Ben Shapiro Loses Sponsors Over Anti Abortion Stand

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (90 posts)
  1. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 13 months ago

    I read an article where Ben Shapiro lost pod cast sponsors because of protests over a comment that he would not have aborted Hitler prior to birth.

    I believe he was at an anti abortion rally. He is outspoken in his anti abortion views. The comment is completely understandable, considering it was probably simply an attempt to show how strongly the view is held; considering that he is Jewish and the history involved.

    While I disagree with his stand on abortion he is articulate enough that I understand his reasoning to be sound, respect his right to his opinion and applaud his ability to participate in civil debate on the issue.

    Why do many on the left fear free speech so much they have to demand people be muzzled who don't share their views? Why throw a tantrum on social media every time something is said they disagree with?

    Most conservatives I know won't back any attempt at boycott over difference of opinion and don't equate product sales with social issues, just because someone loosely affiliated holds a particular view. I'd like to understand why that is the go to stance of many on the left.

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, l to L, the conservatives YOU know. The boycott is a valid weapon in the arsenal to get the attention of miscreants, hit them in the pocketbook. If the issue is not worthy, than people are free not to change their buying habits. So, what is the problem? People express displeasure with their dollars, is that not the American way? Many years ago in Colorado such a boycott was applied to Adolph Coors company attacking its discriminatory practices and hiring policies. And when I read the details and determined that the complaint was valid, I joined in and purchased any all other beer brand except Coors, until the cleaned up their act.

      Rosa Parks and  Economic boycott brought down the Montgomery Bus company and segregation policy, it certain was not going to change due to to any moral argument or persuasion

      It is how the little guy can bring the bully to heel. A most valuable tool in the tool box.

      So, I am all for boycott if it  proves necessary.

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Do you think a guy saying he is so anti abortion as to even refuse to abort a man who might (remember the fetus only has the potential to grow in that direction of hate) eventually slaughter tens of millions of people who practice the same faith he does is worthy of such action?

        As I stated. I disagree with Shapiro on abortion but I don't find anything remotely offensive in his statement, I wouldn't abort Hitler while in the womb either. I would think the better course would be, if you knew the possible outcome beforehand, to attempt to change it.

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Hey there Cred, It looks to me like you and Live to Learn are talking about two different things.

        You have to be, because I agree with both comments, and that wouldn't work if you were both talking about the same thing.

        I read her comment as addressing boycotts as an action taken because you don't like something someone said, not as an action against a clear wrong.

        Now take a breath, you know how I feel about extremes, so when I say disliking something someone said, I am not talking about extremes such as inflammatory racial or discriminatory slurs. So don't stretch my "don't like what someone said" to those extremes.

        The OP was about the impact of the social media mob, and its cries for boycott simply because they disked what was said, not because it was obviously wrong.

        That is not a case of the "little guy" bringing a bully to heel, it is about a particular strain of intolerance and a mob's power to do damage because of it.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          GA, the two entities that backed out of sponsorship were small in the scheme of things. Those animal rights activist folks have been doing this stuff for some time and there a lot more of them.

          I don't think that it will bring the house down. I am more concerned about the general Conservative response to adverse speech with closing down the newspaper, shooting the messenger in response. Compared to this, the tactics of the Left are mild.

          Sometimes one guy's extreme is another's "middle of the road" and the reverse is true

    2. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
      JAKE Earthshineposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      If this boneheaded imbecile actually said that, not only should ALL of his sponsors dump him but he should be immediately deported to a country which tolerates this kind of insane crazy talk: Maybe he and Donald could meet up and get together to share dark evil conversation on some deserted isle in the middle of nowhere, a place where they can't harm anyone else but themselves: Some white nationalists are fine people according to Donald so they probably have a lot in common:

      Considering thousands of Americans lost their lives in WW2 to save and protect the planet from this kind of pure evil named Hitler, let him find another place to spew his retardation:

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Boneheaded. Your words, not mine. That term definitely applies to the sentiments you expressed here.

        Retardation. Your words, not mine. I'm glad hub pages gives you a place to express views which people such as yourself, displaying limited courtesy, can make such an assessment of a view similar to the one you have shared.

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
          JAKE Earthshineposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Sorry, but any imbecile who actually said Hitler should not have been aborted, a medical procedure which would have SAVED the Lives of millions of Jews and thousands of American Heroes in WW2 who halted his INSANITY is actually beyond Retarded:

          Still wondering WHY HubPages allows this type of HATE Filled alt right discussion on their site:

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            If you could be a little more civil then the Hate filled part would be removed. And if not advocating for aborting a baby because of what it might end up doing as a grown up is alt right, I guess I'm guilty.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
              JAKE Earthshineposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              The weirdo hate monger you're referring to was a breitbart flunky which indicates 'alt right' and don't worry Live to Learn, prior to your announcement of being an 'alt righter' we could already discern it from you comments and by the way, it's painfully obvious you have no friends and or relatives who served bravely in WW2 to stomp on Hitler and his evil fascists:

              And today, we have an idiot in the oval office who refers to these same kind of white nationalists which are reminiscent of Nazi Germany, as "Fine People": INSANITY in the year 2019:

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Ok. I had family in the war. They weren't hate mongers who believed babies should be exterminated. Your views would have fit nicely in the Nazi party. They were fans of extermination also.

                And, the brown shirt style of Antifa fits more into the Nazi narrative than anything done by extremists who label themselves Nazis. So, I think for all intents and purposes that name fits views such as yours better than anyone

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Just FYI Live to Learn, Bozo Trump's white nationalist pals who marched on Charlottesville and who chanted HATE about Jews are the neo-Nazis while Antifa are the ANTI-Nazis, the equivalent of the allied forces in WW2:

                  I understand Bozo Trump always like to commit a crime or atrcity and then claim one of his critics was the perpetrator, maybe that retardation works with his last remaining followers but not with me:

                  1. Live to Learn profile image82
                    Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    I get it. You hate Trump and anyone who doesn't hate, you hate.

                    That's a lot of hate.

          2. IslandBites profile image87
            IslandBitesposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            You're way off here.

    3. Aime F profile image81
      Aime Fposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      “Most conservatives I know won't back any attempt at boycott over difference of opinion and don't equate product sales with social issues, just because someone loosely affiliated holds a particular view.“

      Hmmm...

      https://m.ranker.com/list/trump-support … ob-shelton

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Maybe I missed something in that brief review of the first part of the article. Because it appears to make my point. Obviously most conservatives don't support boycotts because attempts to organize any quickly fizzle out.

        Edit. I'd say the reason they don't work is we celebrate diversity and are fiercely independent. We don't follow a lead as much as we walk our own path, cheerfully giving room for others to do the same.

        1. Aime F profile image81
          Aime Fposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Your original post suggested that it was a leftist tactic to boycott products/people based on differing views.

          I posted an article that gave several examples of conservatives attempting to boycott things based on differing views.

          I’m not sure you how you feel that your point has been validated.

    4. Onusonus profile image76
      Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      It's not "anti abortion", it's Pro Life.

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Both stands are pro life. Each chooses a different life to be concerned for.

        1. Onusonus profile image76
          Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          So I guess the Nazis were pro life, They just chose a different life to be concerned for.
          .

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Are you Jake?

            If not, that's just an ignorant way to say you don't give a rat's behind about women.

            1. Onusonus profile image76
              Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Wrong, I just prefer a scientific approach to the question of when life begins. And you seem to be under the delusion that killing a baby is justifiable if the circumstances inconvenience a woman.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                You obviously don't have the faintest idea what my stand is, but thanks for judging without the benefit of fact. It certainly brings to question your claim of a scientific approach.

                1. Onusonus profile image76
                  Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Well it's pretty simple. Abortion, For or against it?

                  1. Live to Learn profile image82
                    Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    If you are against abortion, at any time during the pregnancy and for whatever reason, you aren't approaching the matter scientifically.

                    You are using emotion and belief to inhibit your ability to look at all factors. And that's fine. It's your right. But don't delude yourself.

    5. profile image0
      RTalloniposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      The why behind their issues with free speech is as simple as that they know truth opposes their goals. An obvious question here is who could have known hitler would do what he did when he was a baby, much less a baby in utero?

      A more immediate question is what would the astounding number of babies aborted in the USA since 1973 have become...how many people like my friend's oldest child, another friend's husband docs wanted to abort (and his resulting beautiful 5 children), my friend whose father abandoned his mother but came into this world to grow up, marry, and adopt with his wife making a home for the less fortunate, so many friends unable to conceive who adopted babies of every hue, how many Simone Biles, brilliant Dr. Mildred Jeffersons, Rita Levi-Montalicinis, Beethovens, Andre Bocellis (and such families as his), talented Paul Revere Williams, courageous Genna Jessons, Melissa Ohdens and an incalculable many more, how many dads, moms, teachers, athletes, movers/shakers, world-changers, their inventions, solutions for various kinds of problems, cures, works of art, have been lost/murdered by lying doctors and nurses, encouraged by lying politicians and lawyers.

      Leaving countless girls and women hurting in confusion, grief-stricken and unable to face/admit what they've been through, the liars have been motivated by social activism, financial benefits, or hopes of advancing careers, and often by all three. They have used the women and the babies in as many ways as they could get by with and think they have gotten by with murder while lying through their teeth. They've convincingly used lies to the public when they could have encouraged study of all the research, but there are the Dr. Mildred Jeffersons, the groups like AAPLOG, and the organizations that truly care for mothers with a problematic pregnancy or who are abortion victims, basing their work on the truth about abortion, following in the footsteps of courageous people like John and Barbara Willke, Fannie Lou Hamer, and others who have called abortion what it is in the Jewish community, among blacks, for the Spanish, Italians, Icelanders, Russians, for every father, mother, and child everywhere.       

      The National Right to Life is far from the only organization providing truth and real help to pregnant mothers and those suffering from having had an abortion.

      https://cradlemyheart.org/2018/04/15/he … e-victims/
      http://postabortionhelp.org/pah/sibling … -abortion/
      http://library.cityvision.edu/orgs/preg … e-center-0
      http://afterabortion.org/2015/hurting-a … s-natural/
      http://www.nicolewcooley.com/help_im_hurting
      http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap5.html
      https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/babie … -be-heard/
      http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/sh … rting.aspx
      https://www.enteringcanaan.com/siblings … f-abortion
      https://www.torontoagainstabortion.org/ … rojustice/
      https://www.bethany.org/

  2. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 13 months ago

    Boycotting advertisers is an exercise of free speech. The Moral Majority used it extensively during the 80s, so it is not exclusively or primarily a liberal tactic.

    We're all free to spend our money as we see fit, just as we're all free to express our opinions on social media and elsewhere.

    I'm puzzled how exercising that freedom could be viewed as nuzzling free speech.

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I simply wonder why that singular statement would be the impetus for such. The way I understand the backlash is that saying he wouldn't abort Hitler was the perceived offense. Really? I'm pro abortion but I doubt I'd consider such either.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't boycott his advertisers over that, but if others want to, it's their prerogative.

  3. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 13 months ago

    I stated that most conservatives I know don't participate in such. The article implies my experience is typical. Most conservatives obviously don't participate in such, as evidenced by the comments in the article.

    1. Aime F profile image81
      Aime Fposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Okay, so where’s the evidence that “most liberals” support boycotts? How are you measuring this to ensure objectivity?

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Well, maybe boycott isn't precisely accurate. Maybe campaigns to pressure companies into bowing to group sensibilities might be a better description? If not, the threat of boycott then the threat of lowered sales because of negative perception by some segments within the public.

        Examples would include actors losing lucrative contracts because comments made decades ago cause fear of loss of revenue for studios in upcoming movies. I heard the other day a journalist lost his job with Rolling Stone because of a fear of future lost sales due to outrage that he advised fraternities to bar entrance to their parties of girls who had been drinking prior to the event. It apparently was perceived as sexist.

        There are plenty of other examples.

        My point is that your personal offense, or mine, to remarks made should be limited to debate on those remarks, not attempting to cause real harm to their person,or career. It's vindictive. Free speech shouldn't involve such behavior which looks more like the product of a desire for retribution than reasoned rebuttal.

  4. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 13 months ago

    I see nothing wrong with what he said. His premise is that no pro life person would do it. He's right. That should be the case.

    I must say, and a pro choice NOT RIGHT WING person, I wouldn't abort/support abortion just because of what a baby could be in the future.

    Also, the argument about boycotting is nonsense. Lots of right wingers do it too. And they should if they want to, even if it is for stupid things.

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I agree that,individually, making a stand is a good thing. I think social media mobs are taking it to the extreme. And any unified and concerted effort to influence advertisers is a mob.

  5. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    IF we find the beginning of consciousness, it seems we could have a scientific consensus. I think it's likely safe to state, consciousness doesn't begin with the single-celled zygote, thus making the stem-cell debate ridiculous IMO.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Depends on what you call "consciousness".  Is a dog conscious?  Other animals?  If so, then it is not (necessarily) the beginning of human life.

      But certainly a zygote is not a human life.  It lives, but it is not human.  Not yet.

      1. Onusonus profile image76
        Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        And yet it is legal to kill something much more developed than a mere zygote. So when exactly does a zygote become viable?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Viable?  As in self supporting?  Around 16 years and 9 months.  Before that it requires someone else to provide it's needs.

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            That's cold. But even that number is increasingly iffy. I've seen liberal kids with the cut off well into the twenties.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              lol  LOL - you got me there!  Although with the increasing propensity to live with parents, on their dime, until the 30's or even 40's you may be understating the truth.

              1. Aime F profile image81
                Aime Fposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                And yet living with one’s parents until 30 or so is pretty darn normal throughout the rest of the world. Maybe a 20 or 30-something living with their parents as long as they’re welcome is smarter than trying to be independent in a housing market that’s at a record high?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  You may be right - it is probably smarter to live off of someone else, at least as long as they are happy to ante up the costs of supporting you.  That way you can use your own money (if you have any) to buy more toys and fun things to do.  And you'll probably have a much nicer place to live in that you could pay for yourself.

                  I'm sorry.  Call me old school, call me a fossil from the past, but sponging off of other people because you want more than you can afford is not acceptable.  Not to me.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    I'll bet you voluntarily left home at 9 years of age and have supported yourself with no help from anyone since then. You also had to walk to school and it was uphill both ways.  Right?

                2. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  +1000000000000000000000000000000000.

            2. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Nothing is wrong with that as long as the adults are attending graduate school & establishing careers.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I don't see anything wrong with it if all adult parties are chipping in and sharing costs.

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  +1000000000000000000000000000000, Live to Learn.

  6. Onusonus profile image76
    Onusonusposted 13 months ago

    Andrew Cuomo just passed a bill in New York allowing abortions up to birth. This is a pro death movement. Disgusting.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      "Under New York law, a woman’s health is not protected in the rare and tragic situation that a serious complication jeopardizes her health later in pregnancy; New York law only provides protection if a woman’s life is in danger."

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-y … on-poison/

      You left out a rather important part of the law - that being the phrase if a woman’s life is in danger.  I'm no doctor, but would find it pretty unusual, to say the least, to think that allowing a birth, by Cesarean if necessary, after labor has begun, would endanger a woman's life more than an abortion.  An abortion up to birth does not seem (legally) possible, then, and if done to save a life it is certainly not a "pro death movement".

      1. Onusonus profile image76
        Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Getting your facts from snopes? lol

        The law says if the womans health is at risk. That's a very broad statement, it could mean anything mental, physical, financial health. Whatever lame excuse they can produce to kill their own child. As you said, the physical health of a woman past the 24th week is exceedingly rare.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Exceedingly rare, yes.  That does not change the law, though.  Nor does it change that not only will abortions "up to birth" be exceedingly rare, but it also puts that "pro death movement" into it's proper place; that of empty rhetoric without connection to reality.

          And no, I very highly doubt that any court would consider "financial health" as a valid reason under law for a later term abortion and most surely not for an abortion just prior to birth.  That, too, is empty rhetoric designed to raise emotions rather than appeal to reason and reality.

          1. Onusonus profile image76
            Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I've never heard of a mother wishing to abort her child going to court to get the job done. I have however, heard many instances where the abortionists falsify data and bolster their numbers to get more government funding.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Your point?  That there are actual children killed in the womb (as opposed to a mere fetus or zygote)?

              Of course there are.  There are also people at every stage of life, from birth to 100 years old, that are murdered.  And that has zero to do with the question of abortion.

              Abortion hinges on the question of when a zygote becomes a human being, and while you seem positive you know the answer, you don't.  You don't get to define that point (and yes, it is a definition, not a fact) for everyone.

              1. Onusonus profile image76
                Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I never said that I know when a zygote becomes viable, in fact my whole point is it can't be figured out so they don't know if they are killing a zygote or a fetus. Neither seems to matter in New York.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  A zygote is a single, fertilized cell.  As soon as it duplicates itself, then, it is no longer a zygote - the term for a multi-celled growth in the uterus is "embryo".  Or perhaps a "tumor", depending on what the prediction for the future is.  Or, as it ages and develops some unspecified amount, a "fetus".

                  You asked when a zygote becomes "viable", and I answered the best I could as you didn't define what you meant by "viable".

                  But that's not the same as "human being".  And yes, you seen to have decided you know when a "fetus" becomes a "child", for you have yet to mention removing a non-human growth from the body.  It is always a "child" in spite of obviously not being any such thing.

                  1. Onusonus profile image76
                    Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Did you just refer to a baby as a tumor? Now that's real science... lol

        2. Aime F profile image81
          Aime Fposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          What a nice view of women you have. You either believe their life is not valuable enough to save or that they’re liars who want to kill a viable baby willy nilly.

          1. Onusonus profile image76
            Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            That's a pretty broad brush you are trying to paint with. Contrary to your beliefs not all women believe murdering babies is acceptable.

            You on the other hand, seem to believe that all babies are expendable.

            1. Live to Learn profile image82
              Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              So, you are saying your anti abortion view means women who might think about an abortion are of no value?

              1. Onusonus profile image76
                Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                No, it means I'm disagreeing with her. I know libs are being taught that words are violence, moral outrage is more important than facts, and if someone disagrees with you it means they are hateful, racist, sexist, etc. Contrary to the narrative, words are just words.

                1. Live to Learn profile image82
                  Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Hateful words, purposely designed to elicit a negative reaction may be just words but they do damage. Accusing women of murdering babies when having an abortion is designed to attack them emotionally.

                  Doing such does more to cement an opinion that the person who said them has no respect for women than anything else they could do.

            2. Aime F profile image81
              Aime Fposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              You seem awfully confused about what I believe.

  7. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 13 months ago

    The public health law is amended by adding a new article 25-A to
    read as follows:
                                  ARTICLE 25-A
                             REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT

    SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION.
      § 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE  PRACTITIONER  LICENSED,  CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-IN  HIS  OR  HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD  FAITH  PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR  WEEKS  FROM  THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT  THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2796

  8. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 13 months ago

    Like women need a man to tell them what to do with their bodies when they are those who carry the child. In many cases, economics and other unknown hardships play a factor in the decision whether  to rear the child or not.


    As a man, I don't feel qualified to make so important a decision for another human being. But that's just me, and I realize others feel compelled to do so no matter if they will never be in such a situation themselves. Surprise, surprise!!  hmm

  9. gmwilliams profile image84
    gmwilliamsposted 13 months ago

    Let's get back on topic.   Abortion is a highly controversial subject.  One is either for or against abortion.   Mr. Shapiro indicated that he doesn't believe in abortion.  He contended that all life is valuable even Hitler's(really, ugh?).   Mr. Shapiro is a staunchly conservative talk show host.   However, there are many variants in the abortion question.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)