Climate Skeptic Censorship by Google, Twitter, and Microsoft LinkedIn

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

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

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

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
171 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pat
January 1, 2018 9:07 pm

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.

Jeffrey Barker
Reply to  pat
January 1, 2018 10:04 pm

Pat

AlGoreRythmns- would that be dodgy code, malicious code or a nasty virus perhaps?
That would just about sum him up.

Bill
January 1, 2018 11:08 pm

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/

The Reverend Badger
January 2, 2018 12:46 am

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.

Michael 2
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
January 2, 2018 4:06 pm

“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!

Michael 2
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
January 2, 2018 4:18 pm

“Personally I think gravity must play a significant role”

Indeed it does, for without gravity there would be no “lapse rate” or atmosphere.

Earthling2
January 2, 2018 2:15 am

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.

Sasha
January 2, 2018 3:07 am

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.

Ryan
January 2, 2018 5:03 am

You never see Fox News articles in Google news… not on top. Google is just another leftists communist supporting company.

Gamecock
January 2, 2018 6:09 am

Gamecock feels good because he doesn’t use any GFTM+RW.

Griff
January 2, 2018 6:50 am

“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]

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
January 2, 2018 8:53 am

…and many (nearly all) US scientists agree that climate change caused by human activity is taking place.

Oh no, it’s consensus again.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

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/

MarkW
Reply to  Non Nomen
January 2, 2018 10:20 am

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.

Reply to  Non Nomen
January 3, 2018 3:27 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
January 2, 2018 10:15 am

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.

Michael 2
Reply to  Griff
January 2, 2018 4:12 pm

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.

Jeffrey Barker
Reply to  Michael 2
January 2, 2018 4:57 pm

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..

Michael 2
Reply to  Michael 2
January 3, 2018 11:59 am

“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.

January 2, 2018 8:10 am

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.

lbeyeler (aka lb but not the one above)
January 2, 2018 11:41 am

“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.

G. Kronen
January 3, 2018 5:37 am

Looks like these people have been taking lessons from Anthony Watts. Political activists passing themselves off as scientific commentators.

[??? .mod]

Reply to  G. Kronen
January 3, 2018 3:31 pm

If you have an issue, spell it out, don’t blather in riddles.

Colin Peterson
January 3, 2018 8:21 am

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.

January 3, 2018 11:16 pm

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

Bruce
January 3, 2018 11:19 pm

I think they just don’t like BS being posted.

Roland Salomonsson
January 5, 2018 2:07 am

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.