Facebook has censored me.
It turns out that statistician Bjorn Limborg, Michael Shellenberger and ex-environmentalist Michael Shellenberger are also subject to censorship. New York Times columnist John Tierney.
Facebook “fact-checkers,” claim that we spread misinformation.
Tierney, in my latest video, argues that Facebook and its fact-checkers are the ones responsible for spreading misinformation.
Facebook does not do all of its censoring. It works with approved groups, such as the Poynter Institute. They claim “an obligation to nonpartisanship.”
But Poynter isn’t nonpartisan. Poynter promotes progressive terminology like “decolonize media” and praises left-leaning journalist. They even suggested blacklisting conservative news websites.
Poynter approved of one fact-checker: a Paris-based group called Science Feedback.
Science Feedback objected at Tierney’s article that said forcing children to wear masks could be dangerous. Tierney cited an article that was peer reviewed in which parents claimed masks caused headaches for their children and made it hard to focus. Facebook called Tierney’s article “partly falsified.”
This “partly false” label can be very harmful as it causes Facebook to remove Tierney’s work from many users.
His article, however, was correct. Science Feedback had to censor it as parents’ comments were not random. It’s clear that comments like these are not randomly generated. Tierney acknowledged this fact in his article.
Science Feedback’s inept fact-check should be called “false”. This includes the “key takeaway”, which states that masks should be allowed for children older than 2. Tierney states that Tierney is wrong. Tierney says, “Not according to what the World Health Organization believes.”
Again, he’s right. According to the World Health Organization, children under five years old are considered healthy. 5Should generally Not be required to wear masks.
Tierney adds that there are many well-documented benefits to wearing a mask. German workers must take a break after wearing masks for longer than two hours. This should not be controversial.
But it should not.
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 is also against articles discussing the “climate crises.” Shellenberger was punished for this.
Shellenberger claims that “they censored” him because he said we weren’t facing a sixth mass extermination. “We’re not!”
Lomborg was censured because she pointed out that rising temperatures had actually saved lives. This is because cold weather causes more deaths than warm.
Yet, no scientific study has been done. ProvenTemperature rise was responsible for recent deaths. What does this mean? His main point—temperature-related deaths fell while the planet warmed—is true.
Science Feedback also works closely with Facebook in order to ensure that Science Feedback is not visible on your Facebook page.
Lomborg said that the fact-checkers want to alarm people about climate change. This makes it much easier to convince people to contribute money.
Science Feedback’s leader now plans to expand his censorship powers—so he can censor not only Facebook, but other social media.
Facebook is a great platform. Some users spread lies. Facebook is being blamed by politicians who demand that the company do something.
Facebook cannot monitor all posts and so Facebook partners with Poynter Institute to “fact-check” them.
Lomborg says fact-checkers have “a mission beyond facts.” Lomborg says that fact-checkers “have a mission beyond facts.” NotYou know stuff. This is not fact checking. It’s just saying “We don’t want this opinion to be heard in the public space.” Frankly, that’s terrifying….The goal is nice…less misinformation on the internet. You could end up with only the approved facts. It would be terrible.
That’s what we got.
Facebook and its censures are the enemies of open dialogue.
Tierney concludes, “They are trying to suppress people who have opinions or whose evidence is not in their favor.” Tierney concludes, “They are not fact-checkers. They’re fact-makers.”Blockers.”
Fact-blockers are unnecessary in this world.
More freedom is needed to communicate, not less.
JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.