Fact-Blockers

I’ve reported how Facebook censors me.

Now I’ve learned that they also censor environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, statistician Bjorn Lomborg and former New York Times columnist John Tierney.

Facebook’s “fact-checkers” claim we spread “misinformation.”

In my new video, Tierney argues that the “people guilty of spreading misinformation are Facebook and its fact-checkers.”

He’s right.

Facebook doesn’t do its censoring alone. 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. Once they even proposed blacklisting conservative news sites.

One “fact-checker” Poynter approved is a Paris-based group calling itself “Science Feedback.”

Science Feedback objected to an article Tierney wrote that says forcing children to wear masks can be harmful. 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.

But his article was accurate. Science Feedback censored it because parents’ comments are not a random sample. But it’s obvious that such comments are not random. Tierney acknowledges that 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 says kids under 5 should generally not be required to wear masks.

“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.”

No, it shouldn’t.

Facebook often censors things that should be talked about. They banned discussion of the idea of that COVID-19 escaped from a lab, only reversing course when the Biden administration did.

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 censored for pointing out “rising temperatures have actually saved lives.” That’s because cold weather kills more people than warm weather.

No scientific study has yet proven that a recent drop in deaths was caused by the temperature rise. But so what? His main point — temperature-related deaths fell while the planet warmed — is true.

Yet Science Feedback works with Facebook to keep that out of your Facebook feed.

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 leader now plans to expand his censorship powers — so he can censor not only Facebook, but other social media.

That’s frightening.

I sympathize with Facebook. 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. That’s not fact check. That’s simply saying, ‘We don’t want to hear this opinion in the public space.’ Frankly, that’s terrifying … The goal is nice … less misinformation on the internet. But you could very well end up in a place where we only have approved facts that fit the current narrative. That would be a terrible outcome.”

But that’s the outcome we’ve got.

Facebook and its censors are now the enemy of open debate.

“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.

The world doesn’t need fact-blockers.

We need more freedom to speak, not less.

Photo by Thought Catalog from Pexels

8 thoughts on “Fact-Blockers

  1. Nothing NEW here, they often site so called “Community Standards” ! What community are they talking about? I have posted a picture of Canadian prime minister posing with group of gays participating in PRIDE PARADE. Well one of the girls had her breasts exposed, which is not illegal in Canada. It took FB whole month to block me for 24 hours because I have also posted a Photo of south pacific natives from National Geographic !

    So, the Censorship is clear and even if people post complete nonsense and or false information, readers are getting more educated and know that everything they read is not necessary the truth! Painting “Conservative” views as some kind of evil is typical communist strategy. Been there, lived there, seen that!
    Only wish there were more of you……..!

  2. Anyone who has not seen this coming, has not been paying attention! Thanks for trying to keep on top of things. We need REAL journalists like you again.

  3. Unfortunately, in order for people to be able to post what they want there needs to be other options for sharing the news we feel imporant.

    Facetube, Youbook, Metacrack, Tweeter, and all the other left owned entities have the right as a personal company to push/limit the messages/information they want us to hear because they own the platform.

    Newspapers, books, doctors, the military, the government, all have their own agendas, many of them hidden from us, yet aimed at us.

    Everywhere we are blinded by their crooked truths and lies.

    Was it not you who did the piece on the guy that created Wikipedia that later had to admit that the far left had gamed wikipedia and had people in the top tiers of how it works who were controlling all of the information being posted and can change it at will to reflect their agendas?

    The problem is that others follow blindly and don’t care about the truth…

  4. It’s difficult enough just interpreting events & extracting meaning from it without implicit media spin no matter which way it leans
    One does have to stare into all the static and strain to listen
    Read carefully between redacted text to figure out WTF is actually going on
    Most folk seem to accept the mainstream narrative even when what comes to pass contradicts the predicted outcome
    Is it
    that at a minimum there are entities blocking alternative viewpoints that are patently factual for egotistical self promotion
    or is it
    the other end of possibility that the populace is being guided to some planned for nefarious destiny
    I tend to think you can’t have one without the other
    So what is under that opaque cloud of accusation, propaganda, bias & false prophecy?
    When the smoke clears you won’t know the truth for what you see
    That’s what censorship does

  5. You are free to open and create your own SM company. It’s their business not yours. Have you ever thought that your pieces on reporting news may not be good enough? I have always thought you sound like a teacher speaking to 1st graders. Not cool, just annoying.

  6. You guys should just be given a medal for telling the truth as the truth is the truth need more of you God bless you God Bless America keep doing what you do and keep telling the truth God bless you

  7. What is interesting to me is that what I hear and see all around me is exactley how the Bible describes man in his quest to be god. All of mans ideas and thoughts have come and gone like the waves of the ocean, man wanting to live forever, man not wanting to be responisble for his actions, it all started in the garden. People have the truth availble, yet refuse to look into it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.