“The big-tech censors are at it again: the CO2 Coalition’s Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone has been permanently banned from LinkedIn. What did Wrightstone do to earn the banishment? His ‘crime’ consisted of posting charts from peer reviewed research supported by official sources demonstrating that current global average CO2 levels are well within the natural range of concentrations throughout the Earth’s history. LinkedIn’s moderators sent Wrightstone an email informing him that his violations have been so numerous and/or so severe that they couldn’t allow him to continue to use the platform.”
Originally published here at Climate Realism on 6 July 2022.
It’s Wokeness all the way down.
Today they would probably ban Alfred Wegener.
They would ban Albert Einstein on a 5-speed bicycle.
” Linkedl Ins moderators sent Wrightstone an email informing him that his violations have been so numerous …so severe ” ……………………………… You have committed so many crimes Comrade Wrightsone …Confess to your ‘ publicist activities ‘ and “reformist delusions ” ……….Albert Einstein’s womanising and travel letters would have seen him disappear in the acid bath of Woke cancel culture ……Not the Woke Reformations gurus such as the Nazi professor Martin Heidegger , the sado masochist sex tourist pederast Michel Foucalt and the horrid racist Karl Marx who sexually abused his family’s maidservant never paid her a penny and shunned the son he fathered with her . The Woke puritans are not burning their books on the pyres and tearing down their statues ……And isn’t that all one needs to know
Trying to win the Trofim Lysenko award?
Openly held views on public interest topics are anathema to aspiring totalitarians.
I’m talking about you UN and WEF groupies.
LinkedIn also banned Pat Frank for similar reasons. Andy May quit LinkedIn due to the censorship.
On the plus side Andy will be speaking at the 2022 AAPG/SEG convention…
https://www.imageevent.org/luncheons/luncheon/are-fossil-fuel-c02-emissions-good-or-bad
Allow me to finish Dr. Karoly’s thought.
“Science has established that’s it’s virtually certain…” perhaps definitely, most likely the case that CO2 might cause climate change that may have adverse impacts in the future, if we don’t do something immediately, or at least in the next 10 years, 20 years at the latest, but definitely by 2050… perhaps.
Yes, “science has established” and then “it’s virtually certain”.
So the truth is science has NOT established anything. “Virtually certain” does not equal established facts. Dr. Karoly may be virtually certain in his own mind, but that doesn’t establish anything as a fact.
This is typical of alarmist climate scientists: They are so sure of themselves that CO2 is causing changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, yet nothing they claim is based on facts other than that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The rest of it, beyond CO2 being a greenhouse gas, is just pure speculation, assumptions and assertions. No evidence.
You have no evidence, Dr. Karoly. That’s why you are “virtually” certain that CO2 is dangerous. You are fooling yourself, unless you are just a conniving liar. I don’t know which, but you are one or the other.
. Science has not established any such thing ..There are no adverse catastropic increases in sea levels , hurricanes , fires and burned landmass,, droughts or floods . Nor is there any evidence from the glaciological records that CO2 precipitates – that is to say ’causes ” warming …Karoly, most unprofessionally, has confused causation with contribution ……Detailed analyses of the ice cores have determined that CO2 increases lag temperature rises in the order of centuries to millennia … ……………Now remember this is the same David Karoly who boasted in a Climategate email that dumping reams of data on requesters ” usually snows them ” …..Otherwise known as the Gish Gallop tactic .. The intention of the ‘snower ” is not to illuminate but to obfuscate and distract opponents in a blizzard of information …… It is not so much ‘virtually certain ” as definitive that the Gish Gallop or “snowing ” ruse is used by intellectually dishonest sophists with something to hide
I would like Professor Karoly to explain to me why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to improve the growth. Why would we not expect a similar beneficial reaction from vegetation in our world from the increased level of CO2? Can the Prof or any experts actually quantify the exact amount of CO2 that would prove to be detrimental to plants and tell me how far off we are from that amount?
A quick search shows known toxicity around 1% CO2 (10,000 ppm) There are many allegations that as little as 2,000 ppm would be bad, but looking at the underlying protocols shows that more than one variable is changed (too conform to a ‘climate model’ projection of increased temperature and flood/drought caused by the increased CO2), rendering the results questionable. In no instance have I found the 800 to 1500 ppm levels (one or two doublings) reported as bad.So we have a lot of room for expansion.
John_C,
When you calculate doublings, you have to state your starting point and why you chose it. Some say the CO2 relation to temperature is logarithmic, so a doubling from 1 to 2 ppm is rather different in scale to a doubling from 100 to 200 ppm.
I have yet to see a scientific reason to choose a string point other than 1 molecule doubling to 2 molecules. It is more unsettled science. Geoff S
I have thought about this, but not researched it in depth. Don’t you suppose that the starting point has to be somewhere around a concentration where the mean free transmission falls below the scale height of the atmosphere? What I am thinking is an IR active gas can’t have much influence at all until there is a high probability of interaction on a vertical path.
Anyway, your point is well taken. We are most likely on the flat part of the curve.
Geoff,
I hope you realise that one molecule is a human derived measure of mass, it will tell you how much is there, not its concentration. It is derived using grams as a measure with the atomic mass of the elements being the multiplier, eg Carbon is approximately 12 grams per mole. It could just as easily have been pounds, kg or even the often quoted blue whales.
When talking about the concentration of a molecule in the atmosphere it should also be clearly stated whether the measure is via mass per mass, (or volume per volume) and it should clarify whether it is for an equivalent dry air or air as sampled. Water vapour within an air sample can significantly alter the reported values of well mixed gases.
ASHRAE recommends a 1,000 ppm limit for office buildings and classrooms to ensure overall health and performance.
OSHA limits workplace exposure levels to 5000 ppm time-weighted average (over 8 hours).
Drowsiness can occur at 10,000 ppm (1%).
Symptoms of mild CO2 poisoning includes headaches and dizziness at concentrations less than 30,000 ppm (3%)
At 40,000 ppm (4%) CO2 can be life-threatening.
Renee, perhaps you don’t realize that your own breath at the end of expiration (after the still relatively ambient air in the unexchanging broncho-pharyngeal ‘dead space’ has first been flushed out) will register that very same ‘life threatening’ 40,000 ppm you cited. Oh my gosh!
And should your excited dread of such a level cause you to hyperventilate so that your original circulating blood CO2 content indeed declines enough to result in a ‘respiratory alkalosis’, expect the very dizzy headachy result you referred to unless you re-breath much of your own exhaled CO2 from a paper bag until your breathing rate settles down again (which is the simple remedy for that transient malady). So do get a grip, if not some education in respiratory physiology.
Yeah and those limits are hundreds years off on a straight line projection.
High CO2 is indicated as a possible cause of mental confusion or “brain fog”.
I asked a climate alarmist friend of mine a question along those lines recently: what is the optimal level of CO2, then? And cite your evidence. To which he replied, “Ninety percent of the world’s cities are polluted.” I told him he was equivocating, but to no avail. He has made up his mind. (By the way, earlier in that same conversation, he agreed with me that no matter how well-intentioned a government policy is, if the outcome is bad, it should be reconsidered.)
Your friend is being disingenuous when talking about pollution and CO2 in one breath. There may be many emissions and particulates in one city and far less in another though the CO2 levels may be similar. I have seen an enormous improvement over 50 years in some cities with far less particulates. Further, not all particulates may be as harmful as is the case where a city experiences a dust storm. Improvements in car engines and exhaust systems mean we can have less polution despite far more vehicles. The CO2 is another matter and needs to be addressed separately.
Yes, it seems from the preponderance of the evidence that increasing CO2 concentrations are not dangerous but the fact that increasing CO2 promotes greater and more rapid plant growth, with the use of less water, in no way means that it might not also raise temperatures to the point that those faster growing plants, and a great many other things, are destroyed.
If you look at actual research you will see that increased CO2 not only allows plants to grow faster, but to allow them to do so with LESS water and to not only tolerate but to benefit from higher temperatures. Any minor temperature rise due to increase atmospheric levels of CO2 will be well tolerated by plants.
Your “fear” is BS, Andy.
Maybe Karoly doesn’t want there to be more plants. After all, people an animals eat plants, so more plants tends towards more people, animals, and plants.
We know that pumping CO2 into greenhouses is good for plant growth. One aspect I’ve never heard anyone mention is the temperature of the greenhouses. When they increase the CO2 does the temperature also rise significantly?
Nope.
The CO2 increase in a greenhouse is as negligible as one expects from a trace atmospheric gas of no special qualities regarding heat retention.
The desired heating effects are entirely sought via trapping the heat of sunlight within the greenhouse as designed, a conventional heating system, or increasing the water-vapor content of the interior air.
CO2 increases are purely for encouraging faster and more vigorous plant growth, as is common knowledge, which magically disappears the moment climate science Alarmists discuss the gas.
”“Science has established that it is virtually certain that increases of atmospheric CO₂ due to burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change that will have substantial adverse impacts on humanity and on natural systems.”
That is a lie.
Without some shared supreme value impressed upon personal accountability for truth-telling within a culture, conveying a shameless lie to further ‘the cause’ is readily doable, as is now commonplace among media spokespersons, because ‘Hey, why not’?
A bald-faced deliberate lie.
Why would anyone use LinkedIn to promote or debunk the theory of catastrophic human-caused global warming? Seems like the wrong platform for that. It’s supposed to be a place to make professional connections and (hopefully) improve your job prospects. I think it’s overrated, so the bigger question is why anyone would use LinkedIn at all.
Networking. I use it to network with other oil & gas professionals, academics and AGW skeptics.
The sad thing is that while real scientists like Gregory, Pat and Andy get censored, “Sailing Instructors” and “Songwriters/Pilots” are allowed to freely post alarmist propaganda and even stalk skeptical scientists.
I just canceled LinkedIn because of this. “Fakechecking” run wild.
I just BlinkedOut too!
I left Linkedin years ago. I still get regular emails saying “you are being noticed”. Maybe they can notice me enough to ban me so that I don’t keep getting the emails. That would be nice.
If anyone wants to give me a copy/past set of data that will get me kicked off, please do….
Yeah, the “sailing and power boat instructor” guy is comically misinformed, but preaches with conviction.
He makes an occasional appearance here.
I’d received invites to sign up because I was on a “list” for my past profession (retired now) or from friends in other professions but never did.
Kinda’ wish I had now so I could quit it.
I agree to an extent, but there are far more people, mostly with the extensive knowledge of climate change as Wrightstone, pushing the doomster line.
Countering the Greens on LI with actual data leads to lost opportunities. Wrightstone was simply doing his job.
”
So, it appears that a dataset approved and used by world governments in the discussion of climate change is off-limits if a researcher uses it to undermine the notion carbon dioxide emissions are historically high, ..”
Indeed, the Dark Side doesn’t want the moldable masses to know anything, even official peer reviewed stuff, about climate science. They are fed MSM reports that take huge liberties with the ‘science’. One such example is that warming in the tropics is tightly limited by Hadley cells and ocean currents that move heat toward the poles for radiation to outer space, plus a variety of other phenomena that limit ocean warming (e.g. hurricanes that suck excess heat from the ocean surface and deliver it rapidly to the top of the atmosphere for direct emission to space).
These phenomena contribute polar amplification warming which they want the masses to worry about, but they also want to have people worry and feel guilty about warming in the tropics that actually isnt happening.
The more places like Linked In cancel skeptical climate voices, the louder those voices become.
Linked In is headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA. It is now owned by Microsoft based in Seattle. Both areas are hotbeds of climate alarmism, so naturally not willing to tolerate opposing views since in their minds the science is settled. Except it isn’t:
Folks in Silicon Valley, Seattle, and places like PSU (Mann) and Harvard (Oreskes) cannot tolerate such objective facts. It gives them cognitive dissonance.
EARTHS MAGNETIC POLES SHIFTING AND THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA IS NOT ALLOWING ANYONE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO RESEARCH N PUBLISH THOSE FINDING RELATING TO ” CLIMATE CHANGE ” AND EARTHS MAGNETIC POLES SHIFTING…
Be kind, as much as it hurts
That was my “kind” meme… 😎
You are too kind. They don’t deserve it.
Withering response………
Earth’s magnetic fields weren’t shifting during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan or Egyptian warm periods.
Wow, you are special! Any references?
https://astronomy.com/news/2021/09/when-north-goes-south-is-earths-magnetic-field-flipping#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%202.6%20million,and%20are%20certainly%20not%20periodic.
Pretty much any geology book that references magnetic fields.
hmm there were multiple mag reversal ie pole flips recorded in rocks, and the magnetic pole IS still doing around 31km a yr still heading towards siberia last i read the other week.
zenas just a bit frantic it might be new news to her?
appears frantic, based on caps and language.
But, it appears to me that what Zena is trying to say is that shifting poles (not flipping) may result in climate changes, & nobody cares … they even slap down any conversation about non-standard questions.
Not clear on what you’re saying.
Man should stop mining for rare earth elements to make rare earth magnet because all those magnets are shifting the Poles?
Or are you making a lame attempt to justify banning a person that used the vaunted “peer-reviewed” research that went against the meme by equating it with nonsense.
Please clarify.
(PS The answer to the magnetic poles shifting is simple. Just reverse the polarity!)
Zena,
I understand your shouting about the magnetic poles shifting. The magnets on my refrigerator are hopping back and forth! It’s extremely frightening !!! I have to be very careful to even get another cold beer !!!!!
appears frantic, based on caps and language.
Zena, what is you point?
Are you trying to say is that shifting poles (not flipping) may result in climate changes, & nobody cares … and they even slap down any conversation about non-standard questions.
Banished for WrongThink by the all-knowing, all-wise Arbiters of Truth at Linked In?
Tut-tut. Maybe Linked In should admit non-dogma with the stipulation that original thinkers wear dunce caps.
Would that be a workable compromise?
There is no compromise with radical leftists.
Once again the media proves it kow tows to the Progressives. If you only get your ‘news’ from the MSM or certain social forums you’d never find out about these blatant attempts to control and produce the propaganda.
oh yeah friends think that ONLY msms news is truth and think anything not on tv is fake
i do despair
I thought LinkedIn was supposed to be a scientific forum outfit? Maybe that’s the problem.
More like Farcebook for professionals.
Nope, yours for believing anything they “publish”.
I was kicked off Twitter, I was suspended so many times on FB I just shut my account. I had an account with LinkedIn when it first began but recognised it as a slimy, self promotion, spam organisation so just never returned.
I have a variety of social media accounts, Reddit, Gab, Parler, Minds etc but they are only marginally better. I just use them for research into our corrupt governments. Willie Soon is my go to favourite, he doesn’t miss much but there are a few other reliable accounts.
I have three ‘go to’ sources for reliable information on climate and related events, WUWT, Paul Homewood’s notalotofpeopleknowthat and, of course, Roy Spencer.
I know there are lot’s more, and I do occasionally drop into them but, frankly, there are too many climate sceptic blogs to keep up with.
I was on Linkedin for several years before I retired as a matter of corporate marketing policy. The company wanted senior staff to maintain a high profile and network with customers. I found it an annoying waste of time as I was constantly bombarded with requests to add people to my network who were not remotely connected to our business. Turning them down seemed impolite and may have offended. Never felt that I or the company benefitted. It’s as worthless as Facebook in my opinion.
Precisely what social media of any type relies on.
Agreed!
Heresy will not be tolerated.
How many times do you need to be told?
To be fair, heretics and apostates are NEVER tolerated by those that hold to The One True Faith, be it communism, climate alarmism or aggressive religions. Eric Hoffer discussed this in his 1952 classic “The True Believer”. Well worth the read.
Linked In has always appeared to me to be a pointless exercise. I had a membership for about 15 years, and I never saw any value in it. About the only activity was harassment by salesmen wanting to be my friend. Over time, LinkedIn members started posting about every topic imaginable, about like FarceBook. I finally pulled the plug. So ended my last social media account.
Like video games, youthful fascination with social media just appears to be a stage in life like puberty, eventually to be outgrown.
Been playing video games since Pong. Haven’t outgrown them yet.
There is increasingly strong evidence that online video games have beneficial cognitive effects in older adults (7). For instance, video game training improves several aspects of cognitive functioning (8), such as reaction time, memory, and attention span, as well as general cognitive control and multitasking (9). Complex 3-D video games improve hippocampal-associated memory (10) and also physical parameters, such as postural balance and muscle strength (11), particularly those games that concentrate on strategy (12). -NIH 2018
I get most of that reading WUWT. 🙂
The problem us youthful minds are being moulded by social media “influencers”, which they are not outgrowing
It has become more than obvious that the *unmanipulated* facts are not wanted in the realm of social media, only strict adherence to ‘the agenda’.
Social media has been a cesspool of ignorance since the EQers took over, and censorship only confirms big tech’s desire to have it remain so.
I’ve unsubscribed from linkedin
LinkedIn restricted my account for posting the following.
Taking into account productivity for the same power output the installation and running of:
Onshore Wind power is ~7 times the cost of Gas-firing
Offshore Wind power is ~16-20 times the cost of Gas-firing.
Solar power is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/22/weather-dependent-power-generation/
I maintain an account, because it’s where people in my field tend to contact people if they’re looking to make business connections.
I’ve never posted anything, but whenever I look at the “feed,” it’s all spam and virtue signalling. I would imagine if you were part of a large corporation and had a LinkedIn presence that someone in HR is tracking your “likes” and this has some sort of currency within management.
In other words, you can do your standard brown-nosing from the privacy of your own home without having to abase yourself in the office. So I guess that’s a win. As for informative discussion of current events, it’s basically Twitter with fewer of Carlin’s infamous word lists.
I actually get material for WUWT posts from LinkedIn. Quite a few of my connections will comment on alarmist nonsense, which brings it into my feed. Rather than wasting time arguing with ski instructors and travel agents in the comments thread, I’ll ridicule it here and post a link in the LinkedIn comments thread, thanking them for the material… 😎
We are in a fight for the future of this planet. If the geenies win our future is toltarian rule. Fight them every step of the way. It seems an impossible task with no MSM support but the truth always eventually prevails
sometimes after a thousand years or more
Amen. Keep it up. Never give in. Take every opportunity to correct the lies.
This cancel culture is becoming quite toxic .
Thank you Anthony for WUWT so that the truth can be aired about climate.
I have many acquaintances who are scientists here in New Zealand that know that CO2 is not a threat to any one.
I wonder how long it will be before the Google or some other outfit tries to censor WUWT.
Here is what one reads when they google WUWT.
“WUWT is a climate change denial blog created by Anthony Watts.”
WUWT is not denying the truth about CO2 which is an essential gas to life on earth .
CO2 is not a pollutant as so many politicians and crooked scientists tell the public .
CO2 has warmed the atmosphere that is a proven fact but without CO2 this earth would be a cold rock like the moon .
The bandwidths that CO2 works in are all but saturated and very little if any future warming will occur .
The tropical hotspot is a central plank in the theory that CO2 will cause runaway global warming . The tropical hotspot does not exist .
The believers that have been hoodwinked by the UNIPCC who have no proof that increased CO2 levels will cook the world .
Climate Change ,Global Warming is a political power grab that socislist governments all over the world have grasped as a way to stay in power .
They will make the majority of us poorer with their stupidity .
Leftism, which the cancel culture grew out of, has always been toxic. It’s just that in recently they have metastasized into an extremely virulent form of cancer.
Graham says:”CO2 has warmed the atmosphere that is a proven fact..”.
Any chance you can show the facts?
You u state something that is not true.
I had that same quibble.
So I get a couple of down ticks but no facts supporting Graham’s claim.
Graham I await your facts.
You won’t get any facts, either. That’s another one of those assertions not based on facts.
Even alarmists can’t tell us how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere, and after feedbacks, the alarmists can’t tell us whether CO2 net warms the atmosphere or net cools the atmosphere.
So claiming CO2 has net warmed the atmosphere is not established. It’s an assertion.
And there is that inconvenient fact that CO2 is rising while temperatures are falling. Alarmists don’t have an explanation for that.
Some more:
EVERY meaningful prediction made by the alarmists has failed.
The alarmists use and believe in climate models that are KNOWN to be in error and are useless for predictive capability. Nevertheless, they make predictions from the output of these models.
The alarmists DO NOT follow the Scientific Method that requires the rejection of hypotheses that a) fail to explain past observations (MWP, RWP, etc.) and b) fail to make valid quantified predictions of observable events.
I simply request people to think
No thinking allowed. You will own nothing and you will be happy!
Joe, you may be ostracized now because of your comments.
cough cough alex berenson cough twitter cough cough
So, now you get banned for posting simple facts.
I created a LinkedIn account many years ago, but haven’t logged in for about 7 years now. I have a hankering to post something absurd there, such as “I won’t rest until we get rid of every last molecule of that evil CO2 gas that is a poison to the planet”. I doubt one would get banned for that absurd statement, but wonder if anyone would correct me and say we should keep at least 150 ppmv to keep everything alive. Maybe they would get banned. It seems like carbon and CO2 are now curse words, no matter what the context is. It’s almost funny, if it weren’t so sad.
The next one will be Bjorn Lomborg, which is usually very active in Linked debunking CAGW ideas. However, as people usually do in Autocracies, he is subtle enough not to be censored. Even so, he is on the verge of being cancelled also sooner or later.
Lomborg still says CO2 is a problem that needs fixing.
So he’s actually a lukewarmer, and that probably helps in keeping him from being banned. He’s kind of agreeing with them that CO2 is harmful.
Of course, there is no evidence showing CO2 is harmful to anything in the normal course of events. It’s all speculation, and assumptions. Alarmists can’t even tell you how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere with any certainty, or whether the end product is warming or cooling.
What I find disturbing is just how many people there are who can’t tell the difference between speculation, assumptions, and facts. Speculation and assumptions are *not* facts. Facts are facts. And alarmists don’t have any when it comes to human-caused climate change. All they have is speculaton and assumptions. Can’t you figure that out, Bjorn? Sheesh! Whatever happened to the scientific method? Whatever happened to logic? Whatever happened to clear thinking?
Climate Change Propaganda and Lies. That’s what happened.
Linkedin billed me for several unauthorised payments, and only returned half of the amount after my complaint.
Back when LinkedIn and other social media made their debuts, I became a member for long enough to see if they might be useful to me. It took about a week to toss them all out, never to return.
Cannot people see that there is advantage to these social media but very little to the users. Indeed, harm to the users. Who wants self inflicted harm? YWhy join ignorant gossip mongers? Better things to do. Geoff S
Geoff
LinkedIn is actually very useful to me in my business, helps me to find people in companies I’m trying to break into but especially helpful for keeping in touch with people who have left their companies.
That’s it’s original purpose
It then added ability to post stories and like them etc which leads to all of this narrative enforcement
I continue to fight the narrative I just avoid posting links, instead asking people to think
Which is still very subversive
Stalin was famous for having pictures doctored. If an official picture showed someone who fell out of favor with Stalin, the offender would be expertly removed from the photo.
The picture at the top of the article featured Nikolai Yezhov in its original form. Of course, in this version, that’s not his head. link
The comparison with Stalin is apt. Around 46:08 in this video, Iain McGilchrist says the following:
Indeed. The social justice warriors and their fellow travelers are willing to destroy you any way they can.
I notice TV ads lately for some brand new phone which prominently display being able to easily and seamlessly edit people out of the picture as a ‘feature’…
Surely “needing” to ban anyone questioning your official narrative is an indication that this narrative is robust, true, verifiable, correct, and productive. Right? Right??
having an argument re ukraine the other day and mates said we had to be willing to fight for democracy
ha will fight for my country no worries damned if another usa war should see aussies there again(wherever the new there is)
hmm yeah forced jabs and govt approved censorship everywhere as well as the antisocial media following and making their own other rules up
looking less democratic by the day all over the place
Yes, I think I skirt the edges of darkness on LinkedIn
I try not to post links but instead simply request people try to think for themselves, think logically, when they do the whole meme collapses.
No warnings yet although I’m sure they are coming
If you object to the conduct of a ‘professional organisation’ and they won’t listen to reason: resign
Capell Aris (FIET resigned)
Go into the WayBack Machine here and look at this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
There’s typo in the link, it should say ….Ask a submariner….
Speaking truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.
We’ve closed your account.Your LinkedIn account is now closed. Although you no longer have access to it, it’ll take a few weeks for your public profile to disappear from search engines.
The way LinkedIn works is that they use algorithms to identify people who don’t follow their policies. If you are posting things which many people appreciate but a few object to, the few can all send in complaints and your account will become suspended. It will then take several weeks or months to get it reactivated. This has just happened to me, for posting “false news” about the climate.
Unfortunately this happens without warning and you then have no access to your account, so you loose all old posts snd ability to contact others who are like minded, etc..
One of my misdemeanours was referring to Steve Koonin’s book Unsettled and stating that yhere is no climate crisis.