Censorship can be performed only by a government. But, the Obama administration has granted status akin to a government branch to GFTM+RW (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Reddit, and Wikimedia Foundation) and a few other corporations. The means for that included subjecting citizen internet access to Title II restrictions (Obamanet), so that their actions to suppress scientific and political speech result in censorship. As mentioned in the Reply to The New York Times I experimented with distributing the climate realism message using advertising options on GFTM+R. The short report on this follows.
Twitter has behaved the worst. If it doesn’t like one tweet in a paid promotion, it halts all promotions by the account. This happened to me twice, and I stopped trying after that. Twitter bans tweets with “inaccurate content.” Twitter doesn’t even bother to phrase it as “content that we consider inaccurate.” It’s as if Twitter’s management considers itself an omniscient and omnipotent divine power. This is one of the “violating” tweets:
The notification from Twitter:
This account is ineligible to run Twitter Ads due to a policy violation by one or more users. Any active campaigns have been paused.
Twitter broadly disseminates and/or promotes some tweets without marking them as ads (and even when it does mark them, it usually does so by adding the almost unnoticeable word promoted in tiny font). If Twitter is deciding which tweets to deliver and which not to, it might be considered an accomplice in what I see as a coup attempt by Netflix and Chelsea Handler.
Google has censored and banned multiple my messages on its AdWords platform, and boasted about that to the NYT. A sample banned message:
Scientists blast climate alarm – Watch Nobel Winner in Physics.
Not a single distinguished US scientist agreed with the UN global warming agenda
Below are screenshots, showing some of my Google Adwords messages disapproved by Google for alleged misrepresentation (status Disapproved):
Some of the ads were disapproved in the middle of the campaign run. Unnecessarily to say, none of these ads or their landing pages contain any misrepresentation. One of the landing pages contains a well known list of the most distinguished scientists – opponents of climate alarmism. One ad, containing the word CO2, was banned for “excessive capitalization”. Additionally, some ads were disapproved initially and approved after the appeal. The messages that show up as disapproved are those that were not approved even after an appeal, or were banned after having started to run. Some ads were approved only after days of delay. Google has also threatened me with suspension of my AdWords account. Multiple previously approved ads were suddenly banned about a week before the Paris conference re-enactment on December 12.
In the same time, Google banned my message about the semi-annual “anniversary” of the shooting of the building of Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer in the University of Alabama in the middle of the run, and stopped the campaign. The message was running in Alabama.
Google probably learned something toward the end of the experiment, stopped banning my new creatives, and had a customer support person to talk to me and help me make small changes in the text of the ads for approval.
Microsoft LinkedIn
Microsoft LinkedIn has banned multiple messages, both from the start and in the middle of the campaign. The official explanation was always the same: hate, violence, discrimination and opposition. Which one of them caused them to ban the following messages?
LinkedIn also practices censorship by keeping messages in review indefinitely. In the screenshot part below, one creative is rejected, and another one is “In Review” for almost a month.
Microsoft LinkedIn has also probably learned something toward the end of the experiment, and almost stopped banning my new creatives.
Reddit banned my promoted posts under false and offensive pretexts, but Reddit is much smaller than Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft, and is not worthy of your attention. Reddit is also a cheap place to receive death wishes. It cost me less than $80 per death wish message.
Facebook has been acting squeaky clean. None of my messages have been banned for content.
Conclusions
The theory of parallel government might not withstand legal scrutiny, but these companies, each of them being a monopoly in multiple markets, also collude in the markets where they are expected to compete. Simultaneous refusal to deliver my ads is just another piece of evidence. More evidence of collusion is various agreements and understandings in which they entered with the European Commission and German government to suppress various content that those governments dislike and to advance “alternative narrative.” They also collude by hiring the same “fact checkers” and the same censors. For example, the foreign student that deleted the President’s Twitter account also worked for Google. As a side note, a monopolistic collusion between competitors is not the same as becoming a monopoly through other means. Such collusion is a criminal offense. Officers and directors of violating companies might face prison terms from up to one year (per 15 U.S. Code § 24) to up to ten years (15 U.S. Code § 2).
Of note, Wikipedia is supported and promoted by Google and has acknowledged relationships with it.
End Notes
A typical Microsoft LinkedIn censorship notification:
Thanks for submitting your ad for the C02 campaign for review. This email is to let you know that an ad within this campaign will need to be revised before it can run on LinkedIn.
Here’s what’s wrong:
- Hate, violence, discrimination and opposition: LinkedIn does not allow ads that include hate speech or show or promote violence or discrimination against others or are personal attacks on any individual, group, company or organization or otherwise advocating against or targeting any individual, group, company or organization.
Please update the ad and resubmit it as soon as possible
Here, “opposition” means negative ads about persons and organizations. I do not dispute their right to disapprove ads for opposition, as long as they use it uniformly and not as a pretext to ban climate realist ads.
A Twitter promotion ban notification (emphasis is mine):
We’ve reviewed and confirmed the ineligibility decision for Twitter Ads based on our Quality policy. Violating content includes, but is not limited to, the use of excessive or unnecessary capitalization, punctuation, image and video content that is of low quality or distasteful, incorrect grammar and/or spelling, content that is inaccurate or unclear and where more than 50% of the landing page contains advertisements. If the violating content has been removed, please respond and we will re-review for policy compliance.
‘Censorship can be performed only by a government. ‘
Just not true!
Simon, I think he means government in the effective sense, such as I can’t censor your speech here on this site, but Mr. Watts (and those he delegates such powers to; Moderators) can.
I think it is a definition of censorship. If a newspaper refuses to publish letters and articles that go against its politics, it is not censorship. But if a government delegated an authority to censor to a private corporation, then the censorship is performed by that corporation. Of course, the US government has no censorship authority, so it cannot delegate it legally. The Obamanet order was an illegal delegation of such non-existent authority.
Literally true, but it’s not the whole story. Groups with enough monopoly power do effectively censor, and need to be stopped.
Let’s start by moving to alternative media when we can. Who else here is on Gab? @jdgalt
The only groups with “enough monopoly power” would be government.
Plenty of entities can censor. It is only unconstitutional when government does it.
I have been banned from making any comments in the Guardian but they have not responded to any demand to have me removed from their list so advertisers are paying for at least on non customer in their base. When it comes to climate change censorship is near total and heavily in favour of promoting the cause here in the UK with the BBC with a theoretical charter guaranteeing impartiality one of the greatest offenders.
What I find particularly revolting is the way a moron like Prince Charles can get headline publicity for insults about his superiors when we dared to doubt the integrity and competence of the climate fraternity. people often trained engineers or signal analysts who have now been proven correct by the ultimate test of hindsight.
It would appear this triumph of arrogance over competence by scientists is nothing new as today I watched a program about Beatrix potter who first could not even appear before the scientists to put her paper claiming they were wrong and when it was presented by a man on her behalf the ridiculed it. It is now accepted as being totally correct in the assumptions about the blatant errors of the scientists.
I avoid organizations that practice censorship, especially ones that target AGW skeptics.
pyeatte writes “I avoid organizations that practice censorship, especially ones that target AGW skeptics.”
Then you avoid all organizations everywhere. It isn’t an organization if it doesn’t publish one or more points of view while suppressing competing points of view.
In my entire life I have found only one way to achieve true freedom of speech; and that’s the unmoderated (alt) Usenet newsgroups.
When I have previously posted that large corporations are dangerous to our freedom, the almost immediate reply is something like: We don’t have to buy their products so they can’t take away our freedom.
Large corporations are rapidly being taken over by SJWs. The good news is that, once politics becomes Job #1 at the corporation, it rapidly loses customers until it collapses.
Twitter is SJW Central. It’s also a sinking ship. I’ve seen a lot of people say they’re avoiding Google services since they sacked that guy for his beliefs a while back.
But surely the real question is, if a Christian baker has to make cakes for people whose beliefs they disagree with, how come GoogTwitBook can reject anyone they like?
Oh, I forgot: one law for you and another law for me.
Actually they reject people they don’t like; not people they like !
G
Wrong. large companies use SJWs as part of their branding
iot was in the 1990s that large corporations realised that they could sell product to huge swathes of ‘anti-capitalist eco warriors’ by branding themselves as ‘anti-capitalist eco warriors’
And so the virtue signalling began
“Wrong. large companies use SJWs as part of their branding”
Uh, no.
If these companies cared about their branding, they’d also care about profits, which start to sink as soon as they let SJWs take over. Twitter, as I said, is a glaring example of a company that’s now run by SJWs and sinking fast as a result. Disney have let SJWs take over Star Wars, and that’s also collapsing.
Twenty years ago, yes, they were doing it for virtue-signalling. But that just gave the SJWs a foot in the door, to where they now run large chunks of companies, if not the company as a whole.
@MarkG: Twitter is not the only “SJW Central”. What the current scandal in Hollywood (about the casting couch which has not been news to anybody since WW2) really teaches is that SJWs are now in such total control there, they can openly purge anybody who hurts their feelings.
Google and Twitter show that Silicon Valley is getting that bad too. The silver lining is that it’s quite possible to make movies and operate web sites outside of those places and “communities,” provided that the dozen or so Big Media multinationals are not allowed to monopolize essential facilities such as the Internet domain name service (which they are already using to silence opponents whenever they can).
Large companies can’t take your freedom away, only government can do that.
Large companies can do things that we don’t like, but then again, so can individuals.
Large companies, (i.e. pipeline or utilities) can take away your freedom (i.e. owning land) via eminent domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Nope, it’s government that takes away your land via eminent domain. They aren’t supposed to do it on behalf of individuals or companies, but thanks to a liberal supreme court, that restriction has been ignored in recent decades.
Try again MarkW….it’s the utility or pipeline company that takes the land.
Only if the utility or pipeline company is owned by the government. Most of the time the company asks, and the government complies.
No private concern has eminent domain authority.
A private company, such as a private electric utility, or a private pipeline company TAKES the land from the owner. The government doesn’t take anything. The private company uses the principle of eminent domain to do so. When a private citizen goes to court to block a pipeline company or such from TAKING their property……the citizen isn’t suing the government, they are suing the private company.
Assuming what you image is actually happening, it can only be because the government has some how assigned it’s eminent domain priviledges to the private company.
Private companies have never had eminent domain priviledges, only govt has that. As the constitution spells out.
BTW, your only example to date was a case of government action. Kelo was a case of a local government using eminent domain to seize land and then selling that land to a private corporation.
MarkW, you do not know how eminent domain works. A private company, be it a pipeline, railroad or utility (water, gas/electric)…. USES the principle of eminent domain to TAKE the land privately held. The “government” doesn’t take the land, the private company does so. You have a silly misconception of what eminent domain is, for you, you think the “government” takes the land, then gives it to the private company. That is not how it works. The private company takes it USING the principle of eminent domain. I suggest you educate yourself on the mechanism involved, and stop making a fool of yourself. My example just shows how out of control “private companies” have become.
PS MarkW, in the Kelo v New London case, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled: “….that the government’s delegation of its eminent domain power to a private entity was constitutional under the Connecticut Constitution.”
.
.
Look up the definition of the word “delegation”
Hey Bob, remember the Good Old Days? When the saying was “kill a Commie for Christ”? I miss the good old days. And you?
By the way I once worked for the 7th largest corporation in the world and they behaved really well with respect to interaction with the public. I was Employee of the Year and got to have breakfast with the CEO/Chairman of the Board. He had dry toast and tea because he had ulcers (I had a waffle, scrambled eggs, bacon, OJ, and coffee). Later they threw him in jail because he bribed somebody in Venezuela, a great example of large corporations self-reporting. Yes, I miss the Good Old Days.
“Do you believe that a single molecule of CO2 can warm the entire globe one degree (for ease of arithmetic)?”
No.
If I knew how many molecules of CO2 existed, then it would be easy to figure out how many halvings are needed to get down to that one molecule, and then you will know how much of an increase in global warming can be attributed to a change from zero to one molecule. Of course, calculating the marginal impact of currently existing CO2 molecules is fairly easy since you simply divide the global warming anomaly by how many CO2 molecules exist.
The gas law that governs their temperatures formally mathematically forbids co2 in air warming it by assigning both Air and CO2 energy constants, CO2 getting the lower energy one.
G. Kronen writes: “The gas law that governs their temperatures formally mathematically forbids co2 in air warming it by assigning both Air and CO2 energy constants”
I know the chemical composition of CO2, it is hinted by its letters, but what is the chemical composition of Air and what is its energy constant?
Many things can be banned, but the freezing cold will get some folk questioning so-called “global warming”.
In the US belief in the junk science appears to follow pretty much party political lines. GOP are unbelievers and Dems believers by and large. Under these circs it is much easier for people to flip than it is in Europe. The brainwashing there has been Universal and most people are believers. A severe winter in the US is liable to flip people’s opinion whereas the same thing in Europe would be more likely dismissed as just weather.
The thing is though we have all been lectured at for nearly half a century now that temperatures follow carbon dioxide – even though the ice core data blew that clean out of the water – and that we are undergoing runaway global warming. Half a century later as co2 levels are still rising a cryogenic winter is surely irrefutable evidence that the runaway warming bit at least is simply untrue.
No but it is irrefutable evidence that the Temperature / CO2 relationship is NOT logarithmic.
Negative numbers or ratios don’t have logarithms. And please don’t lecture me about gamma functions.
G
They say the climate sensitivity is measured in degrees per doubling of CO2.
For ease of arithmetic let’s say that it gets one degree warmer every time the CO2 doubles. For that case, it means the temperature is the base two logarithm of the CO2 concentration. It seems pretty simple.
What am I missing?
Here in the UK it seems every time we get freezing cold, the CAGW zealots quietly say WEATHER!
On the other hand, any unusually hot weather they always screech CLIMATE.
What I can’t quite get is all the graphs shown on this site (and I have been studying them for 10 years) seem to look the same.
They all end in a Hockey Stick. Maybe I’m missing something? Mainly the data seems to have been fudged to fit their ideology?
I will add, I am not a scientist but a careful observer who admires the wealth of knowledge I’ve come across on this site.
Happy New Year!
Jeff 😉
The global temperature has gone up in steps since the mid eighteen hundreds. link The front of each step will look like a hockey stick. The UAH satellite record shows a relatively flat trend from 1979 to 1998, then an El Nino caused step, then the pause, then another El Nino caused step in 2016. link
Early IPCC graphs honestly showed the MWP and LIA and did not end with a hockey stick blade. link That was a problem for the warmists which they duly ‘fixed’.
If we consider the current ten thousand year interglacial, the modern warming looks unremarkable, and not much like a hockey stick. link
Whether or not a temperature graph looks like a hockey stick depends on the time period it describes and (sadly) on the motivation of the folks processing the data and drawing the graph.
commieBob says:
They say the climate sensitivity is measured in degrees per doubling of CO2.
For ease of arithmetic let’s say that it gets one degree warmer every time the CO2 doubles. For that case, it means the temperature is the base two logarithm of the CO2 concentration. It seems pretty simple.
What am I missing?
_____________________________________________________________
Do you believe that a single molecule of CO2 can warm the entire globe one degree (for ease of arithmetic)?
[ – if we start with the first CO2 molecule, the second is a doubling ]
Do you believe that a single molecule of CO2 for each square meter of Earth’s surface area raises the Earth’s temperature 47 degrees? (Again, assuming a single degree for each doubling. Earth has roughly 2^47 square meters of surface area, and that represents 47 doublings.)
So it should be clear to you that your proclaimed logarithmic climate sensitivity for CO2 does not hold true for very small concentrations of CO2. Shall we look how well your claim holds up with very large concentrations of CO2?
Clearly, the logarithmic relationship of CO2’s climate sensitivity does not hold true for all concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Would you provide the range of CO2 concentrations where this purported logarithmic relationship holds true and how you derived those values?
[??? .mod]
” So it should be clear to you that … ”
Presumably, it is also clear that, if you follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then the real world cannot be described by any mathematical function?
No. All I did was to observe that climate sensitivity is conventionally expressed in terms of degrees per doubling of CO2. Mathematically, that relationship is logarithmic.
You are correct to observe that every formula in science and engineering has a region in which it produces useful results. Trying to use a formula outside the range in which it is valid is a bad mistake.
When I was a pup, a professor complained that students would try to use formulas in situations where they are wildly inappropriate. Somewhere mid-career I realized that the problem isn’t restricted to students.
Thank you for your reply commieBob – you said:
” … climate sensitivity is conventionally expressed in terms of degrees per doubling of CO2. Mathematically, that relationship is logarithmic.”
I take exception to the ‘conventionally expressed’ proclamation that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is logarithmic. If it does not hold true across all concentrations of CO2 then the proclamation needs to be refined. The inability to define the range of CO2 concentrations tells me that this ‘logarithmic’ claim is based solely on curve fitting and has no scientific derivation.
[ Not sure what ‘mod’ was questioning in my previous comment. ]
Ohm’s Law doesn’t hold for all situations. That doesn’t invalidate Ohm’s Law. It just means that you can’t use it mindlessly.
Here’s a link to a history of the development of climate sensitivity. You will note that there are all kinds of approaches, ranging from the purely theoretical to the purely empirical.
My inability to define the range of CO2 concentrations over which climate sensitivity is logarithmic doesn’t prove much. As far as I can tell, no scientist on either side of the debate has much trouble accepting the concept. Call me lazy, but if Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry use the conventional definition, I will take their word for it.
Never could stand Barry Soreto. His constant posturing to his followers with his selfies. IMO I don’t think he would have made a second term without him making all the illegals’ US citizens.
He did anything he could to trash America. He was probably America’s worst president in history and a traitor to his kind.
I do hope Trump succeeds in overturning every single one of Obama’s policies and ignore the hysteria that seems to be prevalent in most of the world.
We’re not short of leftists here in the UK. We have the BBC, Channel4 et al, spoon feeding us CAGW propaganda all the time with one journalist accusing Donald Trump of being anti-science because he more or less told the French where to go on the Paris Climate Accord.
I sincerely wish we had Mr Trump as our Prime Minister.
“I sincerely wish we had Mr Trump as our Prime Minister.”
I agree. Even someone who had actually read “The Art of the Deal” would be a useful advance over the current Brexit negotiating team!
Cold is Hot, Black is White…
Leo Goldstein,
Thank you for showing, with documentation, just how the social media conglomerates are censuring opposition to the CAGW narrative. Good work.
So you wrote “the left smear and murder” and you expected an easy ride? The true test is very simple: place an ad leading with “the right smear and murder” and see if it is banned. Probably not.
h’mm, I mean probably yes!
Libs are triggered by everything now……damn if I would present myself as that weak and dependent
😎
Just today I wondered just how long it will be before those like to tear down Civil War monuments will claim the “Cotton Bowl” is, somehow, racist.
I too have been wondering how much longer it will be before those “wackos”, ….. who love to deface, tear down and/or destroy anything Civil War related, ……. launches an all-out attack in and against the State of West Virginia because there are literally HUNDREDS of places, buildings, schools, monuments, events, etc., that are named in honor of CSA General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, the 2nd most famous Confederate commander after General Robert E. Lee.
Me thinks there are more things named in honor of General “Stonewall” Jackson than there are in honor of Senator Robert “Porkbarrel” Byrd.
West Virginia split from Virginia because of the Civil War and it sided with the North.
Not exactly, the people in western Virginia did NOT split from Virginia to form the State of West Virginia because that would have been illegal because the COTUS forbids such an act.
President Lincoln violated the Constitution by creating the State of West Virginia via a per se Executive Order because he desperately needed the B&O Rail Road line to the Ohio River in order to win the Civil War. It’s the same reason Lincoln signed the Emaciation Proclamation.
My site posts get banned all the time, and I write about them. The key is, what to do about it.
Congress Should Break Up Hatebook into Independent Identity Facebooks
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/congress-should-break-up-hatebook-into-multiple-independent-identity-facebooks/
I have fought this battle a few times with Google AdWords.. Soldier on… It takes persistence some times. One strategy I find works well is changing the ad to a question: What do Nobel Prize winners say about climate change? Or Climate Change – should we be alarmed? You will likely get more clicks, including clicks from those who may be more open minded. Plus you should pay less per click. And it is hard to say asking a question is “misrepresentation”
I am very surprised that the Law Departments of these large organizations have allowed this to happen.
Seems to me these organizations and their directors and officers are guilty of serious criminal offences.
Can the legal scholars who read wattsup comment and expand upon the illegality of these actions?
Anti-trust laws (monopolistic trade practices) should apply, among others.
Next steps?
Have them charged.
If guilty, what would be suitable penalties under the law?
Fines and imprisonments?
OR JUST SHUT THEM DOWN?
Allen,
“Can the legal scholars who read wattsup comment and expand upon the illegality of these actions?”
I think there is problem with than line of reasoning . . here anyway . . for Mr. Watts does the very same things, as you can see for yourself above in About – Policy –
“Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread.
For the same reasons as the absurd topics listed above ….”
He feels that any deviation from his own views on any of those topics is “absurd” by default (in advance of any new to him potential evidence or logics !?!) and he really does censor people based on those views . . (And while I greatly appreciate his role in forestalling what to my mind is the virtual “enthronement” of the Climate Change Clan as infallible oracles of absolute truth, I see him as every bit as guilty of the same “crimes” against freedom of speech/thought.)
Well John Knight. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is completely wrong. You missed the top part, about this being my home on the Internet. It’s my virtual living room, as such. I’m not required to grant entry to everyone, nor am I required to listen to topics in my living room that I don’t care for.
See, here’s the thing, and there’s really no way of getting around this for the purpose of your argument; I have over 2 million comments on WUWT, making it not only the most viewed website on climate change, but also the most commented on. The formula I devised and enforce has proven successful, and will continue, even if a misguided few want to accuse me of stifling free speech, which isn’t guaranteed in private enterprises like mine.
If you want to test that, try this: at your workplace, start shouting from your desk that your boss and the company you work for is unfair, treats you poorly, and pays low wages. Then after they take you aside and quietly explain why that sort of behavior isn’t accepted there, accuse them of stifling your free speech rights.
Let us know how that works out.
Anthony Watts,
May be a little OT, but for the most part, seems to work for the NFL (except the low wages part).
Happy New Year, and I’ll put my wine down.
…free speech, which isn’t guaranteed in private enterprises like mine.
Amen!
Poor Richard, that stink is with you where-ever you go, isn’t it.
You just have to blame someone else, as a normal loonie-far-left standard strategy.
None of your so-called “real scientists” (roflmao), would ever come here, because they can’t face actual debate on real science.
Richard, nice of you to dictate what someone elses living room should look like. Why don’t you go out and get your own popular & award winning living room and make it your way?
(drive-by troll alert)…
The point is that you’re a drive-by troll and you’re not worth wasting the time of day on (probably never been here before and will never come here again; your ilk can’t stand the scrutiny)…
Poor Richard, real science is NOT the Junior High stuff you failed at !!
Come on brain-unabled troll,
Present some real science that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming a convective atmosphere.
Show us your “Real science”
Poor Richard gets some of his own sewer pushed back at him and starts whimpering.
And remains TOTALLY EMPTY of any real science.
Can’t even support the very basis of his fantasy AGW religion..
so sad…. so pathetic.
Not worth bothering with.
Yap on, little troll. !!
Look at your fist post,,… then tell us about attack and denigrate.
I could keep asking until you produce some actual science to support the CO2 warming myth.
But I know you won’t. You are NOT CAPABLE of doing so.
So, you now rant to yourself. !!, little troll.
Wow. I’m surprised no “real scientists” visit this site. Any scientists out there? I think Richard is confusing scientists with the high priests of his religion. What a loser.
ps.. In your next rant, please give us the names of 5 of these “real” scientists.
Should be funny 🙂
I bet Richard follows ‘scientists’ ( like Mann) that prescribe to these principles in regard to CAGW:
1. Absence of doubt
2. Intolerance of debate
3. Appeal to authority
4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur
Am I right?
Anthony,
“You missed the top part, about this being my home on the Internet.”
No, I noticed that, and considered the matter at some length. I don’t begrudge you your “censorship” power of rights, but you too can still be wrong . . like in that assertion ; )
“The formula I devised and enforce has proven successful, and will continue…”
Everything is evolving, I suggest, sir . . and your last metaphor is (technically ; ) bassakwards, it seems to me ; )
Little Rickie can’t provide proof of CO2 warming , and can’t name 5 “real” scientists.
Pretty much a dead loss, in anybody’s books.
An embarrassment to AGW cultists. !
You’ll have to be far, far beyond any pale befor the mods here step on the brake. I’ve never seen a blog where opposing opinions can find their way into the open with less regulation or obstruction. It’s not the Alarmistas who take freedom of speech seriously. Think about it.
“You’ll have to be far, far beyond any pale befor the mods here step on the brake.”
Unfortunately. Nine years ago, and even five years ago, moderation was stricter and the site was better as a result.
I see Richard is trying to push the troll line that only science that he agrees with qualifies as science.
Next he will be telling us that those who disagree with him need to be jailed.
Wow, just saw this. A couple of really disgusting drive-by trolls.
Utter nonsense from John Knight – but an effective diversion..
Repeating my core message:
I am very surprised that the Law Departments of these large organizations have allowed this to happen.
I suggest that these organizations and their directors and officers are guilty of serious criminal offences.
Anti-trust laws (monopolistic trade practices) should apply, among others.
Next steps?
Have them charged.
If guilty, apply suitable penalties under the law.:
– Fines and imprisonments
– OR JUST SHUT THEM DOWN!
Certainly not. If you’re doing this, then yor are on the very same low level as the Alarmistas are. Freedom of Speech isn’t a one way road.
There are at least two areas of law that I suggest are pertinent in these instances of internet censorship– “Competition Law” and “Freedom of Speech”.
This comment is about Competition Law.
[excerpt]
“The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but RATHER TO PRESERVE A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM ABUSES.[4]” [my CAPS; end of excerpt]
There seems to be a wide range of actions that the Courts can apply when faced with monopolistic trade practices. Splitting up the company into several parts was done in some famous cases – such as Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) and United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911).
Splitting up the company could be a practical solution for a major internet carrier that holds a dominant position in the marketplace. However I find their censorship practices sufficiently offensive that SHUTTING THEM DOWN would be a preferable alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or “competition law”) passed by Congress in 1890 under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. It allowed certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be competitive, and recommended the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts.
… The specific sense from 19th-century America used in the law refers to a type of trust which combines several large businesses for monopolistic purposes – to exert complete control over a market – though the law addresses monopolistic practices even if they have nothing to do with this specific legal arrangement.[2] In most countries outside the United States, antitrust law is known as “competition law”.
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[3] “Innocent monopoly”, or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but RATHER TO PRESERVE A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM ABUSES.[4]
99% of the time (probably higher) anti-trust is used by companies who find buying politicians to be cheaper than actually competing in the marketplace.
ALLEN,
“Utter nonsense from John Knight – but an effective diversion..”
No evidence or reasoning required to accuse people like that? Hmm . . Big time scientific thinker, eh ; )
Look, it is what it is, Anthony censors speech based on his personal views, and I feel he undermines his (and his post contributors and commenters) frequent insistence that skepticism is integral to scientific reasoning by doing so.
Much as the “climate alarmists” undermine their case ( feel) by holding massive shindigs all over the world, and having spokespersons whose “carbon footprints” are huge compared to those of we pleabs they lecture to abut our carbon footprints, I feel it is better for those who advocate scientific reasoning to model it, when possible . . lest “our” efforts (including Anthony’s) seem hypocritical or superficial to those we seek to convince . .
Mod – Anthony does NOT ‘censor speech based on his personal views’. He specifically tell his moderators to give more ‘leeway’ to those who oppose his views than to those who support him. I’d like to see you provide empirical proof for your assertion. The only thing I, as a moderator, have been tasked with doing, is to remove ad hominems and profanity, I don’t edit for content (regradless of how much I disagree) and I resent any assertion that I do. — Mod
“Anthony does NOT ‘censor speech based on his personal views’. ”
Of course he does, and I have been “censored” several times (for things of than than ad hominems and
profanity).
“I’d like to see you provide empirical proof for your assertion.”
Sure thing, check out my second comment here, and Anthony’s response.
I could go get more, if you feel unconvinced . .
Dear Mr. Knight,
You have 561 comments here, going back to 11/4/2016 and we have a comment policy which you’ve read, and stated you disagree with, so I’m not really all that concerned with your complaints.
Five of your comments were snipped in a thread by a moderator which were quite off-topic, you protested, and the moderator explained why, you stopped the off topic comments and even thanked him, here. So, it does seem you are able to follow our policy.
The relevant policy section:
At some point, nearly every regular commenter runs afoul of the policy, sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally, sometimes comically. Most just deal with it and move on.
If you don’t like the policy here, you are not obligated to continue, and can comment elsewhere. You have a choice, I’m just not interested in your complaints about our policy, sorry. Please don’t waste my time further.
[edited for clarity about two minutes after posting -AW]
Well, Anthony, if you give me your word that you will not censor my response(s), I will go to the trouble of composing a serious one . .
A sample;
“The relevant policy section:
“Some off topic comments may get deleted, don’t take it personally, it happens. Commenters that routinely lead threads astray in areas that are not relevant or are of personal interest only to them may find these posts deleted.”
Well, as I tried to ask you the last time we spoke (paraphrasing since it was censored then) What if I was just responding to what others posted, as “here” (there now ; ) ?
I asked you if you w4re sure you weren’t just reacting to me, because I challenged things that people who (apparently) see things as you do posted. As in, I have never seen anyone saying disparaging things about “religion” (your sense not mine, it seems to me …) but I have been slammed repeatedly for responding to them, it seems to me.
In short, your “policies” in this regard are to me a set up, for “selective enforcement”.
If you don’t like the policy here, you are not obligated to continue … ”
Same as anywhere, right? It doesn’t mean no one is censoring anyone, right?”
“You have a choice”
To me, that is very far off topic . . certainly on this post. It does sort of demonstrate why I responded as I did initially. I feel.
I your “argument” boils down to you’ve got the power . . I rest my case ; )
My reply to John L. Knights:
“As in, I have never seen anyone saying disparaging things about “religion” censored…
Well sir, you don’t see the comments that get trapped by the spam filter, or the comments that don’t get published because they contained filth or four letter words. Per policy. Those types of comments don’t see the light of day, per policy.
As for everything else, “tough noogies”. Either comment or don’t, but further commenting means you accept the commenting policy.
JohnKnight writes “I rest my case”
Well that’s a relief! But since you invoke courtroom metaphor, consider this more of a summary judgment kind of thing with a judge (blog owner) and bailiff (moderator).
You can, for now anyway, start your own blog or even a fully equipped website and write pretty much anything you care to write.
Oops, please read;
“As in, I have never seen anyone saying disparaging things about “religion” censored…
Huh? I’m not talking about “filth or four letter words”, I’m talking about people saying disparaging things about “religion”, and not getting censored or warned for doing so . . yet me getting censored or warned for challenging their claims/insinuations. Not “filtered” stuff, but stuff that appears on my screen . .
(I’d sure like to see that promise ; )
I don’t owe you anything.
Pick another subject, or thread, or go someplace else. You’ve had your say.
Well, I’m gonna “risk it” anyway . .
To me, it seems you erupted in an ad hominem attack flurry, not bothering to argue the points I made, or positions I took, but instead you hurled personal insults based on stuff you saw in your imagination. You generated images of me standing on tables and yelling (about my employer, Mr. don’t owe me anything ; ) and so on in the other reader’s minds. Alinsky style brutishness to me.
If you disagree with my assessment that you would encounter some problems as a champion against censorship, why not say that, and explain why? I didn’t chastise you for censoring, and I really do think it’s your right to do so if you wish.
I was just responding to someone else suggesting the good ship Watts might be useful for spearheading an assault on those who censor . . because here in Wattsville, the is censoring. Pretty basic logic it seems to me, but of course you’re free to make your case that I’m wrong . . You know, evidence and reasoning and such?
JohnKnight writes (among other things): “Alinsky style brutishness to me.”
A worthy mention; clearly it is on your mind. let us review a few of these Alinsky rules and see how you are using them.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
You imagine that Mr. Watts has a rule that says “no censorship” and you are trying to make him live up to this rule.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Except that here it seems not to be working. My theory is that ridicule works on sheep who fear being outcast from the flock. It doesn’t work on libertarians who don’t have a flock. The power of ridicule exists where a consensus matters for some reason and you can designate someone as not being in the consensus. Entire series of television entertainments exist on who gets expelled, “Survivor” being an example.
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.
So it seems.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on.
Until it becomes a drag.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
What you should do is have your own blog. Maybe you do already.
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
Make it about Anthony Watts.
The thing to understand about Saul Alinsky is that he was writing to community leaders, communities of sheep easily led by these tactics. These things don’t work on wolves or sheepdogs.
Is that sufficient empirical evidence, Michael? I aim to please ; )
“Alinsky style brutishness to me.”
My goodness, now you’ve moved to ad hominems because you aren’t getting your way and don’t like our comment policy here.
What a petulant viewpoint.
Citing Allan Macrae at the beginning of this exchange:
“Utter nonsense from John Knight – but an effective diversion..”
Michael2 makes a good point.
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Except that here it seems not to be working. My theory is that ridicule works on sheep who fear being outcast from the flock. It doesn’t work on libertarians who don’t have a flock. The power of ridicule exists where a consensus matters for some reason and you can designate someone as not being in the consensus. Entire series of television entertainments exist on who gets expelled, “Survivor” being an example.
Yes, that’s it exactly. Because I really don’t give a carp what John Knight thinks. If he doesn’t like the policy, he can go elsewhere, or he can keep it up until he runs afoul of the policy one too many times, and per policy find his comments simply deleted.
Anthony,
Definition of ad hominem (Webster’s)
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect …
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made …
It is not an ad hominem by default to mention that it seemed like someone committed an ad hominem (even if their name is Anthony Watts ; ) . . it would depend on whether the suggestion is based on what the person actually contended/argued. And mine was in this case. Which doesn’t mean I was necessarily right, but it does take us out of the realm of ad hominem.
That is not true, I contend, with your “reaction” to my mention of what it seemed like to me;
“My goodness, now you’ve moved to ad hominems because you aren’t getting your way and don’t like our comment policy here.”
That’s OBVIOSLY an attack on my character, and contains no substantive response to what I actually contended. It amounts, logically speaking, to a claim that it is impossible that you could have made ad momentum attacks, while making them . . I say.
“That’s OBVIOSLY an attack on my character…”
No, I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure I’d know (and you’d really know) when I’m attacking you.
Michael,
“JohnKnight writes (among other things): “Alinsky style brutishness to me.”
A worthy mention; clearly it is on your mind. let us review a few of these Alinsky rules and see how you are using them.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
You imagine that Mr. Watts has a rule that says “no censorship” and you are trying to make him live up to this rule.”
I have no idea where you got the idea that “[I] imagine that “Mr. Watts has a rule that says “no censorship” . . And since I already told him that I feel he has the right to censor (twice), I’m wondering if you’ve actually read my comments . .
“Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
And . . ? What does that have to with me? Just reciting such a thing is not much of an argument, it seems to me . . And that goes for Anthony’s chiming in too. Make a freaking argument/case for goodness sake, this is guilt by finger pointing, a far as I can tell . . ; )
Like I said, you’ve had your say, and this argument is getting tiresome, not to mention pointless.
Good day sir.
Well done, Mr. Goldstein!
Your brilliant exposé will not change the climate thugs one iota,
but your piercing beam of evidence will have this powerful effect:
thinking, rational, liberty-loving, people who examine your evidence will turn away from the CO2 (<– oh, I beg your pardon, was that TOO MUCH CAPITALIZATION?) hu$tlers' nasty, unscientific, drool in disgust.
How grateful I am that about 26 years ago, a man who left part of his heart in the Ukraine came to the United States to be a valiant, determined, warrior for truth and freedom.
Будьте здорові!
Hey Janice…..Happy New Year!!!….I predict you’re going to have a great year!
Happy New Year to you, Latitude dude! 🙂 That sounds GREAT! (please, do not tell me you used one of the IPCC’s climate models…..) 🙂
I’ll pile in on Latitude’s good wishes Janice!
Happy New Year to all!
Including and especially, Janice!
May everyone have a wonderful New Year that delivers everything they need!
Janice,
You know better than that! Their models have been so bad that they claim now that they don’t predict, they only “forecast” or “project.” Talk about splitting semantic hairs. I think “prophesy” is best, but been watching too much Harry Potter over the weekend. Love your posts and Happy New Year.
Theo! 🙂 HAPPY NEW YEAR, to you, too. How kind, very kind, of you to take the time to brighten my afternoon. With all the greetings here, 2018 is off to a good start. And may this next 365.25-day journey around the Sun bring to you and yours all you hope and long for (as well as need). Take care.
*************
Hi, Phil R — Thank you! That compliment was a cup of cold water to a soul who is weary of looking out her castle window… watching… watching… and seeing… nothing but bleak terrain to the horizon. However! “A horizon is only the limit of our vision” — thus, I continue to “trust and know,” that what is very good lies out there… somewhere… Also, I can close my eyes anytime I wish and memories of JOY and LOVE give me wings to fly far away from the desert and swamp; remembering… I am happy, once again.
“Prophesy.” lol — Except, for one thing — they would never make the grade as genuine prophets, i.e., those whose words are found in the ancient Jewish writings. You had to be 100% correct or you were NOT a “prophet,” you were dead, stoned for putting words in God’s mouth. Too bad the penalty for the anti-correlation GUESSES (not even plausible guesses — CO2 UP. WARMING NOT. !) of the enviroprofiteer-conrolled climate simulators (alias “climate scientists”) isn’t something along those lines. At least loss of job or funding!!
That is very cool that you still enjoy your fantasy reading. I will never tire of re-reading C. S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia. Yes! (at anyone with a slight sneer on his or her face) Being forever 10 years old is WONDERFUL!!! 🙂
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU, TOO!
And to everyone, to you… to one and all.
Janice
#(:))
Try Cyotoo, or Kyotoo
g
Coyote?
Peyote?
Happy New Year, Ms M!
Nice to see that you’ve returned to anthony’s bar for (yet another) drink… Here’s hoping that 2018 brings more of that global warming that Trump was tweeting about (and for) the other day. i’m down here in the french quarter and i’m freezin’! (even had to stay at home today with my space heater on trying to keep my insomnia meds warm) i do hope you spend more time with your fellow wuwtaholics this year. The boyz tend to get a little testy in your absence. (shoulda seen ol’ Willis beatin’ up on Javier the other day, twas a gruesome sight) i think i speak for all of us when i say that we miss your creativity and all that you bring to the table. At any rate, have a happy and blessed new year! (my gut tells me it’s going to be a good one for us climate change drunkies)…
p.s. thanx for praying for a new device for me (/sarc?). My old iphone was working fine until you prayed for me to get a new one! Now that it’s practically shot, i guess i’ll have to go out and buy a tablet. And i’m cheap, never have paid for internet; devices, wifi all donated. (guess there’s a first time for everythin’)…
Happy New Year, Ms M!
Had an earlier comment to you swallowed up in moderation. (brand new year, same old same old… ☺) May God bless you in the new year, Arthur
Dear Arthur,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Yes, yes, but….. THIS year, we begin it MUCH better off than we did last year. Donald J. Trump IS president! The past year has given us SO much cause for rejoicing. And GREAT things are ahead!
May God bless you, richly, with all the peace, love, joy, and hope that your heart can hold,
Janice
P.S. I don’t need to tell YOU about Trump, do I! Way — to — go, Fonzarelli (et al.)!
TRUMP in 2020!
Yeeeeeeeee — haw!
The naz*sm of the liberal media is exposed. Unfortunately liberal readers are in full support of this crowd-controlling propaganda.
That’s how a certain swastika-clad corporal became Chancellor of Germany.
Actually, he was never a corporal at all. He was promoted to senior private during the war. There was confusion in translation.
So “senior private” would equate to a PFC.
I recently did a Google search on the topic of “polar bear science” and Susan Crockford, just to see what would pop up. Not surpisingly, it would appear the Google collective is trying hard to erase her, or at least make her hard to find. Polar bear science searches will return numerous links to articles trumpeting the Harvey paper, and other alarmist articles. Entered as “polarbearscience” will get a link to her site.
Although Dr. Crockford is Canadian, and known throughout English speaking countries, she does not have a Wiki page in English. (There may have never been one.) But, she does have a Wiki page in Deutsch. For now.
I’ve been using the search engine http://www.duckduckgo.com for the past few years. Fortunately the search of “polar bear science” and Susan Crockford puts her website at the top. Unfortuantely, nobody’s heard of duckduckgo.com, so they use google instead.
I’ve been using DUCK about 99.5% of the time for about 2 years.
Google used to be arguably the best search engine. Then they got arrogant and decided they knew better than the web as a whole which pages had content of value. These days duckduckgo is a better option.
Hanelyp,
I think it’s more that “they” have decided what it is “they” want you to find.
(Think Obama’s FBI investigating Hillary’s various investigatable indiscretions.)
I use http://www.duckduckgo.com and I have sworn off G@@gle except for emergencies and their maps. So far I have not complaints.
The duckduckgo kicker for me was when I typed in “American Scientists”. On ddg it brings up listings for scientists but on google it brings up articles on global warming. Google is Big Brother 2018.
They don’t want the public to know. They don’t even want scientists to know.
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/climate-unscience
Dear Jurgen,
Thank you for sharing that! I am only just getting started on reading the linked documents (at “1,” “2,” and “3”), but wanted to shout out THANK YOU before you go “off the air,” over there where, I think, it is around 8:22pm.
Suggestion: (although the current lukewarm atmosphere of WUWT may prevent it getting published) create an article using quotes from the above .pdf linked in the page linked above in your comment. It is along the lines of the climategate and related exposes of the CO2 hu$tlers’ underhanded methods.
That quote pretty much sums up it all. In a word, Elsevier, et al.’s actions were contemptible.”
Also, thank you, so much (I tried to thank you soon after, but never was able to catch up with you here) for taking the time to try to help me in the summer of 2016 with my weird “why does the Reply box sort of bounce up and down and do strange things when I try to comment on WUWT” question. Your idea was a good one (and that issue has been cleared up, now).
Take care and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Janice (in the U.S.A.)
Hey Janice 🙂
Nice to see you again – but sadly I seem to always come on the scene too late – and miss you.
Happy New Year! Hope to see more of you in 2018.
Happy New Year to you, Luc! Good to see you, too.
From the article: “Google probably learned something toward the end of the experiment, stopped banning my new creatives, and had a customer support person to talk to me and help me make small changes in the text of the ads for approval.”
What do you think Google learned? This implies that Google innocently disapproved of your ads. Is that right? Nothing sinister at Google?
What small changes were you requrested to make. Nothing in your ads was worthy of censorship so I’m just curious about what they wanted you to change.
“The theory of parallel government might not withstand legal scrutiny,”
It’s just left wing groupthink.
The Google result does not surprise—Eric Schmidt. And Google’s handling of the atrocios Harvey paper on Susan Crockford is just more solid evidence of its warmunist bias. The Microsoft result does not surprise—Seattle. The neutral Facebook result does surprise given their supposed fake news concerns and the locus of their team.
Facebook, for all its faults, can apparently see that it has no future if they let SJWs take over. For now, they seem to be keeping them under control.
Even in Google, some parts of the company are more SJW-infested that others. Youtube seems to be pretty much under their control, whereas blogspot seems far less likely to block blogs for being non-SJW.
I think Mother Nature will give “Warmists” a good spanking. Three years should do it. Get Svenmarks Nobel Prize ready.
Back in 2014 I wrote that Civil RICO lawsuits were going to be launched against warmist fraudsters. That has now happened, although I am not sure that the one lawsuit I know of is being well-managed.
I suggest that these very large organizations have clearly lost their way, both intellectually and ethically.
Nobody within these organizations seems to have asked the obvious question: “What if we are wrong about global warming alarmism?”
Which they are…
_________________
Here is my post from 2014 re Civil RICO.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/21/salmon-climate-and-accountability/#comment-1743671
Phil – please see my post of September 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I suggest that someone is going to sue these warmist fraudsters in the USA, probably using the civil RICO statutes.
Watch for it…
Best, Allan
This great information. My science students debate global warming, along with the infuences of politics and the media.
Sounds like you are the teacher i wish I had. Adult, informed debate. Best teaching program ever.
My HS sophomore theology teacher’s approach was that he didn’t care what you believed as long as you had a reason for believing it. And Mom, Dad, my priest told me so were not acceptable reasons.
Thinking and evaluating personal beliefs was required.
(This was a top rated Jesuit HS in the US. He was only there that one year.)
Gunga Din,
With respect, one of my best friends (and I think most of his family and friends) went to Jesuit schools. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Jesuits taught independent thinking and classical education (philosophy, rhetoric, literature, etc.). But although we still communicate, he’s one of the most progressive, depend-on-the-government people I know. Full-blown warmunist, no independent thought, just follows the liberal party line. Maybe no question, just an observation.
Phil R,
I did he was only there one year. I should probably has mentioned that he was a layman, not a Jesuit.
I don’t know when your friend was in HS school. For me, it was late ’60s to early ’70s.
Jay Redmon,
With respect, do you mind if I ask you what you teach? I think the global warming debate is great for a science class, but political and media influences, not so much. Political or social sciences or policy would be another matter.
The solution is to throw a spanner into the works. Most importantly use AdNauseam (adnauseam.io) to click ads so you don’t have to. Fill the databases with garbage. We become the “GI” of “GIGO”. It is an approach so threatening to Goolag and their business model that they banned it from the Chrome store!
You have to fight back in a legal and creative way. Use the Brave browser (brave.com), for email protonmail.com, for search use startpage.com or duckduckgo.com, avoid Fakebook and Twatter if at all possible.
That is just excellent – thanks TRM
Indeed and people need to remember when a service or product is offered ‘free’ then they (you) are the product — your buying option, your preferences, your live habits, YOU!
You need some stronger support.
Please keep up the good work.
Well, it seems to me that Google et all., may be conniving with each other in a way that qualifies as a violation of the RICO Act. As I recall (and I wrote an article about it elsewhere), Loretta Lynch who was the US AG at the time attempted to persecute – er, prosecute climate science dissenters under the RICO Act, until she was informed that the very people who asked her to do that were indeed violating the RICO act themselves.
So I would offer them all – Google, Twitterpated, Microsoft, ad nauseum blahblahblah, a chance to redeem themselves by making them aware that they, too, can face a RICO Act complaint if they are in collusion.
I may not agree with what you say, but even if you threaten me with a Spanish Inquisition over it (and nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition), you can’t stop me from saying what I believe to be true. That’s a violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Besides, they’re a bunch of putzes who think they own the world right now. Such nonsense fades when you lose your public base.
I was trying to place google AdWords for my consulting business. Nothing to do with race or gender or climate change. I made some sort of mistake and was banned. They would not tell me what I did wrong when I called them and would not repeal the ban. Google is evil.
What will happen is that you will get a right wing president, parliament, and they will use the identical laws to shut down those that disagree.
You should not wield political power you don’t want your worst enemy wielding.
The fundamental question is when does a private company becomes so successful, pervasive, and (at least in the popular imagination) essential; that the public deserves a regulatory interest? No easy answer. “Public Utilities” that distribute electricity, gas, and telephone have been so heavily regulated for decades that they are private only on their letterhead. Banks get a bit more leeway. Could they discriminate against climate skeptics? Certainly not against “race, religion, or creed…or sexual orientation”.
I’m not ready to regulate social media. They are more like news media than essential public services. Let them have their biases. Let blogs have their biases. Fads and superstition cannot be regulated, only refuted.
google does a good job of hiding CAGW sceptic opinion, with the help of their AlGore-ithms.
but it could get worse:
31 Dec: AP: Efforts grow to help students evaluate what they see online
by Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press
The effort has been ***bipartisan…
Their efforts started getting traction after the 2016 presidential election, which highlighted how even many adults can be fooled by false and misleading content peddled by agenda-driven domestic and foreign sources…
“Five years ago, it was difficult to get people to understand what we were doing and what we wanted to see happen in education and the skills students needed to learn,” said Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. “Now there is no question about the vitalness of this in classrooms.”…
https://www.apnews.com/64b5ce49f58940eda86608f3eac79158/Spread-of-fake-news-prompts-literacy-efforts-in-schools
Michelle Ciulla Lipkin. National Association for Media Literacy Education, at an event ***which was organised by the US State department in June!
according to Wikipedia, Meridian International Center is “a non-partisan, non-profit, public diplomacy organization founded in 1960 and located in Washington, D.C. It works closely with the U.S. Department of State and other U.S. government agencies, NGOs, international governments”
29 June: Newsday Zimbabwe: Trump’s excessive use of twitter threatens media literacy education
By Hazel Ndebele
A United States (US) organisation involved in media literacy education has warned that President Donald Trump’s excessive use of social media, notably micro-blogging site twitter, is making it difficult to carry out its work.
Speaking to journalists during the recently ended reporting tour on media literacy and press freedom in the 21st century in the US, National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) executive director Michelle Ciulla Lipkin said Trump’s hyper tweeting was dangerous and should be stopped.
Eighteen journalists from various countries among them Zimbabwe attended the reporting tour ***which was organised by the US State department and administered by Meridian International Center…
“Trump and his advisors need to understand the implications of the information flow that come from his social media platform abuse. His advisors, staff and his press communication’s team need to take the information flow from his tweeter platform more seriously than they are because it is so highly dangerous,” said Lipkin. “Certainly we have never seen this type of flow of information, this is the first time social media has played a big role so we have to figure out a way to keep up. All we want is for his advisors to tell him to stop tweeting.”…
https://www.newsday.co.zw/2017/06/trumps-excessive-use-twitter-threatens-media-literacy-education
pre-Trump, the MSM considered Twitter their own private domain, where they could massage each other’s egos. no wonder they hate him.
Pat
AlGoreRythmns- would that be dodgy code, malicious code or a nasty virus perhaps?
That would just about sum him up.
Would be nice if AG Sessions began forcefully pursuing antitrust cases against these monopolies. This will box Dems in too. Do they side with monopolies or with people just laid off at retailers? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-backlash-a-missouri-republican-is-investigating-google/
1. Reddit. It is indeed a great source of cheap death threats, however the maxim “You get what you pay for” does apply and they are of very poor quality (empty threats, no lab windows shot out yet).
2. What to do about Online Censorship. Make it as widely known as possible, too many people have no idea this exists or the obvious biases in supposedly independent sources such as Wiki.
3. Censorship (limits on discussion topics) on WUWT. Attempting to keep “religion” “aliens” and “911” etc OFF WUWT is entirely understandable though they do creep in from time to time (moderation is usually quite “light”- which is good). HOWEVER leaving out discussion of alternative theories of atmospheric physics appears to me to be contrary to the principles of scientific enquiry. Personally I think gravity must play a significant role and it’s not really clear why Anthony does not allow detailed discussion of related theories. At the very least it would be nice to hear WHY this subject is off limits.
4. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE.
“it’s not really clear why Anthony does not allow detailed discussion of related theories.”
In my opinion its tedious to keep repeating them. It may be new to you but not perhaps to him or other readers. WUWT is also not usually a publisher of really detailed discussions of physics particularly where the intention seems to be to obscure the power of ordinary observation.
A common thread is found in the list of topics he is not interested in and that’s unprovable conspiracy or way-out-there claims such as ionized water, magnetic bracelets, copper infused stockings. It’s fraudulent even if the person announcing it really believes!
“Personally I think gravity must play a significant role”
Indeed it does, for without gravity there would be no “lapse rate” or atmosphere.
Geez…and I have significant stock in some of these social media companies. The first and primary duty of management and a board of directors is to make money for shareholders. In fact, it is a fiduciary responsibility of the company to not only make money, but also profits. As long as what is being promoted or sold is legal, and conforms to a general paradigm of the company mandate. In the case of Google, Twitter, Facebook and the ‘others’, I see the writing on the wall that these companies will be in the dustbin of history at some point. The trick is to figure when, so one can successfully short them.
I have never used DuckyduckGo as a search engine but based on a comment up thread, I ‘googled’ it because I wasn’t sure how it was actually spelled. Didn’t even get one return hit, and I know Google has algorithms to spell correctly, cause I use it as a spell checker. I just tried DuckDuckGo as a search engine and for fun, I asked ‘is Google evil?’ I was surprised to get hundreds of hits back including the one that said Google is the Devil. I guess I have my answer and my thoughts on being long on Google stock is now ‘short’ lived. Plus DuckDuckGo had an option to make their search engine my default search engine. Google just lost one customer today, and I know what starts out slow can quickly turn into an avalanche. After all, who has ever looked at a Google ad anyway? And I have never seen an ad on Facebook. Adblocker works well. I don’t really understand how they actually make money, because as far as I am concerned, advertising is the worst investment a company can ever make. If your company has to resort to paid in your face advertising, then they are probably not really worth buying their product anyway.
Google is up to its neck in censorship, as it always has been
Google’s owners see themselves as some sort of God-like father figure – directing the attention and thoughts of their children away from anything disturbing, as if Google has the only ‘right’ i.e. valid answers to every question anyone might ask.
In their latest assault on free thinking and comment, Google has banned people from posting negative reviews of former employers. ‘Google My Business’ is the tool behind the rating that appears on-screen when you carry out search for a business, such as a pub or restaurant, using the search engine or its maps functions. Google has decided to clamp down on who can post reviews in a bid to make them more accurate. It has updated its review policies, to ban people from reviewing their former place of work negatively.
More details:
https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038063?hl=en&ref_topic=4539639
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-my-business-reviews-former-employees-guidelines-remove-rating-a8133601.html
Another day, another Google step into mass censorship.
You never see Fox News articles in Google news… not on top. Google is just another leftists communist supporting company.
Gamecock feels good because he doesn’t use any GFTM+RW.
“Unnecessarily to say, none of these ads or their landing pages contain any misrepresentation”
There isn’t a ‘UN global warming agenda” and there is no such thing as ‘climate alarmism’ and many (nearly all) US scientists agree that climate change caused by human activity is taking place.
so they got you bang to rights, yes?
[? .mod]
Oh no, it’s consensus again.
Michael Crichton back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.
http://www.aei.org/publication/for-earth-day-michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
As always, the troll tries to change the subject because it knows that it can’t win on substance.
In this case, “humans cause climate change”.
This is a completely non-controversial statement, however it is nowhere close to what the debate is about.
Humans cause climate change, of course we do, in thousands upon thousands of ways.
Every time we cut down a forest, or irrigate a desert to grow crops, or build a city. The climate in that area changes.
The argument is regarding a much, much narrower topic. Does human released CO2 cause climate change and do so in ways that are damaging.
The first part of that is non-controversial. All other things being equal, CO2 will cause the earth’s temperature to rise. Of course all things are not equal and all of the science shows that the climate dominated by multiple negative feedbacks, both small and large and as a result any warming caused by CO2 is limited to a few tenths of a degree per doubling. An amount to small to detect in the real world and an amount way to small to cause noticeable change, much less catastrophic change.
MarkW wrote (excerpt):
” Of course all things are not equal and all of the science shows that the climate dominated by multiple negative feedbacks, both small and large and as a result any warming caused by CO2 is limited to a few tenths of a degree per doubling. An amount to small to detect in the real world and an amount way to small to cause noticeable change, much less catastrophic change.”
Well written Sir.
Best, Allan
If there is no such thing as climate alarmism, then why all the demands to do something drastic, NOW.
If there’s no alarm, there’s no reason to do anything at all, ever.
Griff, I am embarrassed to admit it, but I have no idea what is “bang to rights”.
I believe it is generally accepted by most people here that human activity must have some kind of impact on climate (and pretty much everything else).
Climate alarmism is easily shown. One of my favorites is the handwritten letters by Australian climatologiests expressing their alarm.
Michael
“I believe it is generally accepted by most people here that human activity must have some kind of impact on climate (and pretty much everything else)”
If you are talking about human caused CO2 then I think most on here wouldn’t agree with you. Alarmism has been purposely create just that. Pure scaremongering..
“If you are talking about human caused CO2 then I think most on here wouldn’t agree with you.”
It cannot fail to have some sort of impact simply following the butterfly principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
How big are those impacts and whether those impacts are self-damping (which seems likely) is less clear.
Skeptical Science censors/redacts/bans anyone they ‘feel’ is not on their point. That is usually the policy of any respectable blog even WUWT at times, but I find it funny that they have very few commenting on their posts. YAHOO ANSWERS is no different. 10 to 15 of the same people posting daily.
This was posted 22 hours ago and 75+ different points of view and several alarmist viewpoints.
There’s an entire list of internet media outlets (at least 20 who post daily) who say a lot about climate alarmism, yet do not seem to be able to maintain as big of a reader/comment base as WUWT. WUWT is definitely the alter-ego of Skeptical Science. SKS seems to think they have the market cornered on scientific proof. LOL! According to them they actually do. Dialogue is very important. Shutting it down and telling people there is only one shade of the color blue doesn’t do anything to advance dialogue.
This is simply a site for information and opposing opinion. That’s what people like.
“This is simply a site for information and opposing opinion. That’s what people like.”
I agree completely. Often the comments are much more enlightening than the article itself. Thank you all and a happy new year.
Looks like these people have been taking lessons from Anthony Watts. Political activists passing themselves off as scientific commentators.
[??? .mod]
If you have an issue, spell it out, don’t blather in riddles.
Leo,
are you talking to Ajit Pai, the new FCC chief?? That will do more than posting on a ‘denier’ blog. If you can get others to write complaints to the FCC then things will happen.
Best wishes.
Hi Leo
Search engine land….One of the top search marketing blogs gives their take on the nyt article here. “No gaming required”. Fyi.
https://searchengineland.com/google-adwords-climate-change-denial-ads-289128?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
I think they just don’t like BS being posted.
Why don´t you all get an acount in vk.com, just for safety reason. There you have freedom of speech and opinions.
Only sencorship on vk.com I have noticed was when a person tried to sell sex. Everything published from that woman was ereased including her acount.
I suppose you all know that US 17 intelligensservices are involved in scanning everyones opinions with help of the western based social netservices.
In EU severall memberstates do the same. In EU the culture-marxist EU-office have a censorship law afoot.
Most memberstates in west EU and Sweden have organized its censorship by engaging kultur-marxist activists who mass-complain against those who they want to shut down, and that is the formality behind all censoring. A sensor (also memder in a activistgroup) working in the office of for example FB notify a contact in that activist-gruop about a political delicate text and that contact activate the group to mass-complain the text. Then FB have a formal right to censor the sender in different ways. This means one-sided censoring from a minor minority and thats dictatorship.
US could help the free western world by taking their social netservices in there ears and demand they should follow US constitution in freedom av speech abroad too. Just now the worlds “grassroots” starts despising US who don´t live as they teatch.