Facebook Treating Skeptic Blog Articles as “Abusive”

It came to our attention yesterday when we were sharing WUWT articles, that Facebook now treats WUWT articles as “abusive”. Apparently this is a new tactic of the warmists to abuse the FB abuse process in order to suppress free speech. WUWT readers have reported that this has also started happening on other skeptic blogs with their articles.

Until Anthony gets back, when we can see about a more permanent solution, we want to encourage our readers to all share WUWT articles via your Facebook accounts, and when FB gives you “this is an abusive site” pop-up, as seen in the graphic above, to click the “Let us know” appeal link to submit an appeal. Hopefully if FB staff start seeing enough appeals from enough of our readers, that they will realize that their system is being gamed by our opponents.

While on FB, we encourage you to join the WUWT FB group.

UPDATE: As of this moment, new WUWT articles are posting to FB without the abuse warning, but anything from yesterday or days prior is getting the warning and requires an appeal. Apparently whoever has been up to these games hasn’t gotten online yet today. We still encourage our readers to help ensure that WUWT articles are able to be shared on FB without interference, and to ensure that other skeptic blogs are also able to be published on Facebook. It’s clear that the warmists are engaging in guerrilla tactics now.

136 thoughts on “Facebook Treating Skeptic Blog Articles as “Abusive”

  1. Funny how ‘science blog of the year’ can me called abusive. Politics has no conscience.

  2. Naw, not guerilla tactics, just desperate establishment tactics. The Gorillas are winning.
    ==============

  3. I know this firsthand, been banned twice and now not able to comment on a page I was able to see. Checking now, seems “someone” has removed certain pages, almost all in fact.

    This is bad news for AGW supporters.

  4. This, the complaints and legal actions against Delingpole and Dr. Ball, make no mistake, this is the new front in the climate wars. This is the result of all the leftist sponsored seminars and confabs to work on “messaging.” Messaging means shutting the opposition up using dishonest and unethical legal tactics and every other means they can think of. This will get even uglier before it’s over, these cretins see their corrupt money and power schemes threatened.

  5. It’s really idiotic ‘guerilla’ tactic, too. Everyone who posted an article meant for someone to read it. When the word spreads that ‘global warming’ skepticism is now something to be censored, it will gain cachet.

    Sweet, sweet, sweet. Own GOAL!
    ===========

  6. Great, another Google supporting bad science and pretending to be an innocent fair broker.

  7. I don’t have a facebook account because I have real friends who I can actually count on the fingers of two hands. I had no desire to have 42,000 friends I had never met, reading all of my personal musings.

    Ah well, maybe now is the time I should make an account and have WUWT as my real friend…. ;)

    I hope it does not cost me anything. Into the breach dear friends….

  8. I noticed something similar with the WOT (Web of Trust) add-on for firefox. It flags up dubious sites but does so entirely on the votes of users. Until recently I hadn’t noticed anything particularly odd and the only sites I noticed flagged up as red looked like they might well be dodgy in terms of safety, spam etc.
    Recently however I went to a perfectly legitimate site on a well-known blogging platform and it was flagged up as red. The only reason I can think of for this is because it is a sceptical site about a subject which is as hotly debated as CAGW. I won’t name it just to avoid sidetracking the issue, but it can only be because people – similar to the warmists – are trying to put the uninitiated off going to the the site solely because they disagree with the opinions – and facts – expressed there.
    It’s a reminder of what the warmists could do and the only way to combat it (as WOT washed their hands of the whole issue) is to give sites such as WUWT and other sceptical sites good ratings on WOT and other such applications.
    It’s an undesirable situation but the only way to defeat any concerted effort at censorship.

  9. They have no scruples, but, please, sceptics, let’s not sink to their level. We need to stick to the facts and debate respectfully in order for our arguments to be heard.

  10. Well, so far THIS article is staying put….I’m going to check the others.

    They are still there. No problem so far. Time to consider making copies with different URL’s? Is that OK?

  11. I got blocked went posting this article to facebook. In the “reason” column I stated that global warming activists are blocking WUWT articles because they have different opinions and that users blocking WUWT articles as abusive should be banned from using facebook.

    As an aside, I also tried sending the link as an email to a facebook friend and was similarly denied.

    [I recommend just putting “Watts Up With That? is the number one science blog on the internet.” and this should get it through, all of my appeals have been approved – MikeL]

  12. How was it determined that it was WUWT that was being blocked and not the Sydney demo?

    Either way this is nothing new. It is exactly what has been going on in Wikipediatric since at least 2007. Any sub-normal can start undoing anything that isn’t in total agreement with his person belief system and then some zealot who has worked his way upto admin will ban you on some crap technicality or false claims and it will take you months to clear up the mess and get your account reactivated.

    The trouble is most of these poor fools do really believe that they are out to “save the planet” , a notion so moral and irreproachable that all rules of normal fair play and simple good reasoning get thrown out of the window and they embark on their eco-jihad with the blessing of Gaia.

    They are religious fanatics.

    There are others higher up the food chain who know exactly what the con is and are playing it for all they can get.

    It is useful to keep that in mind in deciding who you are dealing with and how to respond.

    [The graphic generated is from today, after having had a half dozen stories blocked yesterday, which I did not capture graphics for. Other moderators have seen bans, and several readers also reported the abuse ban when they tried to share on FB yesterday. This is a blanket ban. – MikeL]

  13. Seems if you try to post to FB directly from WUWT you get the “abusive” block. However, if you go to your profile on FB and enter the link it works fine.

  14. Didn’t I just here this week that some Dem was complaining about those who disagree with the Dems wanting to shut shut them down in mid-sentence? I know that was political but it still applies and in essence this is also political. Science is no longer science but politics.

  15. I would be extremely careful with posting anything on a lukewarmer or warmist site. They will use all your personal information if any, against you, including your email ect., be forewarned!

  16. My blog (can be accessed by clicking my screen name, written in swedish) is also being blocked this way. I have never even considered being on Facebook at all so this move is strange. I think there are some people who go through the blogs and look for views such as this blog and others. Strange behaviour on behalf of some people.

    /Carl

  17. It seems to me that there is something in the mentality of many AGW supporters that makes it their prime task to try to shut up anybody of opposing views. Like others here I have tried to engage in debate on this subject with such people but a common response is to ignore all of the points that I politely raise and respond with personal abuse. Most people don’t enjoy being continually abused so this tactic usually succeeds in sending another dissenting voice elsewhere.

    A related tactic, again familiar to many here, is to abuse any scientists or others who are referred to in support by an opponent of AGW. ‘Big Oil’ money etc is commonly alleged as the only reason for such reports being produced. This tactic is so ingrained that supporting reports and links are often (insultingly) requested by AGW supporters solely so that such rubbishing can be carried out. It angers them when you don’t play the game in that manner.

    I don’t think this is co-ordinated in some sort of conspiracy. I think it is simply that there are a lot of true believers out there and they think that shutting up ‘deniers’ is their part of saving the planet. It is like the (far more) awful things done by religious believers over the years to ‘protect’ their saviour, prophet, god or whoever when if their religion is true no such protection is needed.
    ,

  18. Johann says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:55 am
    I would be extremely careful with posting anything on a lukewarmer or warmist site. They will use all your personal information if any, against you, including your email ect., be forewarned!

    I concur. I had a brief dalliance with the parrots at Grist. Holy Cow, you don’t want to be skeptical in there…unless you have a thick skin and a good spam filter.

  19. Welcome to the underhanded pursuit of bandwagon science, Anthony.

    Darwinists have been doing stuff like this to any critics of their dogma for many years.

    Same game, different bandwagon.

  20. WUWT abusive? Superficially, this makes no sense – WUWT is a science blog…how is science “abusive”. Let us try some logic:

    Science (the topic of this website), is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

    So, Science is concerned with facts and truth.

    WUWT is concerned with facts and truth.

    Additionally, the truth hurts.

    Things that hurt are abusive.

    WUWT is concerned with the truth and the truth hurts, therefore WUWT is abusive.

    Now I get it. /sarc off

  21. It is important to remember that this problem appears to be caused by Facebook users, not Facebook itself. Appeals should be polite, short, and clear.

  22. Tried to post this page to FB and got the abuse message…and “let them know” as requested. I’ll continue to monitor and let FB know…sheesh!

  23. Stories like this confirm why I avoid Facebook or any social networking site like the plague.

    ShrNfr says:
    April 9, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Great, another Google supporting bad science and pretending to be an innocent fair broker.

    Google does not own Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg is not employed by Google.

  24. I’m not too sure if I should get worked up over trendy Facebook, but I submitted a complaint just the same.

  25. What else can anyone expect from FB when they are going to host Obama at a special event on FB???

  26. The facebook group for WUWT is now at 120 members (after only 2 hours of existence). We are seeing a few reports of the abuse pop-up and about an equal number getting through, likely FB is approving one article at a time.

  27. Just tried to share this article through my Facebook account, and hit the “Abuse Wall.” I submit an appeal, but won’t hold my breath. Why is it that seemingly all of the massive tech companies (e.g. Facebook, Google), always seem to heavily lean towards the Kool-Aid Drinking section of CAGW?

  28. I’ve tried three articles in the last hour and all were successfully shared on facebook

  29. I posted a few links to “skeptic” articles on FB. I am no longer able to post any links of any sort in a comment, not even in a comment to my own posting on my own wall.

  30. I don’t do Facebook.
    I don’t collect friends like a little child collecting shiny pebbles along the shore.
    I am proud to say that I have no ‘friends’.

  31. I must be getting old. I would have bet good money that you would find precious few WUWT readers with accounts on Face Book.

    [There are over 165 members joined the new WUWT group on FB today just in the last 3 hours. Our WUWT fan page on FB has something like 1,600+ fans “liking” WUWT. – MikeL]

  32. I have found no use for facebook, twitter or google. I have a telephone, internet, email and car. I can see and contact all the friends I need. I don’t like the risks involved in using these sites and would suggest that you do the same. Think about why you use those sites and whether you really need to.

  33. The post by crosspatch above shows that Facebook’s actions are planned and deliberate, IMHO.

  34. Colin in Mission BC says:
    April 9, 2011 at 11:13 am
    Why is it that seemingly all of the massive tech companies (e.g. Facebook, Google), always seem to heavily lean towards the Kool-Aid Drinking section of CAGW?

    It’s called MONEY and Favours.

    [Colin, they are in Sillycon Valley, California, land of fruits and nuts. – MikeL]

  35. While I suspect that the Facebook team would agree with “the warm side” I think the block are automated. Some greenie is either playing games or figures that “the word” is more important than free speech or other annoying considerations.

    I suspect FB might have to whitelist WUWT or otherwise manually tweak the system in order to remove the blocks and I have zero idea of how easy/convenient/likely that is.

    This is one of the hazards of user rated systems, they’re too easy to game.

    That said, FB, like anything else, has it’s uses.

  36. To all my American Friends. You have an enviable position in having enshrined within law, the right to freedom of speech. Facebook has taken an action that seems to ignore that. Fight to maintain that right!
    There is a half remembered quote from someone I completely forget, but the sentiments are sound. “Sir, I totally disagree with everything you have said, but by God, I will fight to the death to uphold your right to say it!”

  37. This explains why several greenie site are switching to a FB login for their comment system. See Treehugger dot com

  38. I got shoehorned into F*c*b**k and regretted it immediately. However there are nice people there. Working on a Climate Science presentation at present, that is much more fun because I hope it will be more objectively useful.

  39. Mike Nicholson (April 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm),

    Our Constitution only prevents our government from censoring speech. Private individuals and/or private companies can censor all they want (at the risk of alienating all who witness their cowardly travesties).

  40. Mike Nicholson says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm
    “There is a half remembered quote from someone I completely forget, but the sentiments are sound. “Sir, I totally disagree with everything you have said, but by God, I will fight to the death to uphold your right to say it!””

    Yeah, but it wasn’t a warmist.

  41. It might be worth putting a link to the Wattsup RSS feed (or something similar) onto Facebook so it’s easier to see what’s going on on Wattsup from Facebook and help to spread the message. At present it is all very passive on Facebook. Not sure what is technically possible so just a thought. I proudly claim to be your 1886th like on Facebook.

  42. At present FB and I are having *issues* over linking to Willis’s “A pox on both” article. As fast as I can post the link, it gets deleted, so I post it again, and again, and again.

    I haven’t had any notification from FB, and in scrolling back through my posts in FB, all the links I had up for WUWT have been deleted as well.

    Someone is playing silly buggers as the saying goes here.

  43. Tried Randy’s approach. It worked just fine. We posted the URL for wattsupwiththat and a graphic.

  44. “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    That’s Voltaire – and the sentiment is at the heart of the Enlightenment. Without it, we have despotism, both politically and intellectually.

  45. 30 minutes ago I tried to share the article “WUWT – Voted Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies” (page 10 of the older posts) and sure enough someone had reported the link as abusive content and FB wouldn’t share it.

  46. What I do occasionally is just post a link to WUWT in the “What’s on my mind?” thing. Never had a problem.

    So far…

  47. DaleC says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    That’s Voltaire…

    Voltaire eh? He invented batteries too. Clever bloke.

  48. Just had the recent article about James Delingpole blocked. This is outrageous, it really is. Anthony, I think you need to get in touch with Facebook and get this fixed…

    Cheers,

    Tim

  49. It was blocked for me so I immediately posted a complaint. I will continue to do this with each new post.

  50. Mike Nicholson says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    “To all my American Friends. You have an enviable position in having enshrined within law, the right to freedom of speech. Facebook has taken an action that seems to ignore that. ”

    Facebook is not the government. That free speech thing applies to the government curtailing it. Though reprehensible and childish, they are perfectly within their rights to abusively censor or not listen to what they wish.

    Yet another reason to avoid agenda driven, large bureaucratic organizations.

  51. TimiBoy says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    It’s OK TimiBoy – I’ve just managed to post Deller’s latest….

  52. I just want to say that one of my ‘friends’ has 367 Facebook friends! Can anyone beat that?!…

    Seriously, though, lots of her ‘friends’ may now be looking at the latest WUWT link I have just posted…

    Mony a mickle mak’s a muckle..

  53. Roy UK says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:00 am
    I don’t have a facebook account because I have real friends who I can actually count on the fingers of two hands. I had no desire to have 42,000 friends I had never met, reading all of my personal musings.

    HEAR HEAR! I have no interest. I like my privacy, what little I have left thankyou.

  54. I assume that Facebook uses/relies on GOOGLE’S DEFINITION OF “ABUSIVE”, so I think this is Google issue, not a Facebook one.

    Time will tell, and soon.

  55. Jimmy Haigh says:

    “I just want to say that one of my ‘friends’ has 367 Facebook friends! Can anyone beat that?!…”

    Well, I’m currently at 0, but when I get my first friend that will show an infinitely fast-rising trend, and in no time at all I’ll have millions and billions of BFF’s. That’s how trends work in climate catastrophe science.

    First, though, I’d need to sign up on FB.

  56. You can be pretty sure Google is working at reducing the availability of skeptical views of any type on its search engine.

  57. I was blocked on Thursday when I tried to post an article from The National Post (Canada) called “Climate Models Go Cold” on facebook ; but I was able to do so today. Maybe the gremlins don’t work on Saturday. Cheers.

  58. Note: The WUWT Facebook Page is linked to our right hand column and is primarily a fan page for people to “like” us and post messages. The “Group” on FB I created today allows a lot more user interaction, including chat among group members, posting various sorts of content and setting up events, etc. While there are over 1880 people who have “liked” the Page since it was founded a year or so ago, our Group has gotten 250 members in its first 6 hours of existence. We’ve been getting mixed reports of different levels of blockage by FB of WUWT articles, and group members are actively sharing more WUWT articles and filing appeals for those that were blocked.

    Mobilizing our reader base to engage in this sort of activism is a fantastic exercise, and it proves to the warmists that their claims that skeptic sites are “astroturf” is a bunch of hokum.

  59. SSam says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm (Edit)

    Mike Nicholson says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    ““To all my American Friends. You have an enviable position in having enshrined within law, the right to freedom of speech. Facebook has taken an action that seems to ignore that. ”

    Facebook is not the government. That free speech thing applies to the government curtailing it. Though reprehensible and childish, they are perfectly within their rights to abusively censor or not listen to what they wish.”

    Actually, under Marsh vs Alabama, company owned communities are required to respect the Constitutional rights of their residents and visitors. While more recent court rulings like the AOL case and the Sony case have eroded this ruling somewhat, I personally expect that as people spend more of their lives online that there will be greater demand that individual rights be strengthened even when a private company owns an online community. They dont actually own us or our information or our relationships, they just own the servers.

  60. Mark Suckerberg and the other social media gurus met with our bully president, who I’m sure asked for more tactics to prevent opposing messages from getting out. After this closed meeting FB changed the way you see friends or they see your posts so only a handful are visible based on your last few interactions- the rest don’t show up. You can change that in settings but it doesn’t change theirs and I noticed mine went back to the “new” settings on its own. I have almost 2000 “friends” and can see only about 20.

  61. mikelorrey (April 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm)

    You cite Marsh vs. Alabama:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

    That case does not even remotely apply to the sort of censorship under discussion here. The censorship under discussion here is contemptible. But, it would be even more contemptible for the heavy hand of government to FORCIBLY prevent private individuals and/or private companies from engaging in contemptible censorship. Let “the invisible hand of the market” judge them!

  62. I attribute my problem with the eclectic array of my friends and their friends. Some of them are fanatic “progressives” and will flag anything that goes counter to their world view as “offensive” or “abuse” or whatever. It has been my experience that this sort of behavior is quite common among people on the left who want to themselves be quite vocal yet do whatever is in their power to silence any information from the “other” side of an issue.

    They seem to experience a different opinion as a direct attack on themselves. In other words, they internalize any view different from theirs as an attack on their view and on them. So to them, it is “abusive” or “offensive”. They just never learned that it is ok for people to have different opinions. I don’t find this sort of behavior nearly as often among people in the center or right of center, it seems to be a phenomenon of the political left.

    Anyway, I live in the San Francisco bay area and count among my honest and true friends and number of people who might be considered raving “moonbats”. So I suspect the source of my linking issues on Facebook are people flagging any link I might post that goes counter to their personal world view. I can post links on wall entries, I just can’t post links in comments.

  63. Here in Australia we have a similar problem. When there is a demonstration against our government’s planned carbon (sic) tax, the government highlights a few abusive or silly placards and demands a complete backdown from the government’s critics. Needless to say, demonstrations on behalf of politically correct causes are rife with vile invective, yet attract no criticism from our government.

  64. Why do I feel like I am living in the Soviet Union, where facts are what the political fancy of the day say they are; despite the evidence of the lying eyes of the population.

  65. It appears that the radical AGW Alarmists will use every dirty trick in the book to silence those who disagree.

  66. SBVOR,
    Actually, you are quite wrong, as the wikipedia article you cite states, that a company owned town couldn’t use an anti-trespassing statute to prevent people from passing out religious materials in public, i.e. exercising their freedom of speech.

  67. FYI, Goldman Sachs is now a major investor with Facebook. And as most people know, Goldman Sachs wants to be a major player in the carbon dioxide trading scam.

  68. just tried to link this and was blocked as this is an ‘abusive’ site… facebook are losers

  69. Second time round, succeeded in linking…what the hell
    is going on with these people…

  70. crosspatch (April 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm),

    Living in the People’s Republic of Steamboat Springs, I can relate. Our (dominant) local Leftists make Berkeley look downright moderate.

    For the average Leftist, their entire identity is defined by their political ideology. And, their political ideology is best described as a totalitarian, political religious ideology. But, even that falls short of the mark (because we are really talking about a totalitarian, political religious cult). This religious cult mentality means that their entire “moral compass” (such as it is) is defined by the tenets of this totalitarian political religious cult.

    Ergo, any divergence from their political, religious dogma is viewed as a direct assault not only upon their (collective) identity, but upon their very moral core (such as it is). Hence, they adopt an “ends justifies the means” mentality in suppressing anything and everything which challenges that dogma — a dogma which is entirely rooted in mythology and can never stand up to the light of day.

    In other words…
    The “Progressive” ideology can ONLY survive in an absolute intellectual vacuum.

    Because…
    The entire “Progressive” ideology is PURE mythology!

  71. By the end of this sunspot cycle they will want to get in bed with us, put their cold feet against our backs and try to get warm.

  72. mikelorrey (April 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm),

    For the benefit of other readers…
    You are disputing assertions I made in a comment bearing the time stamp April 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm (wherein I challenged your assertions regarding Marsh v. Alabama):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

    1) If, in Marsh v. Alabama, the co-defendant had been an individual store owner, there would be a more direct analogy to the censorship we are currently discussing. In such a case, it is certain the co-defendant would have prevailed.

    2) I would say that Marsh v. Alabama was wrongly decided — see Reed’s dissenting opinion. Like Reed, I do NOT accept the assertion that allowing the public onto private property confers upon that public all the rights they enjoy on public property. Any assertion to that effect is, in fact, a direct assault upon private property rights (and part of a very large campaign from the Left to completely eliminate private property rights).

    3) If one were to conjure a more direct cyberspace analogy to Marsh v. Alabama, it would involve an ISP limiting your speech across their entire domain. The AOL case cited within the previous link is precisely such a case. And, that case was correctly decided in AOL’s favor. I would argue that the AOL case effectively (and properly) overturned Marsh v. Alabama. If you dug into the makeup of the 1946 Supreme Court which (wrongly) decided Marsh v. Alabama, I suspect you would find FDR had packed that court with big government “Progressives”.

    Private property rights should trump free speech rights every time.

  73. Today, I was debating someone about climate change on a news site thread, nothing abusive, just stating pure facts with links to prove my case, I was blocked and now I can’t post on any public comments on Facebook and it say my account might get closed.

    Is this NAZI Germany?

  74. Of course Farcebook is full of useful idiots, just as those driving the US to the brink of economic disaster. However, since Google is the primature representation of politicized AGW and closely associated with Farcebook, what they’re doing should come as no surprise.

  75. I was able to post an article to Facebook from WUWT! I have the “AddThis” add-on installed in my Firefox browser and the Facebook link in this taskbar worked!! This may be a workaround until we can get Facebook straightened out. See http://www.addthis.com.

  76. This is very interesting….. have just discovered that my blog (which is as nonthreatening as could be, I would think) has been similiarly targeted.

    In my case I think it’s an ex who wants to shut me down….. but very scary that some haters could cause so much havoc?

  77. 7min onwards very interesting

    About how Julius Caesar came across plants in the Sahara, and how plants are the key to whether something is lush or a desert.

  78. I tried earlier with addthis and it was blocked… so if you were successful now, it may be our protests are working. Its absurd that this site would be blocked when Islam sites threatening Jews, dog fighting and Nazi sites, etc., have remained despite complaints on FB? Useful idiots are so hard to comprehend…

  79. I urge all readers to tweet this entry multiple times, and then close their Facebook accounts immediately. Facebook has every legal right to block whomever they please.

    And we have every right to boycott them. Let’s do it!

  80. This is a very worrying trend. I do hope you have all this material backed up independently Anthony, just in case they get to the the WordPress folks :-)?

    Maybe this community should consider making a documentary, which includes all the Steve McIntyre forensics, and as much factual material summarised from the relative scientific papers, IPCC reports and NIPPC material to tell the story. Actors could be used quoting various quotable quotes from some of the main players (not to be named at this stage ;-).

    And possibly the movie should end with Anthony Watts and his moderators being awarded a Nobel Prize! I reckon it would go viral off uTube LOL.

  81. When I was in school I was taught that the first thing oppressive governments, dictators and socialist regimes did was to stop Freedom of the Press. This is an extremely important right that people have died for and is the basis of every free and democratic society. To think it is happening here in Australia in 2011 is mind boggling. I think even Wikileaks wouldn’t expect this from Facebook!!

  82. First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win — Mahatma Ghandi.

    It seems ‘THEY’ are at the third stage now. It is getting very dirty and will probably get dirtier. However, it seems Ghandi was spot on with his statement. We were ignored and we were ridiculed. These tactics didn’t work, and now they are fighting.

    I just wonder how long it will take until the fourth stage is reached.

  83. These links on Facebook will be like this because of the report function…if people keep reporting a link as spam it automatically does this. So this is nothing to with facebook themselves censoring…..just troll lurkers deliberately trying to cause your posts/pages/links problems.

  84. “They have no scruples, but, please, sceptics, let’s not sink to their level. We need to stick to the facts and debate respectfully in order for our arguments to be heard.”

    Rats, I was all ready to make a complaint about RC, which is the most abusive site I’ve ever has the misfortune to visit. I asked GS if the GISS data set was accurate, why was Dr John Theon, Hansen’s ex-supervisor at NASA quoted as saying:

    “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.”

    You would have thought I launched a rocket up someone’s backside. My post disappeared, but the replies came fast and furious. It was only because of the replies that I knew my posting had been received. I was about to post it again. Maybe other readers will have more success. It seems like the sort of questions that needs to be answered.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

  85. Not on Facebook nor am I a friend to anyone’s account. As a teacher, I stay away from all such internet services. That includes Twitter and any of the other networks. That said, I am very proud of what I have posted here in comments and am not the least bit worried if they show up elsewhere. Because it is so public, I understand the ramifications of showing up as a dolt.

  86. Did Facebook decide it’s abusive, or did a bunch of climate change fanatics click “report abuse” in order to get the content blocked? My best guess is nobody at Facebook made a decision to block the content but it was done automatically because of user-complaints from the fanatics.

  87. Severian says: April 9, 2011 at 8:43 am

    This, the complaints and legal actions against Delingpole and Dr. Ball, make no mistake, this is the new front in the climate wars.

    Severian, I see this very differently. When the climategate team were riding the wave of public accolade do you think they had time to bother about us sceptics? No!
    Now however, as they sit at their desks remembering the good old days, wondering how such a simple thing as a few emails could have changed so much … waiting for someone – anyone – to call/write/email, even having time to read the sceptics … they have time to reflect and blame their own fall on anyone but themselves.

  88. Galane says:
    April 10, 2011 at 3:46 am

    “Ghandi’s tactics only work when your oppressor *isn’t* willing to take things to the extreme point of just exterminating anyone who won’t bow down and obey.”

    I take your point, but, fortunately this is still Britain, not China or Iran. And although our government is still taking notice of the AGWers, I do feel that the sort of people who frequent this site and others like it are taking the battle in the right direction.

    I am quite certain we will prevail although it will be a hard fought battle. This business with Facebook is being nipped in the bud, James Delingpole has triumphed, and I am looking forward to Tim Ball’s legal defence against Michael Mann.

    The main advantage we seem to have against these people is that they don’t seem to be terribly bright, despite their educational qualifications.

  89. It’s interesting to see another example of how particular interest groups attempt to close down the new media to groups they don’t agree with. Recently, as a result of pressure from a small group of people, Apple rejected an app which came from a group which supported the traditional Christo-Judaic view of marriage. Later, again as a result of pressure, they rejected an app from a group which gives help to people who want to give up their homosexual lifesyle.
    In case there’s anybody who thinks that this has got nothing to do with them I refer you to the famous statement made by Pastor Martin Niemoeller, a German who opposed the Nazis:

    First They came… – Pastor Martin Niemoeller
    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    :

  90. What was Facebook’s energy consumption in 2008?
    Green house gas emission by US cities & Facebook

    In September last year Greenpeace demanded of Facebook that they, “Advocate for strong climate and energy policy changes at the local, national and international level to ensure that as the IT industry’s energy demand increases, so does the supply of renewable energy…”

    The letter from Greenpeace’s Executive Director to Mark Zuckerberg concludes:

    “It is with the interest of your company, your millions of users, and our planet in mind that I urge you to exercise bold and immediate leadership in addressing climate change. I invite you to engage with me in dialogue regarding these points, as I am sure that with further discussion regarding your company’s environmental goals and growth plans, we will be able to reach common ground. I look forward to your response.
    Sincerely,
    Kumi Naidoo
    Executive Director
    Greenpeace International”
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/Cool-IT/executive-director-of-greenpeace-to-ceo-of-fa/blog/26324

    Surely this would not include Facebook creating a bias against WUWT and similar blogs expressing a view different from that of Greenpeace? Some might call that censorship.

  91. SBVOR (April 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm),

    I agree with you, and it’s an important point, but I think your last line is inaccurately formulated. There is really no such thing as one right trumping another; rights, properly defined, do not confict.

    The owner of private property has the right — incorrect judicial decisions to the contrary notwithstanding — to order anyone off his property for any reason, and, therefore, to impose conditions for permission to stay, including the condition of not speaking, or not expressing certain ideas. The right of freedom of speech means one may express one’s ideas on one’s own property, or on public property, not on someone else’s property. So in the situation at issue, the right of freedom of speech is neither being violated nor trumped.

  92. SBVOR and biff33: Research the term “public accommodation law” and “public right of way”. Don’t know if you are familliar with company owned towns, but there are still public rights of way in company owned towns, and the company that owns the town has no legal right to interfere with members of the public using the rights of way and exercising their rights on them.

  93. Sean Houlihane says:
    April 10, 2011 at 12:36 pm (Edit)

    “No blocks here either. Some people seem to be getting a little paranoid.”

    No, Sean, as previously stated several times, when we appeal a block on one article, FB authorizes the URL for that one article, so all subsequent shares by readers of that one article go through, but each day, all new articles get blocked and we have to go through the appeals process on each one. This is not paranoia, the graphic on this article was not made up.

  94. SBVOR says:
    April 9, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    “For the average Leftist, their entire identity is defined by their political ideology. And, their political ideology is best described as a totalitarian, political religious ideology. But, even that falls short of the mark (because we are really talking about a totalitarian, political religious cult). This religious cult mentality means that their entire “moral compass” (such as it is) is defined by the tenets of this totalitarian political religious cult.”

    Yep. Captures academia perfectly. If you so much as deviate from their preferred terminology, they experience serious anxiety.

  95. mikelorrey: I am not a lawyer, but my point is that the whole concept of “public accomodation,” in its legal sense, is irrational. It amounts to the idea that by exercising your property rights — letting people in — you lose your property rights. In my view, laws upholding that concept are immoral.

  96. We should all try to keep up with the times and technology, and try to say something positive about facebook. So I will say, it’s true that the substance of the posts and discussions are somewhat lacking, but at least the time is lost in a black hole forever.

  97. Just a quick comment about Facebook.
    If an article or site is reported as abusive enough times it is put on hold until a human can check out the validity of the report. Yesterday some diehard warmist’s had obviously decided to do just that.
    Today it has been sorted out. Tomorrow it may happen again. As long as it does get sorted satisfactorily then I am happy, but if it does not then that is the time to worry.
    Facebook may not be everyone’s cuppa but it does get the sceptics side out there to the public. Without it many in our group would have still been believers in the dogma that is AGW.
    My Father, who was a habitual autonomous learner throughout his life, refused to be connected to the Internet. He read numerous books and used his computer to write down his thoughts in word documents; extremely interesting to read after his passing but then we already knew his theories. How good would it have been for him to have been able to share these with other like minded people?
    Making ‘friends’ on Facebook is actually about sharing common interests; without Facebook many people wouldn’t even have heard of WUWT!
    Please don’t dismiss it as purely a friend making lonely hearts site, for some it may be, but for others it is playing an important roll in information sharing, something that I would have thought would be applauded considering the problems we have with FOI requests :o)

  98. if it’s any consolation, my decidedly warmist blog posts are also being blocked regularly over the last 5 days or so.

  99. #
    #
    Colin in Mission BC says:
    April 9, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Why is it that seemingly all of the massive tech companies (e.g. Facebook, Google), always seem to heavily lean towards the Kool-Aid Drinking section of CAGW?
    ###

    The computer (non) sciences were some of the first engineering programs to introduce wide scale Marxist indoctrination as part of the curriculum. This started in the late 60s. Today, the first chapter in any CS text will involve a discussion on “Social Responsibility”. I work as a software engineer, almost all of my co-workers are lefties. Their heads are filled with all sorts of self-contradictory nonsense it is scary. It is getting so bad, that the faulty thought process needed to produce a socialist are starting to impact the code they produce. The only software engineers that I know who have not been brainwashed are aspies like me. And if things are bad for the Computer Sciences, the are far worse for things such as Wildlife Biology.

  100. Well FB is at it again blocking WUWT link sharing. Extreme warmistas have been at it again…

  101. jasmr says:
    Maybe this community should consider making a documentary, which includes all the Steve McIntyre forensics, and as much factual material summarised from the relative scientific papers, IPCC reports and NIPPC material to tell the story. Actors could be used quoting various quotable quotes from some of the main players (not to be named at this stage ;-).

    A bit OT but since you said this, I’ll put it out there:

    I have experience producing & directing. Nothing big, but I know my way around that particular field. Should this become more than simply a suggestion, I would like to make myself available in that capacity to those behind the production.

  102. If the moderators will permit (and I certainly understand if they don’t):

    If you would like a social networking site that absolutely WILL NOT engage in censorship of this nature, and will not permit a website to be spuriously targeted like this (understanding the same applies to all sides of a debate), try http://miio.com/

    Full disclosure: I can make that guarantee because I am one of the founders of miio, so I know what the rules are…

  103. Well FB’s Zuckeberg is still wet behind the ears kid, who is being played by the Obama camp, for campaign donations. Hey who wouldn’t be stroked by all the attention from the President of The United States.

    Hey legal disclaimer; I couldn’t be happier that ZB has found a good old American way to fleece Americans and others, who like to publicize their own sense of self importance. It’s snake oil salesmanship of the highest order.

    Same thing with Bill Gates of M$, I begrudge him nary a brass razoo of his inestimable fortune; good on him. But in Gates’ case, I think the argumant can be made, that he has actually contributed immensely to the welbeing of people all over this planet. So Windows may be the biggest computer virus ever spread in the cyber world; but who wants to go back to eh age before the PC.

    But Zuckerberg preys entirely on a person’s own Narcissism. Well I’m all for taking money away from such people, by any means that is legal and I suppose that FB is legal.

    The greatest mystery of the species homo sapiens sapiens, is how ANY entrepeneur, can possibly be a socialist.

  104. I and many others use social media on Facebook and Twitter for networking. Several thousand of us across the world use Facebook to crosspost dogs and cats in high kill shelters to rescues across the country who can save them. Shelters kill over 250,000 to over 400,000 pets a year, depending on the state. Facebook and Yahoo Groups, that people join for this purpose have resulted in massive numbers of these animals saved, some horribly abused and neglected but many are wonderful dogs, cats, adorable puppies and kittens whose owners bailed in our new culture of government dependence and lack of personal responsibility! Before, shelter animals, some in poor areas and many at the mercy of thugs, only escaped death if a local went in and adopted. Facebook especially has made a huge impact. There is a Brit who weekly, from the UK, manages to work the animals in a NC shelter so successfully that most weeks zero die, when prior to FB they had an 85% kill rate! The changes made to FB since the meeting w/obama have made it more difficult to to use FB as a networking tool, which I believe was the point, w/his re-election looming being able to BS the sheep and a new “obama girl” are the only chance this guy has to keep those great vacations and golf outings coming! No longer are conservatives at the mercy of a liberal lying media.
    There also would be zero chance of getting the word out about the criminal Bills Congress has been trying to ram through and issues like Climategate, without the expedient sharing of blogs and links like this on Facebook and Twitter, nor would there have been a force like the Teaparty without the networking done on Twitter and to a lesser degree FB.
    There are two types of social media users… those who use it for vanity and post their every inane action and thought, and those who use it for networking to get out a message and educate large numbers of people.

  105. I just tried to do a test post giving URL to Steig-Antarctica page WUWT, problem was Facebook was capturing all graphics on WUWT page – that’s not viable.
    I cancelled by going Back in browser.

  106. Mike Nicholson says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm
    To all my American Friends. You have an enviable position in having enshrined within law, the right to freedom of speech. Facebook has taken an action that seems to ignore that. Fight to maintain that right!

    Mike, indeed we do. However, as a private non-government entity, they can restrict freedom on their site any way they see fit. Like the du.org, Mikeymoron.org and Moron.org, these sites can determine that only hate speech against certain people is allowed, and all other speech is forbidden.

    Our right to free speech is from government control, not from private citizens restricting it on their own property.

  107. Squidly says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm
    Note to Facebook and Google: You are treading on thin ice (worse than we thought) .. and remember this, Easy Come, Easy Go!!!

    Squidly – Google has already stated ‘case closed’ on AGW, and if you do a search you will find some articles already buried. While I am no fan of Microsoft, I have found their Bing to be as good as Google – use it or lose it.

    Second, stay away from Facebook. Zuckerberg has already stated that there is no expectation of privacy for anyone with an account there. So the only defense is not to be there.

    Given that both Google and Facebook are hostile to real science, I see no reason in supporting them so they can spend your money campaigning for lies.

  108. PhilJourdan says:
    Squidly – Google has already stated ‘case closed’ on AGW, and if you do a search you will find some articles already buried. While I am no fan of Microsoft, I have found their Bing to be as good as Google – use it or lose it.

    Second, stay away from Facebook. Zuckerberg has already stated that there is no expectation of privacy for anyone with an account there. So the only defense is not to be there.

    None of this posturing matters until/unless there are viable alternatives that are actually used. There used to be MySpace, but it has fallen by the wayside. Twitter is out there, but it isn’t exactly a great place for a conversation. (plus, all of these places are run by people with similar mindsets). Others have tried, but all have suffered from the simple fact that everyone is using facebook/twitter/google.

    Simply having an alternative doesn’t work – people need to use it. But people don’t use the alternatives because nobody else is. Catch-22. Until you break that cycle, these companies are a defacto monopoly. Not much different than the MSM, really…

  109. Thankyou SBVOR for saying “Private property rights should trump free speech rights every time.” on April 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm.
    The confusion is between freedom of speech and free-ride.

    Those who believe that humans are intrinsically uncreative, unproductive, and untrustworthy make two errors.
    – Persons of Marxist persuasion think there is an economic fixed-pie and that exploitation is possible despite the justice system in the US and like countries, so anyone who has money to fund speaking stole it from someone else.
    – Persons who think that that all humans can be conned by bad people all the time want to limit what can be said – Barack Obama and John McCain both fit that. (There’s also the neo-Marxists who explicitly think that garbage as art should be funded by force, they have a psychological problem beyond their inability to see the immorality of Marxism in principle and its utter failure in application.)

    As with most attempts to manipulate, things don’t work out they way the perpetrater’s expected. While people like to claim that campaign finance reform is necessary to prevent big business money from winning, there are many cases to the contrary, including rich people who could not come close to getting elected and the festering dispute in Canada over political parties getting funds from the government. It turns out that the Conservative party, which would be assumed to get money from big businesses, does very well with modest contributions from individuals. The opposition parties do very poorly despite their claim to represent people (and I presume are limited in what they can get from unions who would support the NDP and the many business people who support the “Liberal” party). So they expect to continue to get money from taxpayers by force, that individuals will not give them voluntarily.

Comments are closed.