Global Warming: Facebook Thinks its Opinion is Better than Yours

Reposted from The CO2 Coalition

Hyperpartisan “Fact-checkers” Appear to Find a Video Loophole in the 2019 Policy Change of Not Blocking Opinion Pieces

The CO2 Coalition of climate scientists today published a Science & Policy Brief by Dr. Patrick Michaels, formerly the president of the association of state climatologists and an expert reviewer and author for the UN’s climate change agency, about the recent censorship by Facebook of his three-million view appearance on the Life, Liberty & Levin television show.

“Facebook Thinks its Opinion is Better than Yours” provides a detailed scientific response, with links to all relevant documents, to the “false” label placed by Facebook in May on Dr. Michaels’ expert opinion that about half of the one degree Celsius global warming since 1900 is natural, with the other half being human-caused, from emissions of carbon dioxide. As the Science & Policy Brief notes, Dr. Michaels’ opinion is shared by the UN’s climate change agency.

A “false” label on Facebook creates a “shadow ban” that blocks distribution and advertisement.

In 2019 Facebook, relying on a group called Climate Feedback as its “fact-checker,” similarly censored an op-ed on computer models of the climate that was published in the Washington Examiner by Dr. Michaels and the CO2 Coalition’s executive director, former statistics professor Caleb Rossiter. After a detailed appeal to CEO Mark Zuckerberg by Dr. Michaels and Dr. Rossiter, Facebook removed the label and adopted a new policy of not submitting op-eds to “fact-checking.”

“There are two issues we are asking Mr. Zuckerberg to address in this new case,” said Dr. Rossiter. “First, Climate Feedback is taking advantage of the lack of clarity in Facebook’s definition of ‘opinion’ that will not be subject to censorship. Why should spoken opinions about scientific judgment be censored when written ones are not? Second, why is Facebook still relying on Eric Michelman’s alarmist Climate Feedback? As Dr. Michaels shows in the Brief, this group has a long history as a biased ‘goon squad’ whose climate science claims are sloppy and weak.”

Download the Science & Policy Brief Facebook Thinks its Opinion is Better than Yours

58 thoughts on “Global Warming: Facebook Thinks its Opinion is Better than Yours

    • If you don’t like it, write your webpages. The great thing about the web is that you are free to do so.

      • That’s all well and good, but Facebook and Twitter are the watering trough for the vast majority of people. If they want to be the “town square,” then they should butt out and let the town do its own thing, just like a town square does.

        And beyond that, when people have created their own discussion platforms (like Gab), the thought police have screeched about how racist we are for creating our own platforms. And when people post politically contrary viewpoints, the tech monopolies do everything in their power, from stripping them of ad revenue to deranking them in search engine results, to destroy them utterly off the face of the earth. All because they think that they, in their infinite wisdom, holiness, and righteousness that they know better than we do.

      • Izaak says: If you don’t like it, write your webpages. The great thing about the web is that you are free to do so.

        So, if I don’t like my kids getting bullied at school, I should homeschool, then? I’m free to do so here in Canada. Or, should my school enforce rules fairly and equitably, no matter who the bully’s parents are?

        Just a thought on the logic of your statement.

        badEnglish

        • There is a huge difference between schooling which is a right for everyone and paid for out of taxation and joining a social network that exists solely to make money out of selling your private data to advertisers.

          Facebook is a private company that exists solely to make money for its shareholders. Do not think they are doing this for public good. They will do whatever makes them the most money.
          But you have the option to quit and write your own website. If enough people do that Facebook will go the way of Myspace and nobody will care.

          • “Facebook is a private company that exists solely to make money for its shareholders. Do not think they are doing this for public good. They will do whatever makes them the most money.
            But you have the option to quit and write your own website.”

            Facebook and Twitter are our de facto public squares. (Not that I have ever participated on either.) It is in the public interest that they be open and, to the degree that they can’t be completely open, at least nonpartisan in their regulations.

            U.S. courts have ruled that malls are de facto public squares and must allow leafletting and speechifying therein, despite being private. (“Start your own mall” arguments got no traction.) The courts ought to rule similarly in the case of dominant social media.

      • One of the many GREAT THINGS about FREE SPEECH — in this case, direct written criticism — is that when one objects to any particular words, writings, or etc, one is neither obligated nor precluded from setting up, in response, one’s own like-kind platform.

        And, yes, indeed, in this case: Facebook Moderation = Cyber-fascism.

      • Is Facebook a platform or a publisher?
        If they are a platform, they are strictly neutral with respect to content. The content creator is legally responsible for their content.
        If they are a publisher, they may exert editorial control over the content, and are legally responsible for *all* content.

        Facebook, and others, are attempting to claim legal exemption from liability by claiming to be platforms, while using the editorial prerogatives of a Publisher.
        They can not have it both ways.

        Issue #2:
        Many people would be more agreeable to what Facebook is doing if the rules were clearly spelled out and and applied uniformly.
        Facebook always falls back to some nebulous statement referring to some nebulous Community Standards.
        The same Community Standards which allowed ISIS to recruit Islamic Jihadis on their Facebook page for years? Those Community Standards?????

        • TonyL,
          legally Facebook are doing nothing wrong in the US. They have to moderate posts in order to
          comply with various laws (like not allowing terrorists to recruit) while they are still exempt from liability over what various people post. Internet websites are legally neither platforms nor publishers and so that distinction is irrelevant.

          • And yet they claim the benefits of both, thus escaping liability for the suppression of speech. If they are neither, let them man up and admit they are Fascists.

          • Jorge,
            Facebook are doing precisely what they are allowed to do under US law. The law treats internet platforms differently to “real world” examples like book stores or publishers. Furthermore Facebook has to follow the laws for each of the countries it operates in and in many of those there are again a distinct set of laws created for the internet.

            If you want to change things then you have two options. Firstly in a democracy you can start a process to change the law (and you even have the current President of the US on your side)
            or you can start your own social network. And again if people prefer your way of doing it then facebook will go the way of myspace.

          • “If you want to change things then you have two options. Firstly in a democracy you can start a process to change the law (and you even have the current President of the US on your side) or you can start your own social network.”

            Or you can sue, appealing to the precedent set by the courts when they ruled that de facto public squares like malls must allow public demonstrations and free speech therein.

          • “Internet websites are legally neither platforms nor publishers and so that distinction is irrelevant.”
            Here is your issue. Websites are *not* some other. Under US telecom laws, websites are one or the other. They are *not* exempt.
            Also: Facebook itself claims legal status as a platform, when it suits them. So far, it seems the courts have deferred to that claim. This in itself gives some legal standing to the platform/publisher issue. Although it is easy to see that the legal status of the various “social media” is far from settled, nobody to my knowledge, has advanced your claim that they are neither, and so the laws do not apply.

          • I just can’t let this one pass….
            Isaak wrote:
            “They have to moderate posts in order to
            comply with various laws (like not allowing terrorists to recruit)”

            True Enough!!
            Then we see them *censoring* a scientific debate because they do not like some of the ideas presented.
            Perhaps Facebook believes that some scientific ideas are as dangerous as ISIS recruitment. They sure act like it.

            I do not know what country you are in, but here in the US, we really do like out Freedom Of Speech. Attempts to shut down speech are not taken in stride.

          • Gee, seven posts from this’ Izaak Walton’ already – I wonder if there’s a dog in the fight.

      • There’s no problem with totalitarianism, so long as you have the option of leaving the country.

        • Many totalitarian regimes give you the option to leave the regime. In a pine box.

          • Er…. they will usually charge your family for the box. Plus administrative expenses like the bullet….

      • It doesn’t matter how much the NYT lies, so long as people are free to start their own newspaper.

        The problem is that most people don’t know that they are being lied to. How do we reach them if their preferred provide locks out all dissenting opinions.

      • You mean the freedom to express ones opinions based on ones experiences? What a novel idea.

      • This is why it’s more important than ever to repeal section 230 so that these monopolies can accrue of the benefits, liabilities and responsibilities of being publishers. Then when they collapse actual platforms can fill the void.

      • If you don’t like it, write your webpages. The great thing about the web is that you are free to do so.

        I agree with you to an extent, what is missing from this view is that FB etc. receive protection for legal violations of individual users because they claim to be a carrier, like the postal service, not a publisher of information.

        If they editorialise, they potentially diminish their claim to be carriers, and perhaps instead can be treated as publishers; people who are defamed or otherwise injured by individual FB users might be able to start suing FB.

        So tech giants have a choice – they carry other people’s content, with minimal interference, and receive section 230 protection. Or they editorialise, and get slammed next time someone makes a defamatory public post.

        • Eric,
          that gets the original intent of section 230 completely backwards. It was designed to allow
          companies to lightly moderate content without being held liable for everything. The original
          worry was that if internet providers blocked child pornography for example then they could be held liable for every single comment made on their websites. Section 230 was put into the communications decency act to encourage companies to moderate websites without exposing them to liability. Have a look at:
          https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/section-230-the-internet-law-politicians-love-to-hate-explained/
          for more details.

        • Pat,
          I don’t. I refuse to have a facebook account nor do I have a twitter account since I object to
          their policies. But I recognise their legal right as companies to do what they like within the law.

          • You are refusing a facebook (FB) account? Who is forcing you to sign up? I was banned from FB because of my scientifically based opinions on climate change. And now they want my personal details to re-activate my sign-on! Yeah get trucked FB!

      • The usual way that the left wing respond to people who attempt to publicise ideas which they disagree with is to attack the people who provide them with infrastructure. For instance, It seems that Nigel Farage in the UK has had his program removed by the broadcaster LBC, because other advertisers on LBC were threatened with boycotts unless they applied pressure on the broadcaster to remove Farage.

        So your requirement to ‘write your own website’ would also seem to include creating your own web hosting service, building your own hardware and software, and maybe even maintaining your own TLD?

        • Nancy Pelosi said a couple of months ago ‘permanently impeached’. Hey, did you know that no Supreme Court Chief Justice has ever been impeached? I never knew.

      • Why don’t you just tell him to learn to code like Democrats tell blue collar workers that they cause to be unemployed to do, even though they’ll never actually be employed doing it?

      • But for some reason, “Open your own cake shop,” doesn’t seem to apply when bakers apply standards to what they will do.

  1. Having a two-way bet does make anyone an expert. Anthropogenic global warming is mage impossible by the operation of the combined gas law and the 1,677 km/h equatorial speed of Earth’s rotation. Just look at what happened to Venus with just 6 km/h rotation by losing that to Earth over the past 4.5 billion years. And then compare that with Mars rotating slightly slower than Earth but still having an equatorial speed of 868 km/h. To find out about the cherry-picking by anarchists, check this out:
    https://www.quora.com/Because-of-global-warming-should-we-go-back-to-using-animals-like-horses-and-camels-for-transport-and-towing/answer/John-Bruyn

  2. First they controlled the main stream media and no one said anything because….. the first Amendment. Then they controlled what could be said on certain applications within the media and there was still silence because…. the first Amendment. Then there was no personal opinion that was safe from censure and people wonder why.

  3. It is sort of a pattern.

    Google searches are now controlled by special interest groups. Google searches are manipulated in a manner that is directly interfering with US election.

    … as the Google searches filter out Climate Skeptic sites, conservative blogs, and so on, in addition to hiding stinking and politically explosive corruption.

    The Master of the Universe companies control what we see and hence what we can find out. And hence what we can stop.

    The problem is the Master of the Universe are not master of the Universe….

    Remember the trade imbalance. Those Trillions of US dollars are now coming back in Chinese government owned shell companies to buy key industries all over the world including the US. Prior to this the Chinese government using shell companies bought key control of US media companies.

    US Universities have refused to disclose how much the funds that are getting from China. China has a plan. China is executing a plan. We are fighting among ourselves.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/politics/pentagon-china-economic-warfare/index.html

    Pentagon warns China is exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to wage ‘economic warfare’ on the US

    Washington (CNN) Defense officials are increasingly concerned China is using the coronavirus crisis to gain stakes in strategically important businesses as the pandemic leaves struggling companies urgently in need of capital.

    • “US Universities have refused to disclose how much the funds that are getting from China. China has a plan.”

      Is it my imagination or is there a growing population of Chinese Climate scientists in US universities ramping up the hype? To wit the recent U of Delaware article about expanding fresh meltwater in the Arctic blocking solution of CO2 into the Arctic ocean. They didn’t explain how having a frozen arctic would permit more CO2 into the Arctic saltwaters. Trump has enough work for several stints at president.

  4. Izaak Walton: “If you don’t like it, write your webpages. The great thing about the web is that you are free to do so.”

    That’s a weak and very unconvincing argument, with apparently only one rectifying option.

    If you are not fully on board with the way something works then leave, go away, there’s no place for your opinion here.

    Sounds a bit fascist. /sarc

    I would suggest that that is a very myopic stance for a company with 2.6 billion active users across the globe.

    This Facebook censorship accusation has been trundling along for years in different guises, it’s no secret they censor everything they don’t like, it’s blatantly obvious and has been corroborated by numerous ex-employees.

    Fine, ok, that’s what they do, but the real problem is that they lie and deny that they’re doing it, that’s deceit.

    To quote Edward Kennedy: Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins.

    • Facebook is no different from any other company. It exists to make money and will do anything that is
      legal in order to maximise its return to its shareholders. And just like any other company if people stop buying its products then it will go bankrupt.

      • So is it legal to profit from “acting” like a platform whilst obscuring “behaviour” of a publisher?

        ….thus deceiving “the great unwashed” into continuing naively to buy their product.

        ….or is it always the peoples fault?

      • Maybe since you don’t have a Facebook account, you shouldn’t act like you know what you’re talking about.

        Case in point: “…if people stop buying its products…”

  5. When they do that on my posts I put this on:

    Declaration of human rights

    Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

  6. re the run your own blog
    sure you can
    but
    gurgle and its relateds use algos to block pages they? dont approve of being seen
    amazing what duckduck go gets that they dont
    and minus the ads as a bonus.

  7. Really? Well, I think Facebook is singlehandedly destroying the earth.

    Hundreds of thousands of Facebook employees working and making money they spend on all sorts of stuff like food, clothing, and shelter that wouldn’t have had to be made if they had remained poor.

    Sitting in climate-controlled offices at energy consuming computers full of toxic materials mined in environment destroying fashion.

    Then Facebook users posting via devices made with the same toxic chemicals being thrown away every couple of years to pollute the earth. And consuming coal-fired electricity to keep them running.

    They too live in climate-controlled environments and eat from dishes that need to be washed with water which is then returned polluted to our rivers and oceans.

    On the bright side, most of them don’t shower.

    • If that is true, Facebook is smarter than the reported 97% of scientists who believe in it.
      Congratulations Facebook!

  8. One of FB’s early angel investors Peter Thiel of Palantir/PayPal fame who received funding from a company called In-Q-Tel:

    In-Q-Tel was launched in 1999 with former CIA Director George Tenet explaining the vision behind it as being:

    We [the CIA] decided to use our limited dollars to leverage technology developed elsewhere. In 1999, we chartered… In-Q-Tel… While we pay the bills, In-Q-Tel is independent of CIA. CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them. The In-Q-Tel alliance has put the agency back at the leading edge of technology.

    one of In-Q-Tel’s early investments was in a company called Keyhole EarthViewer. In 2004, Keyhole EarthViewer was acquired by another little startup that you may have heard of — Google.

    At Google, the Keyhole EarthViewer technology that was born from CIA/In-Q-Tel funding was renamed Google Earth.

    Everything is inter-connected.
    When it comes to personal information, you can bet your b*tt that numerous 3 letter agencies are involved.

    https://stpaulresearch.com/2018/03/29/revealed-facebooks-cia-connections/

  9. I have a friend whose post was fact-checked and covered with a disclaimer within hours of posting.

    Meanwhile, scam companies operate on Facebook freely for months and even years with “sponsored ads.” Reporting them to Facebook doesn’t seem to do anything. And clones are started constantly.

    • ‘Facebook’ and ‘Google’ are being controlled as a political weapon.

      Evidence to support that assertion is Facebook has blocked/ban a Trump connecting Antifa with the violence in our cities.

      https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/06/18/facebook-bans-trump-campaign-ad-that-denounces-antifa-violence/

      Antifa is being used by China as political anti-American weapon. US companies are giving money to Antifa, as directed by China. Antifa is well funded and organized in cells to avoid capture.

      Google searches filter out any articles on this subject. Google searches never include Breitbart articles.

      Google searches are starting to no longer find articles that are critical of China. i.e. Google searches for the same search subject are changing in real time.

      Antifa members believe in the “Anarchy Plan” (no cops and riots)

      You know, we need to tear down this mess to solve our problems…

Comments are closed.