From government accountability and oversight
Via WEBPAGE
Facebook, Google, WaPo all seek to undo climate realism
Facebook warns activist ‘fact-checker’ about Stossel video ‘going viral’
Funding Taxpayer Support Organizations
Readers may notice a variety of recent headlines such as “Google, YouTube, and the Climate Investigations Agency” and “Washington Post Wants Facebook To Shut Down PJ Media And Others For ‘Climate Denial’‘”. You may have even received a notification from Facebook that you were exposed to “climate misinformation” and warned to take appropriate precautions.
These are the latest iterations of the “verification of authenticity” genre. Censorship for COVID Claims seems merely an excuse to scratch a much larger itch. Emails obtained under the state’s open records law suggest this expansion is increasingly ominous and is at least partially taxpayer-funded.
What is happening is a campaign to drum up climate realism from the public square. After decades of doom, the climate movement still cannot overcome the skepticism of people about enacting an energy allocation agenda based on climate alarms. This comes despite the establishment media having previously dismissed one side of the “climate” science and policy debates while engaging in full-blown advocacy on behalf of the other. .
This censorship began to escalate recently. In 2018, former Democratic Senate staffer and now “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd said he would not be giving airtime to “climate protesters.” The Los Angeles Times forbids skeptics of the climate emergency from sending letters to its editor. BBC participation. That’s not enough either. So recently, Google announced “it will now block ads and monetize content that has issues with climate change alarms. This includes YouTube. ”
Late last year, Facebook signed an agreement with an “independent fact-checker,” called “Climate Response.” “Nick Clegg, the social media giant’s vice president of global affairs and communications, noted that Facebook “reduces the distribution of posts that its third-party fact-checkers say is not true”.
“Who conducts the sweeps? Obviously Facebook. For example, a Climate Response email asking participants to comment, opening with “Facebook contacted Climate Response to notify us of a John Stossel video that is going viral right now.” now (with 24 million views just 5 hours after it was published). ”
The top abolition targets were “Sceptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg, former Obama Energy Department Chief Scientist and CalTech CEO Steve Koonin, and eco-realist Michael Shellenberger. John Stossel and PragerU also promoted the mobilization of moderators, which led to Stossel to sue, claiming the silenced effort went too far and expanded into defamation.
Natural origin climate feedback at a university (University of California at Davis). A quick scan of its “fact check” shows that many public employees use their taxpayer-funded organizations in this way, on behalf of an ideological activism, movement currently devoted to eradicating the field of false thinking in order to finally allow politics to pass an elected agenda. Government Transparency Group Energy policy advocates letter of request to clarify the use of public institutions.
Products from several universities provide insight into the process, revealing a bit about how these things work and the thinking involved.
“We reported our findings to Facebook. Any users who have interacted with the post will be notified.”
“False information has been reported to Facebook.”
The recruiter of CF posts reached out to allies saying, “I am the science editor at Climate Feedback, a global coalition of scientists working to improve the accuracy of climate feedback. covering climate by providing expert feedback to readers, journalists, and technology platforms.” Her email tagline is “We’re working with Facebook to identify and combat misinformation – scientists’ judgment is essential to this process. When content is determined to be false or misleading, your contribution will provide feedback to all users who have interacted with that content. You can see examples of incorrect content flagged by us here.”
Result:
These products reflect a combination of basic speech policy – pay attention to what you see when you’re on the beat – even to broken window enforcement: not even to Climate 101 speech without No response:
… Complement it with regular raids of known haunts for the usual suspects and any other newcomers (including PragerU and WSJ, obviously), and you’ve got a Cop. Climate Speech is privatized.
Who conducts the sweeps? Obviously Facebook. For example, one email asked CF participants for comment, opening with “Facebook contacted Climate Feedback to alert us to a John Stossel video that is going viral right now (with 24 million USD). views only 5 hours after being published). ”
While it was certainly the interest of Stossel and his attorneys as they explored how the defamation charge was born, it also raised eyebrows. Article 230 problems with Facebook that are believed to be related to developing, not just content moderation.
Humorously, a recent UCLA product disclosure a new sensitization among some CF participants: anxiety about the doomsday deadlines of articles discourages interest in taking “climate action”. The letter suggests, quite hilariously, that skeptics are behind this (even if the author cites famous alarmists like Eric Holthaus as exemplary offenders).
“The rumors I’ve heard about an organized disinformation campaign attacking climate science/action from the opposite side – sow hopelessness and indifference by doom instead of denial. accept or trivialize the climate”.
It sounds like (perhaps contrived) “the people who cry” who, before the fall of Paris, would ride the subway in desperation, to discourage the populace. Really, there’s nothing the skeptics can’t do. Such almighty voices need to be silent.
It’s not all exciting. Like Black Heart Written recently in his piece for Spiked, “How Climate Lobbying Breaks Debate”, “Anyone who opposes strict climate policies will be seen as an enemy of Science.” learn.” And was kicked out of the public square.
This is not only troublesome but also dangerous. It is even reckless, as we have seen how courts allow “climate” vandals to waive accountability by declaring the defense ‘necessary’. “Oh, it was just a coal train…” “It was just a basis…” And, after all, climate change.
Of course, triggering such industrial vandalism will only breed more and harm individuals in the future seems all but certain: the alarmist’s claims are not limited to The climate is appropriating property, and so taking property is acceptable when necessary. The statement is pretty clear that Man-made climate change disasters are killing tens of thousands of people! With millions of others if the bad people are not stopped! Maybe force eating a partisan isn’t the best idea?
The media should allow than no less realistic and quite heated debates about climate instead of increasingly streamlined diets’We all agree that it was a disaster, ours [psst: THEIR!] error, and get worse‘.
And yet, a new era of censorship is clearly underway, with the goal of silencing political opposition and funded in part by the taxpayers being targeted.
Related
