones can only block what’s already on a list that was written before the ad loaded. The result is ad blockers that work against yesterday’s ads but struggle against the ones that adapt daily.

The same company that built Chrome and sells the ads it displays also wrote the rules governing what ad blockers can do inside it. Whether those incentives shaped MV3’s design is the most obvious question in the room, and Google has never given a convincing answer.

Keep reading

Ads in New York must now label AI-generated ‘synthetic performers’

Any advertisements in New York that feature artificial intelligence-generated people in place of actors will now be violating state law if they don’t clearly label that they have used a “synthetic performer.”

The law, signed in December by Gov. Kathy Hochul, went into effect Tuesday. Her office is calling it a “first-in-the-nation law” that will boost transparency at a time when it says AI generated performers are popping up across all forms of media, including on social platforms and in digital advertising.

Synthetic performers are defined under state law as “digitally-created media that appear as a real person.” The law applies to ads in any medium.

“In New York, we are setting the rules of the road instead of letting AI run the show,” Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement. The “simple, honest disclosure” required by the law “protects consumers, respects our creative workforce and keeps New York at the forefront of responsible innovation,” she said.

Ads that don’t “conspicuously disclose” that they have used a synthetic performer will be subject to a penalty of $1,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for any further violations.

There are specific carve outs listed in the law to exempt ads for movies, television shows, streaming content, video games and other works that feature synthetic performers in the entire work. It also doesn’t apply to audio advertisements or ads where AI is solely used for language translation.

When the law was making its way through the state legislature last year, the American Association of Advertising Agencies and several other advertising organizations issued statements in strong opposition to the law.

The 4As, as the organization is better known, said in one blog post that it would hurt advertisers by “injecting compliance uncertainty into the advertising process, burdening brands (and their agencies) who advertise in New York and undermining creative and technological innovation.”

Other organizations, like the The New York State Broadcasters Association, said in public statements during the legislation’s journey to become law that they were relieved to see some of those carve outs that were created through amendments, but remained concerned about the broad definition of a synthetic performer. David Donovan, the president of the organization, said in a statement to The Associated Press on Tuesday that local broadcast stations are ready to comply with the law.

The biggest supporter of the law was SAG-AFTRA, the actors’ union that recently ratified a new contract with studios and streamers that they say provides further protections against synthetic performers.

The law is one of many proposed or enacted in several U.S. states with the goal of boosting job security for real humans or curbing the potential privacy and safety risks posed by AI. The existing state laws that have been passed include barring deepfakes in specific instances, limiting the collection of certain personal information and requiring more transparency from companies.

Just after Hochul signed the synthetic performers law in December, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pressuring states not to regulate AI. The move came out of fear that the patchwork of regulations across the states could impede AI companies’ growth and allow China to catch up to the U.S. in the AI race. Critics of the executive order argue it will allow tech companies to operate with little to no oversight.

Keep reading

Amsterdam Bans Meat Ads as the War on Food Expands

Amsterdam’s decision to ban meat advertising should be viewed as part of a much broader trend that has been unfolding for years. Politicians insist this is about climate change. Every new restriction is presented as a noble sacrifice for to save the environment. Yet the target is almost always the same: farmers, ranchers, livestock producers, and regular people who are forced to sacrifice their health and livelihood for the globalist agenda.

The Netherlands has already spent years battling its own farming community through nitrogen regulations, forced buyouts, and restrictions that have pushed many family farms to the brink. Massive farmer protests erupted because people recognized that this was never merely about emissions. Agriculture was being redesigned from the top down. Now the campaign has moved beyond production and into culture itself. If citizens cannot be persuaded to abandon meat voluntarily, then governments will gradually make meat less visible, less available, more expensive, and increasingly stigmatized.

Many people dismissed concerns years ago when international organizations began discussing alternatives to traditional meat consumption. The World Economic Forum published articles exploring insects as a future protein source and repeatedly promoted dietary shifts away from actual meat. The argument was always framed around sustainability, carbon reduction, and environmental goals. They attempted to normalize chewing on bugs as an alternative to a steak. They claim it is our duty as global citizens to sacrifice essential nutrition to save the planet, despite knowing well that these measures would not make a meaningful dent in anything.

Keep reading