With tech powerhouses like Google and other advocacy groups beginning to adopt the idea of reforming online censorship, it has been a difficult topic.
Case in point: a U.K.- based group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate is using it’s stated platform of CounteringDigital hate is when hateful attempts are made to censor conservative online groups for disagreeing on climate policy.
The Center — which Influence Watch describes as “a London-based advocacy group that targets accused ‘hate groups’ and individuals for de-platforming campaigns to remove them from major social media outlets” — has set their sights on conservative publishers such as the Media Research Center, Daily Wire, TownHall, Breitbart, and others for their apostasy on environmental issues.
And, as is often the case, the group, writes MRC’s Joseph Vazquez, is tied to some rather nasty players with an interest in leftist “eco-extremism”. China was the target in this particular case.
Center for Countering Digital Hate, a U.K.-based organization, wants to ban organizations who disagree with them on climate policy. In an effort to stop them online, it released an absurd attack on the Media Research Center as well as eight other conservative organisations.
The leftist group behind the attack is led by a socialist who co-authored a book about “how to defeat” conservative ideas. This group is promoting leftist ecoextremism but its deep connections to Communist China are behind it. The CCDH is funded by a leftist eco-group that financed a “greening” scheme for Communist China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
The propaganda report headlined “THE TOXIC TEN: How ten fringe publishers fuel 69% of digital climate change denial” includes three recommendations to censor the organizations the group doesn’t agree with. These include: “Stop monetizing” their content; stop allowing them to buy ads and it even wants social media firms to “comprehensively label” what it calls “climate denial.”
L. Brent Bozell is President and founder of MRC slammed the attack. “Digital brownshirts are attacking conservative organizations for daring to have an honest debate on climate policy. They want anyone who disagrees with them to be shut down. To call for biased facts to silence scientific debate is absurd. This is yet another example of left-wing cancel culture born out anti-conservative bigotry. Stop Big Tech Cancel Culture!”
The report released by the Center is called “The Toxic Ten.”
According to Vazquez’s piece, the Center is funded by the Oak Foundation, receiving $100,000 in 2020 to “allegedly help shine ‘a spotlight on digital misinformation platforms that are Polluting the public conversation on topics such as climate action, women’s rights, and racial equality.’ [Emphasis added.]”
Vazquez quoted The Capital Research Center’s (disclosure: I’m employed by The Capital Research Center) piece debunking the integrity of the “The benefits of greening” language used by Oak Foundation in regards to polishing the reputation of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Jane Nakano, a senior fellow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, expressed strong skepticism about the rhetoric of environmentalism surrounding the Belt and Road Initiative, and said the attempts by the U.N. and the Chinese government to rebrand the project with a ‘greening’ effort should be seen as a case of ‘greenwashing,’ likening the Initiative’s environmental forum to a ‘Beijing has a great example of customer service,’ [emphasis added]
Steve Milloy (JunkScience.com founder) and former advisor of President Trump on EPA issued a statement regarding the efforts to silence conservative publications that diverge from climate orthodoxy.
“Despite owning and controlling most of the media, climate activists continue to struggle to convince the general public that the weather can be controlled by higher energy prices and a reduced standard of living,” Milloy said. “This is best demonstrated by numerous polls and elections all showing that the public is unwilling to suffer pointlessly for the climate agenda. They have now tried the same strategies on news outlets which report about their opposition, after they failed to silence and intimidate them. Their desperate attempts to win over their opponents is not likely to succeed, but it does expose their totalitarian tendencies. You may agree or disagree with the opponents of climate activists, but we aren’t trying to shut anyone up or shut media outlets down.”
About Post Author
