Facebook censors my video, calling it “partly false.”
—-
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://johnstossel.activehosted.com/f/1
—-
Before Facebook censored it, my video, “Are We Doomed”, got more 24 million views.
You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JZo…
Now Facebook won’t show it to many people — not even to my subscribers. Facebook’s also punishing Stossel TV by showing our other videos less.
All because Facebook foolishly gave Emmanuel Vincent, a recent PhD graduate from France, the power to censor.
Vincent assembled a group of like-minded scientists into a group called Climate Feedback climatefeedback.org that declared parts of my video “misleading,” or “partially false.”
What facts did the “fact-checkers” correct? NONE! There was not a single hard fact that in the video that was wrong.
We address the censor’s claims here, listing our sources: https://www.johnstossel.com/climate-f…
I asked one Vincent “reviewer,” the only one willing to be interviewed, why I deserve censorship even though our facts were correct.
“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific “facts” being “wrong,”” says Patrick Brown, Assistant Professor at San Jose State University.
Some “fact-check.”
“What kills me,” I complain to Brown, “is that when Climate Feedback rates me partly false, that significantly reduces the number of people who see it — and see my other videos. So this is really important to me that it be done fairly.”
“I am sympathetic with what you’re saying,” he responds. “At the same time as a
consumer of information, I like the idea of having some type of system where content can be compared to what experts think.”
But Facebook’s choice of “experts” is absurd.
Emmanuel Vincent proudly says “all the climate scientists that I know personally agree that climate change is real, that it’s serious, and we can do something about it.”
Well, of course climate change is real! But how serious a threat it is, and whether we can do much about it with today’s technology deserves debate. Victor’s little group STOPS debate.
Remarkably, Facebook lets them.
Watch the video above and decide for yourself.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh, geezo Pete, JS, just sue the pants off the buzzards for impeding your 1st Amendment rights (Freedom of Speech, etc.) and make them look ridiculous.
Anyone who is afraid of a different point of view is emotionally immature, a greedy sot, and a self-important p***k.
That argument that “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it” is a valid excuse to make them look like the dorks they are. And they’re afraid that if people listen to YOU, they’ll lose a big chunk of cash. Always follow the money, JS. Always!!!
P.S. A good reference for 1st Amendment stuff is a reference to Henry Miller finally being allowed to publish his pornography in the USA instead of being forced to do it in Europe, because the Boston censors didn’t like porn. He won. The Boston censors lost. Henry published thereafter in the USA (and elsewhere). Don’t whine. Make Zuckerberg look as ridiculous as he is.
Unfortunately the First Amendment only prevents governmental restriction of speech, and FaceBook is not a government agency or arm, however much they may act like one.
Make them a public utility and they have to obey the First Amendment.
Fakebook is a publicly-held company. Zuckie allowed the public sale of stock in the company, so yeah, they CAN be sued re: 1st Amendment.
If, however, they post a public disclaimer stating that they disagree with specifics, it weakens the possibility of losing if they are sued. Their “judgment skills” (quotes are intentional) about what IS and IS NOT valid, as opposed to offensive, are the subject and I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
If, however, they don’t want people posting opinions that disagrees with their “personal viewpoints”, then they are still acting as a privately-owned corporation and should redeem all the stock that people have bought. At $333.34/share, that’s a lotta cash.
Essentially, they no longer have the right to censure people’s opinions no matter how much they disagree with the viewpoint. Threats – yes. Opposing viewpoints – no.
Not agreeing with fkbk is a threat don’t cha know?
“Well, of course climate change is real!”
That would depend on the definiton of “climate change”.
Those two words mean different things to different people. Human-caused, or Mother Nature caused? There’s no evidence for Human-caused Climate Change. There is definitely no evidence for “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change”.
So when John says it is real, what does he mean? Well, in this case, he means Human-caused, but he doesn’t have any evidence for it, so it is an empty claim.
Emmanuel Vincent proudly says “all the climate scientists that I know personally agree that climate change is real, that it’s serious, and we can do something about it.”
Climate scientists in general have no specific expertise, training or capability to evaluate whether or not “we can do something about it”. (Unless it is said in a most trivial of ways). Unfortunately while contradicted by the the sober evaluations of real energy “experts” the opinions of climate experts as to “solutions” are accepted by Facebook and others as gospel.
Facebook might want to consider getting an expert (or at least someone with a basic understanding of energy realities) on board. or they could let good and bad ideas battle it out, unfettered by questionable expert oversight.
When I was younger I used to worry about the far right, but now I worry about the far left and the harm they want to do. They are very intolerant, yes like nazis.
Of course Nazis are creatures of the left. Despite the lies told by the other socialists.
Left is always too far.
I’d like to focus on the “rationale”
This is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. It essentially gives license to any reviewer to flag something they don’t like. Not a single post, not here at WUWT or anywhere else on the face of the earth is so complete that someone, somewhere can’t argue that some contextual information is missing. We need to push back on this notion that something can be literally true yet flagged as partially false simply because some contextual information is omitted.
Serves Stossel right for using FB. The so-called fact checker here is just another no-nothing who’s been conveniently anointed as an authority.
Bottom line: Boycott FB, Twit, Wikipedia, and other BSocial media, which have been allowed to throttle and manipulate the flow of information.
This affront to the First Amendment should have been stopped dead in its tracks years ago. Where is the US Congress?
FB’s Libra, a blockchain cryptocurrency, otherwise known as Zuck’s Bucks, is now:
Diem (digital currency) – Wikipedia
It sure looks like UN Climate advisor Mark Carney, ex-Bank of England chief, is going for this global green eCurrency. BlackRock et al are all on-board.
Anyone getting in the way of this financial boondoggle, China especially is targeted.
It is naïve in the extreme to imagine this has to do with ¨rights¨ – it is about the right of global finance to do what it says, governments and states, even the US, bedamned, and hyperinflate a green bubble.
I actually feel sorry for the Fact Checkers.
The idea is from Bob Newhart’s
An Infinite Number Of Monkeys – YouTube
There the theory of probability means the ¨Monitors¨ who check content.
Try to see the Web from the shoes of such Monitors.
Is anyone taking any specific action to “push back”? Complaining, appealing, talking to the “fact-checkers” – we know none of that does any good.
It looks like well-organized censorship too.
Don’t blame the bots or software engineers, they don’t listen to political pressure as well.
I got a notification from Facebook that a comment I had made “violated community standards” and was now viewable only by me. It was in response to a claim that sea level rise had accelerated dramatically. My comment included data and a link to a historical chart with no name-calling or anything offensive but was cited as “spam” or some nonsense. I think it was made at least a few years ago, too.
More clogs of Nick Clegg?
Any business whose plan is to aggregate and sell marketing data based on tracking my movements and preferences either on or off their site servers is a business I will never patronize.
I don’t care how many cute pictures of cats and dogs they allow to be posted.
I could not access the youtube link! Censored as well?
This could evolve into AAI — Agenda AI.
Think along the lines of a “failure of imagination.”
As presented in the interview, our distinguished professor from SJSU predicts that the sea level rise metric of 200 feet considers what will be in 1000 years.
Some not so long years ago the impetus of the government was to find a repository for spent nuclear fuel from power plants. Lots of money was poured into excavating and exploring a hole in Nevada to create the repository. However, when it came down to the final assessment, the project was scrapped in part because the hydro-geologists could not say with certainty that groundwater in the repository would not be impacted for 10,000 years.
So, we are supposed to assume that our current ability to solve problems today remains stagnant, with no consideration of our potential for discovering or creating new ways to solve yesterdays problems for the next 1000 to 1000 years.
That is the failure of their imagination. It is a failure in our imagination to believe such experts.
One possible solution are fusion reactors. They can clean-up nuclear waste. Of course, fusion reactors are only 30 years away. They’ve only been 30 years away for around 60 to 90 years now.
Facebook execs act this way because they know the real power and dirty tricks gang is in the hands of Dems and their agenda groups. They are steering clear of that whipping.