Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova, Quadrant; In a submission to the Australian Government, the AAS has demanded “disinformation” about climate change, the great barrier reef, and Covid vaccines be censored from broadcast news and the internet.
SUBMISSION TO AUSTRALIAN CODE OF PRACTICE ON MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION (ACPDM) – 2022 REVIEW
3 August 2022
…
The Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE) and the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) welcome the opportunity to respond to the Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI)’s first annual review of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation (ACPDM). The Academies look forward to working with social media platforms to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms. In order to strengthen the Code’s capacity to guard against disinformation, the Academies put forward the following recommendations to DIGI:
Recommendation 1: Clearly define issues-based advertising and consider it within the scope of the Code.
Recommendation 2: Include misinformation from professional news content within the scope of the Code.Recommendation 3: Platforms should consider mechanisms for proactive promotion of trusted information to inoculate against misinformation.
Recommendation 4: Expand the definition of “harm” in the Code to include cumulative harms and take stronger action against disinformation accordingly.Recommendation 5: Apply an opt-out approach to the optional commitments under the Code.
Preventing science disinformation
Anti-scientific content abounds online, with climate science being an area of particular concern.
…
Climate denialism is just one example of how misinformation results in societal harm. Disinformation on health matters (such as false and misleading vaccination, sexual and reproductive health information), or ecological and environmental matters (such as material misrepresenting studies of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef) are a barrier to good policy and a healthy society. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic there were clear links between climate denialism and anti-vaccine movements (Hamilton, Hartter & Saito, 2015). The Code must therefore consider broader instances of misinformation and disinformation, including in issues-based advertising in all areas, especially climate change.
…
The updated Code must be strengthened to reduce the potential for misinformation to propagate and cause societal harm. In particular, the inclusion of issues-based advertising and professional news should be resolved to limit those as avenues of misinformation. However, DIGI’s discussion paper recommends excluding issues-based advertising from the Code (DIGI, 2022). Problematically, such advertising can be a revenue source for platforms, disincentivising its inclusion in the Code.
…
Recommendation 1: Clearly define issues-based advertising and consider it within the scope of the Code.
The Code currently excludes professional news content that is published under a publicly available editorial code, except where a platform determines that specific instances fall within the scope of disinformation. However, some Australian news outlets are havens for climate science misinformation (Lowe, 2018) – so this exclusion undermines the ability of the Code to guard against such denialism.
This exclusion allows climate science denialism and other misinformation to flourish, either through lack of enforcement of the disinformation provision of the Code or failure of news outlets’ misinformation to meet the higher bar of being considered disinformation. For example, a UK report recently found that Sky News Australia and its media personalities are a key source of climate science misinformation globally, including during the late 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) (King, Janulewicz & Arcostanzo, 2022). Clearly, the Code was not sufficient to address the traction of climate misinformation from Sky News Australia during this time.
…
Appropriate oversight of social media as publishers
The Academies consider that platforms should be held accountable and liable for content spread on their platforms, and that regulation on this should be comparable to that of traditional media. This position is suggested by the 2019 Australian court ruling that news outlets are liable for defamatory comments made on their posts by Facebook users.
…
Read more: Australian Academy of Science Submission (PDF)
In my opinion this is no less than a charter for halting the advance of science.
I’m not disputing that a lot of online content is nonsense, but some of the most stunning breakthroughs of the last century have been made by people mainstream scientists initially dismissed as crackpots.
Breakthroughs like Einstein’s theories of Relativity, Barry Marshall, who when all else failed proved peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria by deliberately infecting himself, or Alfred Wegener, who struggled to convince scientists of his theory of continental drift. And looking further back, everyone knows the story of Galileo, and his struggle with official censorship.
Imagine if the Aussie government had given a body like the AAS a gatekeeper charter 50 years ago, the power to decide who can be heard. Scientists like Barry Marshall, whose medical insight saved millions of people from untold suffering, might still be languishing in obscurity. Criminal sanctions could have applied to anyone who attempted to publish his work.
In any case, the AAS is in no position to claim the mantle of gatekeeper. Their inclusion of criticism of Great Barrier Reef science in their censorship proposal is particularly outrageous.
Remember how a few years ago, we were told the Great Barrier Reef was doomed?
Imagine not being able to criticise the alarmist statements of AAS affiliated scientists, like water quality expert Jon Brodie, who told the Guardian in 2017 that the reef was “terminal”. Or ARC Centre for Coral Excellence Director Terry Hughes, who told us in 2021 that “The bleaching is caused by record-breaking temperatures driven by global warming,”. Or Coral Centre scientist James Kerry, who told us “It takes at least a decade for a full recovery of even the fastest growing corals, so mass bleaching events 12 months apart offers zero prospect of recovery for reefs that were damaged in 2016,”.
Scientists like Peter Ridd might be censored, he could be prevented from publishing evidence the Great Barrier Reef is doing fine.
Last year the Great Barrier Reef bounced back, with record coral cover. Claims over the years that coral bleaching is anything other than a natural part of the coral cycle have now been thoroughly debunked.
And of course, the shutdown of Sky News, explicitly mentioned in the AAS proposal, the shutdown of skeptic voices like Andrew Bolt and Rita Panahi, Rowan Dean and other top rated media personalities who expose the flaws in establishment narratives, would rob Australians of an important source alternative viewpoints to the alarmism pushed by the likes of AAS affiliated scientists.
There is some good news on the censorship front. Facebook at least might be losing their taste for censorship, they have suffered a series of humiliating public censorship embarrassments.
Facebook recanted their censorship of the Covid lab leak theory in 2021, after Fauci changed his mind about whether the lab leak hypothesis was tenable. Facebook’s latest admission, that Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election, because the FBI told them to expect Russian disinformation, has really opened people’s eyes to how close we all are to losing the freedoms we take for granted.
To his credit, Mark Zuckerberg could have held onto his information about the FBI until after the Midterms. But there is still a long road to travel, if Zuckerberg wants to fully repair his reputation.
In my opinion this self serving AAS demand for scientific censorship is just another establishment effort to squash dissent and protect establishment narratives from justified criticism, no different to what the FBI allegedly did, or Facebook censoring the lab leak theory, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
NOTE – I want to give particular thanks to JoNova for her efforts to dig up this insanity. My “h/t” acknowledgements don’t really express my appreciation for the hard work she puts into exposing alarmism.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Facebook at least might be losing their taste for censorship
I think the more realistic claim is that Facebook might be losing.
15 or so years ago commanded respect for their sheer slice of the market. You were on Facebook doing updates or you died alone and unloved.
Now? I put it to you that Facebook is legacy and exists because most ex-users can’t be arsed working out how to delete their accounts.
Its possible Facebook can see a sh*tstorm coming their way after the mid terms, and wants to have some positive actions they can point to.
Craig,
I know few people who bother with social media. I took a couple of weeks looking at the main ones when they were past their initial growth spurt and have not come back.
However, they have their followers and I cannot affect that. The most I can do is to publicise a counter view to that expressed in more regular channels by social media enthusiasts, keeping in mind an IQ type factor that allows for them being a bit simple for getting hooked.
Geoff S
“including during the late 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26”
The late? Did it die, I missed its obituary?
I live in Glasgow and I can confirm that COP26 did indeed die.
welcome to the Albanese police state run by the greens adam brandt
It’s definitely going that way and anyone who doesn’t believe what they do is a criminal.
The Australian Academy of Sciences needs to be disbanded. We can start new with a different group, if they support and recommend muzzling those they don’t agree with disband them.
Alinsky RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize
“Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after
people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is
cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
AAS actions are standard for authoritarians.
While the DHS has shut down its “Ministry of Truth”, it’s illegally getting
Big Tech/Social Media to do it’s dirty work. It’s now evident that it was
misinformation & censorship that kept the vote close enough for mules to
steal the US 2020 election. It’s amazing that the FTC now is suddenly
clamping down on cell phone tracking data. Hmmmmm!
https://reclaimthenet.org/dhs-continue-disinformation-work/
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/dhs-domestic-censorship-a-roadmap-to-the-deep-dive-series-2/
CNBC-
FTC sues data broker for allegedly selling location data from hundreds of millions of phones
Whether or not the attributions of the following statements are correct, the
underlying truths are quite apt:
Goebbels-
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
“Goebbels-
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
That is what is happening right in front of our eyes when it comes to human-caused climate change narratives. The lie has been repeated so long and loudly that a lot of people believe it.
The fly in the propaganda ointment is that there is no evidence CO2 is doing anything to change Earth’s weather. No evidence. That’s why the alarmists have to lie all the time about the Earth’s climate.
Liars don’t like their lies being exposed.
Censorship is totalitarian tyranny that impedes the free exchange of ideas which is essential for human development.
The Australian Academy of Science is nothing more than Academics for Climatology.,
All the Fellows are hangers-on who have never done productive work. Some of the older ones could claim to be educators but all young academics are climate ambassadors who pedal propaganda. Australian education is bereft of knowledge and beholding to big government.
You have to ask what true scientist would want to belong to a body that condemns debate. Morality is dead. Peter Ridd is the perfect example of what happens to people who tell the truth in Australian academia.
“You have to ask what true scientist would want to belong to a body that condemns debate.”
Good question.
And this question should apply to all the science organizations in the Western world, as every one of them is onboard this Climate Change Train.
Alarmist Climate Change has corrupted all of science. It’s a huge scandal. Writers in the future will marvel at the groupthink of the present day. Human psychology and manipulation on display.
Rick,
I went from this topic on WUWT to the Dessler/Koonin debate.
Oh my, the world that we know is in a huge emotional mess with some of the worst political leaders in living history.
I guess we just remember Anthony and co with thanks for WUWT and keep plugging away. Truth will out.
Geoff S
So the AAS would have platformed the COP26 conference if it had had its way🤔. Fat chance methinks; as Woke thinking doesn’t work that way. It would have loved all those tears at the end.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” – Richard Feynman
These supposed “scientists” wouldn’t know actual science if the fell into a pool full of it. They are priests and acolytes of Scientism, a neo-Marxist quasi-religion.
Surely the concept of “Disinformation” is just another “Social Construct”, like gender and can be defined by the individual? /sarc. 😉
Who are these people? The Scientific Method disproves hypotheses and always has. You can never do that when you refuse to listen.
“Who are these people?”
They are not scientists. They behave like gullible children.
They are elitist technicians who have initials after their names. However, they don’t really have the mind set of real scientists, who always think, “That is strange. I wonder why that happened?”
how can they be so lacking in self-awareness
The Vatican in the early 1600s would have admired this blatant censorship.
Mr. Hoye: Indeed, and note the success, nipping that protestant thing in the bud!
Don´t they know anything about history?
“I’ll scweam and scweam and scweam until I get my way……”
Meanwhile over in the UK:
From: https://electroverse.co/
Excellent stuff. Wetter, drier, more storms, less storms, warmer, colder, it’s ALL the Magic Molecule ™!
I particularly like the bit about storms. More intense storms are increasing, yet the number of storms isn’t, and the intensity is not increasing. Spectacular use of statistics.
aas-holes
Apparently Australia is now a third world country with no free speech. I guess I can scratch one more destination from my bucket list.
Just checked the date to be sure, and no it is not April 1st so that can’t explain it???
I actually like the idea of banning misinformation about climate change.
If they do that then the likes of Michael Man Al Gore and Greta will never be heard from again….
In my opinion this self serving AAS demand for scientific censorship is just another establishment effort to squash dissent and protect establishment narratives from justified criticism
Sounds familiar-
‘Submit or quit’: Teacher, student brain drain hits Hong Kong schools (msn.com)
Galileo was punished for insulting the Pope.
When I read “we all know about Galileo” I immediately thought of xkcd’s “Valinor” comic (it’s here: https://xkcd.com/1255/)
I’d have hoped if WUWT would be a site where that particular tool of the cultural Marxists was recognised for what it was. The Galileo myth is the go-to for the Left wing propaganda that Christianity is anti-science, that it stood in opposition to science and impeded it – and still does – as part of the attack on the foundations of our society.
After all, science is undeniably a good thing, and rational people wouldn’t want to live in a society without the last five hundred years of scientific progress. Thus it discredits Christianity, it must be bad, if it opposes science.
Of course it’s nonsense, Christianity isn’t opposed to science and it’s not a coincidence that Christian Europe is where science emerged. Just a few years after Galileo’s book was banned because of slander, Johannes Kepler published the definitive vindication of heliocentrism. Kepler proved that celestial objects travel in elliptical orbits, whereas Galileo’s book had tried vainly to make his observations adhere to his preconceived belief that planets would have perfectly circular orbits.
Kepler was a devout Christian who believed that scientific discovery was possible because God created a rational universe that he wanted mankind to learn to comprehend. What’s more, the Christian monarchs of Europe went into bidding wars trying to bring Kepler too their court – being a patron of the sciences was very much the in thing.
It’s an old left wing myth that’s been in most textbooks for 150 years so give the average conservative a break. It’s considered cultural received wisdom even if it’s incorrect.
Precisely right. I chimed in on the subject, even though I never comment, because the myth is so widespread that as you say the average conservative probably hasn’t heard it called into question. I figured at least have a few more people hear it, even if it’s beside the article’s point.
The foundations of science did not “emerge in Christian Europe “.. but were rather nurtured and revived there in the Renaissance ….They originated in Vedic and post Vedic India , Egypt , Babylonia and Greece … The heliocentric theory was not first conceived by Kepler or Galileo nor the idea of a spherical Earth .. The Egyptian priest Sonchis of Sais was chronicled in Plato’s dialogues patronizingly counseling Solon on the orbits of celestial bodies travelling in space and the dangers of asteroids The book Hamlet’s Mill traced the phenomenon of equinox precession encoded in ancient myths .That said a great debt is owed to Christian monasteries in Ireland and the British Isles that saved many works of ancient civlizational learning from destruction during the barbarian invasions
And yet the typical classroom, whether tertiary or secondary or even primary, will teach that science is a creation of the Age of Enlightenment. I have no trouble agreeing that it predates Christianity, whereas I think going from the “Age of Enlightenment” is obviously absurd, but that is what the vast majority are taught today, and to question that is to make oneself anathema.
Of course the ATSE and AAS have to make this submission. The Labor/Greens are in power.
Remember these were the politicians back in days of one great and outstanding J Gillard who tried to have a royal commission on the press, Murdoch in particular.
Well with Albo and his new all fantastic team, it can all be tried again and might unfortunately succeed.
Julia Gillard with the connivance of Bob Brown and the Greens ……The floated Royal Commission was designed to intimidate NewsCorp journalists and editors conducting inquiries into Gillard and the AWU rorts affair
The ATSE and AAS obviously overlooked (almost certainly, intentionally) the necessary Recommendation 0:
Determine what person or committee will be selected to be the judge(s) of what is to be established as “information” versus “misinformation”, and set forth the qualifications for the person or persons to serve in that capacity. Set forth the evidence that is to be evaluated, objectively if possible, for said decision making process.
If they bothered to try to enact Recommendation 0, the other recommendations would never come up for consideration.
Australia is no longer a free country. I don’t know much about Aussie culture but is there no conservative/populist movement there?
The opposition movements have been largely dissipated by Media blackout and very effective police control. Random, well publicised brutal attacks by police on non threatening demonstrators, early morning arrest of publicist of demonstrations, and jail time for the ‘offense’ Radiation Control Weapons that cause sunburn type injury and dreadful nausea from loudspeaker type stands.
I have seen drone video of streets packed with demonstrators over several city blocks but not a report apart from derisory “several hundred people demonstrated ——-” and yet the average joe can’t connect the SADS and strokes and cancers to the Elephant in the room.
More like an Academy of Silence than an Academy of Science.