My inbox has been full of this issue this week, and I see it mostly as a tempest in a teapot. But since there is an interest, I’m putting this up for discussion. I can understand the situation, running the most viewed climate related blog, where I’ve noted that a small minority of people can cause a lot of trouble and waste a lot of time. Those people often go astray of the site policy for WUWT, and sometimes find themselves banned for repeated bad behavior. Those that might have contentious views but aren’t intractable zealots learn to work within policy and stick around, and contribute to debate here. That said, a “blanket ban” just wouldn’t work nor would it be sensible. Imagine if a single WUWT moderator decided to make a blanket policy change here. -Anthony
From Fox News:
Critics are slamming Reddit over a single moderator’s decision to ban climate-change skeptics from contributing to its science forum, attacking the move as “political censorship.”
In an op-ed titled “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?” Nathan Allen — who described himself a Ph.D. chemist for a major chemical company and a moderator on Reddit’s “/r/science” forum — explained his decision to wipe comments from some users he dismissed as “problematic.”
“These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking,” Allen said in his article, which is posted on Grist.org. “They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.”
Allen went on to attack climate-change skeptics further, saying that evidence to support their position “simply does not exist” and that such people are “enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.”
‘[Climate skeptics are] enamored by the emotionally charged … arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.’
– Reddit moderator Nathan Allen
Finally, Allen called for other news outlets to follow his example, asking “if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
The move has drawn accusations of hypocrisy, as Reddit claims to be a haven for free speech and debate. The site describes itself as a place “friendly to thought, relationships, arguments, and to those that wish to challenge those genres.”
Brendan O’Neill, in a blog post for the UK Daily Telegraph, said Reddit has “ripped its own reputation to shreds,” and described the move as “political censorship, designed to silence the expression of dissent about climate-change alarmism on one of the Internet’s most popular user-generated forums.”
James Delingpole, columnist, climate skeptic and author of “The Little Green Book Of Eco Fascism,” was even louder in his criticism.
“The greenies — and their many useful idiots in the liberal media — are terrified of open debate on climate-change because the real world evidence long ago parted company with their scientifically threadbare theory,” Delingpole told FoxNews.com, arguing that Allen’s tactic is part of a “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don’t support you, then close down the argument.”
Victoria Taylor, Reddit’s director of communications, told FoxNews.com that while it was Allen’s prerogative to ban climate-change skeptics from “/r/science,” his statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole, or other science or climate-oriented subreddits.”
More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/19/critics-blast-reddit-over-climate-change-skeptic-ban/
h/t to WUWT reader “Pete”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Reddit is a shallow empty box where global warming activists can sneer aloud and hear their echos reflect back at them so they can feel validated.” (Paul Westhaver at 12:27pm today)
Bore repeating — with emphasis. Exactly. (and Dirk and others with same idea).
**********************************
@ur momisugly Steven Mosh-er — thanks for the tips. I think they’ve got this one covered, though… “thread bomb him with idiotic pro AGW comments.” #(:))
*****************************************************
Oh, Matt S.. I’m not THAT stupid (eye roll). Thanks for letting me know I’m viewed that way by some. Sigh.
Say, would you like to join Gunga Din in our game of tag? (that is the context for my remark which made you think (or only confirmed your opinion, perhaps) that I am an idiot) Join in!
@ur momisugly Gunga Din –…… Janice, since her name isn’t actually Missing Heat, appears in the distance —- Gunga Din dashes after her and soon overtakes her, tapping her on the shoulder crying, “You’re It.” I may be good at hiding, but you are much swifter.
Watch out, Matt S. — Gunga Din is now It; and he is very fast…
#(:))
Janice Moore said (December 20, 2013 at 11:35 am)
“…This is, as I said a couple of days ago, the loveliest Christmas gift Red It could have given to us. “Why are they banned…. ?” will get FAR more people to read WUWT and other science truth sites than would otherwise have but for the ban…”
To this, I’ll agree. It was the total hatred for WUWT and Climate Audit seen at the other sites that brought me here.
If people see Reddit as a social media news aggregator, then so is WUWT. Any stupid comments said at the other sites winds up here.
We scan those sites so you don’t have to…
“They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.”
We’ve been saying that about SkS for a while now. Maybe they’re finally starting to listen
Here is the original article posted at reddit, with furious comments both for and against:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1t0c9v/reddits_science_forum_banned_climate_deniers_why/
In the article, Nathan Allen, one of the r/science moderators, explains why he banned “climate deniers” from one of reddit’s major “subreddits”, and asks, “why don’t all newspapers do the same?”
It now emerges that Nathan Allen works for Dow Chemicals — “one of the next green giants”. Is there a conflict of interest here?
http://i.imgur.com/3Fu71SD.png
The posting of the article, across multiple subreddits, seemed an opportunity for alarmist zealots to beat the drum of global warming attack activism: skeptics are “deniers”; there is no scientific research which supports their “beliefs”; they engage in irrational “conspiracy theorizing”, or are shills paid by the fossil fuel industry.
The high-profile reddit user who posted the article (and is active in many climate threads across the site) has been identified as Philip Newell, a “communications associate” employed by Climate Nexus, a “strategic communications” NGO funded by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
Both Mr Allen and Mr Newell do not make an attempt to hide their real life identities: their usernames are their real names.
This episode is illustrative of the continual, professional global warming PR campaign that is waged online. A Dow Chemical employee and a Rockefeller NGO worker collaborate to attack skeptics (of all varieties) as “deniers”, and encourage normalization of the censorship of AGW skepticism amongst reddit’s young, trendsetting demographic.
This sort of thing happens every day.
While one section of Reddit bans dissenting opinions(r/science), that is not representative of reddit on the whole.
Reddit is just a big forum with where the threads are broken into specific communites called sub-reddits. For instance, reddit.com/r/climateskeptics is a decent place for people who believe that the scientific method is not dead. There are usually 1 or Wattsupwiththat articlles on the front page at any given time.
You will most likely find skeptics in r/conservative or r/libertarian.
If you’re looking for cute cat pictures check out r/aww.
It’s a mixed bag that generally leans towards 20-30 yr old, male, leftist, STEM majors, but there is something for everyone.
While the banning of dissenting opinions is bad I think the partnership with Nature is probably worse, although they go hand in hand.
For those of you use Reddit (I’ve never head of it) I recommend you do just as Steve Mosher suggests; submit just pro-warming arguments which become more and more ridiculous until even the dumbest of the true believers begin to ask questions. I know that Americans do not understand satire, but as Jonathan Swift demonstrated, this can prove to be a very powerful tactic.
How much more ad revenue would Redit have to lose to reverse this policy? Or perhaps advertisers already know they get very low ROI from skeptics of any kind.
“I don’t mean that in any deep way, just that how long can you sit around and talk with people who agree with you?”
Judging by WUWT threads I’ve read for four years, I’d say you can do it for a long time. 🙂
Changing the filibuster rules, Duck Dynasty jackboot on speech, Reddit ban (which will be modeled at many MSM outlets and has long been sought after in the leftist core of the AGW movement, LA Times has a similar policy) are all symptoms of the declining Obama power. These are the last ditch and tyrannical endgames found in many left-wing governments.
It’s confirmed again, AGW is a totalitarian political movement with little science of substance to consider. Many skeptics pretend and enable the agenda by doing so.
Red Edit?
Condé Nast owns about 20 magazines. Two or three years ago it formed an organization dedicated to spreading warmist doctrine amongst all print media, and has held conferences (IIRC) devoted to furthering this. Its own magazines, such as the Atlantic, have been in the forefront of this effort. Another of its magazines, Wired, started getting snarky about “deniers” — which led me, a-from-the-first subscriber, to let my sub lapse.
==========
I’m afraid that many climate contrarian comments are as bad as this Reddit editor claims. They make me wince when I see them elsewhere on the Internet. (Some WUWT author or maybe the GWPF should compile a collection of them: “Twenty Arguments Not to Use vs. Warmists” or some such could be the title.) But if the Reddit editor wants to keep them out, he needs to be even-handed and keep out the just-as-bad-or-worse Common Crazy Claims by the CaCA Cult.
An insignificant ban since you can just start your own forum if you don’t like a moderators rules. Start a new forum, maybe r/science2 and use a bot to repost all /r/science threads into your new forum.
Reddit has a subreddit just for discussing Global Warming issues. And there is a subredit just for skeptics. http://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalWarming/
http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics
Reddit has had issues with moderators before, so this is nothing new. It’s Reddit being Reddit. One moderator on a sub-reddit can inflict his will on the community and there’s not a lot fellow redditors can do about it.
Funny thing: If the moderator gets subjected to the kind of treatment he’s dishing out, he’ll be the first to scream that his First Amendment rights are getting violated.
… “Allen went on to attack climate-change skeptics further, saying that evidence to support their position “simply does not exist” …”
——————–
After moderating all those skeptic comments, you’d think he would know there is some evidence supporting the skeptic position.
People need to have at least a modicum of objectivity after all. Does Allen say he has none?
How do you ban someone you can’t define? I’m a sceptic. I believe the climate changes. I believe man plays a (small) part. I don’t believe this is catastrophic. I believe some research should be undertaken. I don’t believe models work. Ban me?
“if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
Anyone who signs up for Reddit (which doesn’t even require an email address), all of their sockpuppets and throwaway accounts are automatically subscribed to a couple of dozen subreddits one of which is /r/science. To claim 4 million users is bizarre.
Any, and I do mean ANY comment at CNN that even remotely goes against the agenda is ruthlessly deleted, and the poster put on moderated status. Also, before they kick you to the curb you’re likely to get mocked by a moderator. This is what they do.
Reddit is, in fact, very influential for that younger age group. It’s a carefully crafted channel to distribute modes of thinking into impressionable minds. They believe they have freedom and openness, but it’s not that way. I agree that the Alexa rating is likely very low relative to the number of regulars.
As a fellow denier, folks posting about what they THINK Reddit is or is not while admitting they never have been on the site are no better than the pro aqw fanatics we fight everyday. We, and I use that term loosely, in pursuit of truth, can always most easily take the high road.
Spend some time on Reddit, the AMA’s (ask me anything), TIL (today I learned), what is it like being a college age female in Saudi Arabia, I am posting for my 100 year old grandmother, as her anything, ELI5 (explain it to me like I am 5) there is some really incredible information available. So please feel free to get off your denier horses, at least when you freely admit you don’t know crap.
There are TON of our youth all over the world on Reddit, you better get a grip on how and what they think. Obviously, the mod on the science subreddit is clearly seeing that he does not want the loyal following to be led anywhere but consensus. That should tell us something.
Censorship is just about the only option left for the climateer oracles and their acolytes.
On The Guardian I was trying to figure out, mostly out of curiosity, if the reddit policy differentiated between deniers, skeptics, warmists, and so on. If I went on reddit and claimed that climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing was far less than the IPCC claimed, would I get “moderated”? Where was the line drawn?
Never got a coherent answer of course. Lots of insults, though.
Interesting that Nathan would show up as an apartheidist at a time whdn apartheid is in the news. Makes one wonder if he was inspired by the endless rehashing of that era. It is the kind of thing that would appeal to small minds, and his actions suggest he’s so equipped.
Dirk:
“Leftists were always in favor of censorship of evil right wing ideas and will even applaud the decision”
Remember what good ol’ B. Franklin said: “Revolutions are only illegal in the third person, but not in the first person. THEIR revolution is illegal: OURS is not.”
Anyone that uses “talk radio” or “fox new” as an excuse for their behavior immediately labels themselves as a clueless progressive moron incapable of anything beyond parroting the words fed to them by their masters.
Those words/phrases alone would persuade me to kick whoever used them out of the door without further discussion. If Reddit want to keep any scrap of legitimacy, this moderator needs to go – now.
Reddit is bigger than we old codgers think, I was taking about some obscure topic at the bar with some guys and a young female (25 or so) chirped in and said “oh yeah I saw that on Reddit”. I’ve never had anyone chirp in and say “oh yeah I saw that on WUWT” lol.
I was in the comments section on some story on Disqus yesterday (was it the puffington host? I forget) Anyway, I got into an internet slap fight with David Appell, who was madly trolling the comments, trying to convince everyone that this banning was Just and Right and True.
It was funny.