Facebook has censored me.
It turns out that statistician Bjorn Limborg and Michael Shellenberger are also being censored. New York Times columnist John Tierney.
Facebook’s “fact-checkers” claim we spread “misinformation.”
You can find my New video, Tierney argues that the “people guilty of spreading misinformation are Facebook and its fact-checkers.”
He’s right.
Facebook does not do all of its censoring. It partners with groups approved by something called the Poynter Institute, a group that claims “a commitment to nonpartisanship.”
But Poynter isn’t nonpartisan. It promotes progressive jargon like “decolonize the media,” and it praises left-leaning journalists. One time, they proposed blacklisting conservative news sources.
One “fact-checker” Poynter approved is a Paris-based group calling itself “Science Feedback.”
Science Feedback objects to an This articleTierney stated that forcing children to wear masks could be dangerous. He cited a study, which later passed peer-review, in which parents complained about masks “giving their children headaches and making it difficult for them to concentrate.” Facebook calls Tierney’s article “partly false.”
That “partly false” label is nasty because it leads Facebook to stop showing Tierney’s work to many people.
However, his article proved to be accurate. Science Feedback had to censor it as parents’ comments were not random. However, it is obvious that these comments aren’t random. Tierney acknowledged this fact in his article.
What should be labeled “false” is Science Feedback’s sloppy fact-check. It includes a “key takeaway” that says that masks are fine for children over 2. But “that’s not something that most scientists believe,” says Tierney. “Not what the World Health Organization believes.”
Again, he’s right. The World Health Organization SaysMasks should be worn by children under 5 years of age.
“There are all kinds of well-documented effects of wearing a mask,” adds Tierney. “Workers who wear masks for a couple hours in Germany have to stop and take a half-hour break. This shouldn’t be a controversial thing to say.”
It shouldn’t.
Facebook is known for censoring things that shouldn’t be discussed. They ban the discussion about the possibility that COVID-19 had escaped from the lab. The Biden administration only reversed course.
Science Feedback also doesn’t like articles questioning the “climate crisis.” That’s what got Shellenberger punished.
“They censored me for saying we’re not in a sixth mass extinction,” Shellenberger complains. “We’re not!
Lomborg was censured It is important to mention “rising temperatures have actually saved lives.” That’s because cold weather kills more people than warm weather.
There has been no scientific evidence to prove that the recent decline in deaths is due to temperature increases. What does this mean? It is not true that his principal point — the temperature-related deaths decreased as the planet warmed — was correct.
Science Feedback also works closely with Facebook in order to ensure that Science Feedback is not visible on your Facebook page.
Lomborg says the “fact-checkers” want people alarmed by climate change. “It makes it a lot easier to get people to donate money.”
Science Feedback’s chief plans to increase his censorship power — so that he can also censor other social media.
That’s frightening.
Facebook is a great platform. Some users spread lies. Politicians blame Facebook and demand the company “do something.”
But there’s no way Facebook can police all the posts, so it does destructive things like partnering with Poynter Institute “fact-checkers.”
The fact-checkers “have a mission outside just facts,” says Lomborg. “They also want you to not know stuff. It’s not fact-checking. It’s just saying “We don’t wish to hear that opinion in the open space.” It’s quite frightening. It’s a nice goal… there should be less misinformation online. You could end up with only the facts we approve. That would be a terrible outcome.”
We are happy with the result.
Facebook and its censors have become the foe of open discussion.
“They’re trying to suppress people whose opinions and whose evidence they don’t like,” concludes Tierney. “They’re not fact-checkers, they’re fact-blockers.”
There are no fact-blockers in the world.
It is important that we have more freedom of speech, and not less.
About Post Author
