Monthly Archives: February 2022

The editors of a peer-reviewed medical journal penned a scathing letter demanding that Facebook reevaluate its bogus third-party fact-checking processes after the journal was censored for publishing information about COVID-19 vaccine trials.

BMJ editors Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi addressed the letter to Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg with the intention of raising serious concerns about Facebooks third-party fact-checking system.

According to the editors, one of the well-researched articles BMJ published on a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia, one of the companies facilitating trials for Pfizers version of the COVID-19 vaccine, was suppressed by Facebook and censored with labels that directed readers to a fact check by the obscure website Lead Stories, which routinely issues fake fact-checks.

Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share false information might have their posts moved lower in Facebooks News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were partly false, Godlee and Abbasi wrote.

The editors said that this fact check, which Facebook used to justify threats against users who shared the BMJ article, however, was inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

Not only did Godlee and Abbasi say that Lead Stories went out of its way to circumvent any direct accusations of wrongdoing or falsity in the BMJ article, but it also falsely labeled the prominent, longstanding medical journal as a news blog. Like most other Lead Stories fact checks, the webpage thats linked to the missing context warning on Facebook features a big, bolded title claiming to discredit the BMJs findings.

Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials, the headline states.

As the BMJ editors note, Lead Stories refused to make any changes to its bogus fact-check and instead issued an unapologetic counter-statement to its letter. Lead Stories complained that BMJ wouldnt allow the fact checkers to see their basis for the story and did not make the documents available on a transparency site and attempted to justify the censorship label.

Godlee and Abbasi concluded their letter by demanding that Facebook, if it continues its censorship campaign against so-called misinformation, choose wiser and more competent organizations for fact-checking such as Cochrane, which reviews medical evidence on a regular basis.

Rather than investing a proportion of Metas substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ, the letter states.

The Federalist, much like BMJ, has been the target of fake fact-checks and censorship on Facebook thanks to third-party organizations such as Lead Stories. Just last week, Facebook flagged a Federalist article, titledForcing People Into COVID Vaccines Ignores Important Scientific Information,with a missing context label and linked to aLead Storiesarticle dissecting a United Kingdom publicationsarticle.

The purported fact-check, authored by a former CNN employee for the obscure third-party company with ties to the sketchy Chinese companyByteDance, however, doesnt actually address The Federalist article or any of the claims made in it. Instead, the fact-check tries to downplay the fact that COVID case data from the U.K. shows that vaccinated people are increasingly contracting COVID-19.

Earlier this year, Politifact, another leftist organization employed by Facebook to curb misinformation, targeted a Federalist article focused on green energys inability to hold up during the Texas winter storm. The fact-check claimed that natural gas plants were the biggest cause of the power shortfall, not wind. The author, however, did acknowledge that wind farms ran at about half of what was expected, which contributed to the widespread blackouts, a similar point made in the article by Federalist contributor Jason Isaac and by The Wall Street Journal.

That same week, Lead Stories also added a false information label to the article. The fact-check did not address The Federalist articles argument directly but merely focused on criticizing a Facebookpostearlier in the week from a user who noted the green energy sectors failures during the Texas power crisis.

When The Federalist confronted Politifact for its selective fact-checking and failure to call out any of Vice President Kamala Harriss lies with an article, the organizations Editor-in-Chief Angie Holan demanded corrections even though there were no inaccuracies in The Federalist article.

Earlier this month, Facebook admitted that its so-called fact-checking program is actually cranking out opinions used to censor certain viewpoints. In a legal battle with TV journalist John Stossel over a post about the origins of the deadly 2020 California forest fires, Facebook, or Meta,claimedthat its fact-checking program should not be the target of adefamation suitbecause its attempts to regulate content are done by third-party organizations who are entitled to their opinion.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordangdavidson.

Original post:
Medical Journal Blasts Facebook For Using Fake 'Fact ...

Amid rising concerns over misinformation online including surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, especially vaccines Americans are now a bit more open to the idea of the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online. And a majority of the public continues to favor technology companies taking such action, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Roughly half of U.S. adults (48%) now say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means losing some freedom to access and publish content, according to the survey of 11,178 adults conducted July 26-Aug. 8, 2021. That is up from 39% in 2018. At the same time, the share of adults who say freedom of information should be protected even if it means some misinformation is published online has decreased from 58% to 50%.

When it comes to whether technology companies should take steps to address misinformation online, more are in agreement. A majority of adults (59%) continue to say technology companies should take steps to restrict misinformation online, even if it puts some restrictions on Americans ability to access and publish content. Around four-in-ten (39%) take the opposite view that protecting freedom of information should take precedence, even if it means false claims can spread. The balance of opinion on this question has changed little since 2018.

To examine Americans attitudes toward restricting false information online, Pew Research Center surveyed 11,178 U.S. adults from July 26 to Aug. 8, 2021. Everyone who completed the survey is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology. Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

This is the latest report in Pew Research Centers ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Partisan divisions on the role of government in addressing online misinformation have emerged since 2018. Three years ago, around six-in-ten in each partisan coalition 60% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents and 57% of Democrats and Democratic leaners agreed that freedom of information should be prioritized over the government taking steps to restrict false information online. Today, 70% of Republicans say those freedoms should be protected, even it if means some false information is published. Nearly as many Democrats (65%) instead say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means limiting freedom of information.

Partisan views on whether technology companies should take such steps have also grown further apart. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (76%) now say tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online, even at the risk of limiting information freedoms. A majority of Republicans (61%) express the opposite view that those freedoms should be protected, even if it means false information can be published online. In 2018, the parties were closer together on this question, though most Democrats still supported action by tech firms.

Some demographic differences that existed on these questions in 2018 have now largely disappeared.Three years ago, older Americans and those with less education were more likely than younger and more educated adults, respectively, to say the U.S. government should take steps to restrict false information online, even if means limiting some freedoms. Now, Americans across nearly all age groups are fairly evenly divided between the two views. Similar changes have occurred when it comes to Americans educational background.

Women still tend to be more open than men to the idea of both the government and tech companies taking action to restrict false information online, though both groups have become a bit more supportive of the government taking such steps.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

Go here to read the rest:
How Americans view government restriction of false ...

The Heartland Institute's Donald Kendal, Jim Lakely, Justin Haskins, Chris Talgo, and Samantha Fillmore present episode 331 of the In The Tank Podcast. On this episode, the ITT crew talks about how our previous episode was removed from YouTube, Big Tech censorship, and the chilling effect that type of censorship has for speech and expression.

OPENING CHIT CHAT

Heartland In The Tank (BANNED EPISODE) The COVID Narrative is Collapsinghttps://rumble.com/vtcvsn-in-the-tank-live-ep330-the-covid-narrative-continues-to-collapse.html

JOE ROGAN AND SPOTIFY

Breitbart White House Recommends Spotify Do More to Censor Joe Roganhttps://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/02/01/white-house-recommends-spotify-do-more-to-censor-joe-rogan/

THE CHILLING EFFECT

EFF -Right or Left, You Should Be Worried About Big Tech Censorshiphttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/right-or-left-you-should-be-worried-about-big-tech-censorship

Liberties -How Big Tech Censorship Is Harming Free Speechhttps://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/big-tech-censorship/43511

[Please subscribe to theHeartlandDaily Podcast for free on iTunes atthis link.]

Follow this link:
Podcasts - 331. Chilling Effect of Big Tech Censorship - The Heartland Institute

Individuals could sue social media giants like Facebook and Twitter for allegedly discriminating against a particular viewpoint and collect damages if the charges are upheld, under proposed GOP Ohio legislation.

The measure now in the House Civil Justice Committee targets what backers say is ongoing censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies, according to testimony from sponsoring GOP Reps. Scott Wiggam of Wooster and Rep. Al Cutrona of suburban Youngstown.

They argue the bill will prevent big tech companies from engaging in viewpoint discrimination without violating the First Amendment right to free expression.

The measure is drawing criticism from some conservatives as well as free speech advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Bill opponents say conservatives are in fact well-represented on social media. They also argue an easier solution to concerns over viewpoint discrimination is to use sites with an expressed conservative bent.

Forcing social media companies to accept all viewpoints could lead to the protected proliferation of harmful content including pornography, extremist speech, foreign propaganda, conspiracy theories, as well as spam messages currently blocked by sites, bill opponents say.

Federal judgesin Floridaand Texas last year blocked similar laws from taking effect.

Read the original post:
Ohio lawmakers pushing bill that would stop censorship of conservative viewpoints on Facebook - WTRF

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Most of us dont know what we think, really. Throughout our lives we encounter so many influential entities from our family, our culture, our schools, by advertising, by the media that we rarely have thoughts that are totally original. Most are variations of what we already know or have been conditioned to think and feel.

How might we learn which thoughts really belong to us, and which are thoughts planted by others? Which shared thoughts are helpful for social cohesion? Do we have curiosity to explore new thoughts, together?

Exploring the concept of thinking is called critical thinking. It may be our path out of the division and turbulence within the United States and lead us to a new social contract. Critical thinking, however, is no easy task. It requires exposure and openness to new ideas, followed by healthily dealing with the discomfort of our new thoughts.

As a result, we often hear calls for censorship because new ideas are considered dangerous. Unknowingly. the thought police are here; and it is us.

Our freedom of speech is paradoxically a tool for authoritarian mindsets to demand censorship. Broadly speaking, there are several main arenas where censorship and freedom of speech are currently debated. As you read the following, what are your thoughts? Do you find yourself celebrating one area of censorship while decrying it in another?

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

This last point about how we tell the story of our shared history has especially captured my attention because I have two friends who hold opposing views, which naturally challenges my own thinking.

One is a friend who saw a tweet claiming that "ethnic studies" was a cover or code for teaching CRT in California schools. She feels national pride is necessary for social cohesion and that CRT will cause students to be ashamed of our nation. In previous conversations, she shared with me her school and home experiences growing up in post-war Germany. When she would ask her mother about World War II, mother wouldnt talk about it, presumably feeling ashamed. National pride was lost and my friend emigrated to Canada and then the United States, where she became a naturalized citizen.

My other friend is concerned about history being erased, and young minds being assimilated into the dominant culture, which would cut off people from their ancestral roots. He drew a similarity to the Babylonians, who attempted to erase the history of the Israelites, as chronicled in the book of Daniel. This friend is a Baptist minister, and discovering his ancestry has taken extra effort, due to our nations history of enslavement. His identity was not connected or represented in American history. His family was not included in the dominant culture, but have shared their stories within their communities that other Americans either dont know or cannot resonate with.

This is the tension that leads to censorship in schools. A fear of shame about our past and/or anger at being left out of the story. An accurate representation of history gives us the opportunity to learn from the past mistakes of others. It helps us understand why people behaved as they did and why they may behave the way they do now, and which in turn helps future generations to become better citizens. This is why the full teaching of history will shape our future. Its one element to build social cohesion.

Its why we fight over censorship, too. Some people like to surround themselves with like-minded people and avoid challenges to their thinking. This is known more scientifically as confirmation bias. They short-hand and denigrate group-think in others with labels like snowflakes and cult members, recognizing tendencies in others but not themselves.

As we hear increasing calls for censorship, how might we engage to think more critically instead? And how might we come to understand that some of those uncomfortable thoughts can help us learn and grow? We need outliers.

Outliers were defined by Malcolm Gladwell when he chronicled people whose achievements fall outside normal experience, and are a fascinating and provocative blueprint for making the most of human potential. Outliers challenge our assumptions and point them out. Outliers can prevent group-think. Outliers are often mistaken as conflict entrepreneurs (or provocateurs) because of the discomfort they create while challenging the status quo as insufficient.

Whereas conflict entrepreneurs exploit our divisions as a way to profit, while claiming outlier status. How might we distinguish between them?

When exposed to an outlier, I will think or feel:

When exposed to a conflict entrepreneur, I will think or feel:

Youll notice that outliers invite curiosity, engaging in a way that allows us to find our own way to agree or dream with them. The exploration is the point. The conflict entrepreneurs speak with certainty and offer answers, so we can bypass the analysis of points of view, the judging based on evidence, and the forming of opinions based on deductive reasoning. This is the essence of critical thinking needed to build social cohesion.

I crave more critical thinking. More connection. More exploration. I dont crave more censorship. What do you think?

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See more here:
Critical thinking on censorship - The Fulcrum

South Carolinas greatest strength has always been its history and the people who made it.

This is the land of William Moultrie and Mary Moultrie. One defended the city from British invasion in 1776, the other defended Charleston hospital workers from being criminally underpaid in the 1960s.

It is the home of a patriot named Isaac Hayne, who went to his death rather than fight his countrymen in the Revolution. And its the home of Septima Clark, an educator who stood beside Martin Luther King Jr., taught adults to read and was part of a group of South Carolinians who forced the most momentous Supreme Court decision of the 20th century: desegregating public schools.

And this state is the birthplace of John C. Calhoun, South Carolinas most accomplished statesman and one of the most influential American figures of the early 19th century.

Point is, our states history has seen more than its share of the good, the bad and the ugly on our journey to create a more perfect union. In a state as diverse as this, some of that invariably brushes up against issues of race.

So, itd be a shame if some cynical elected officials and perpetually perturbed malcontents prevent future generations from ever hearing those stories.

See, state lawmakers are promoting a series of bills allegedly to ban critical race theory from South Carolina schools. What they actually want to stop is the teaching of history.

Critical race theory is an academic concept mostly taught in law school (and in no South Carolina public schools), and concerns racial bias baked into institutions redlining in the banking industry, etc. Few people understand that. Even these misguided lawmakers concede they didnt know exactly what CRT is.

So they made up their own definition.

In one House bill, the first line of the definition says public schools arent allowed to teach that any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior.

So these geniuses are inadvertently banning Calhoun, who once said, The Whites are an European race being masters, and the blacks are the inferior race and slaves. Thats according to William Montgomery Meigs The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun published in 1917.

Some of this is pandering and plain ignorance, but mostly its about courting voters who also dont know what critical race theory is, but they sure are mad about it.

Fact is, they want to ban anything that presents African Americans or Native Americans as victims of discrimination. They fear unvarnished history, as opposed to the whitewashing it got back when we (and they) were in school.

This is happening in many places today; the Florida legislature wants to bar teaching anything that causes white discomfort. Which sounds like one of the side effects of those nebulous pharmaceuticals advertised on TV.

Who is so sensitive they melt down anytime they hear that someone in the past, with no relation to them other than skin color, did something bad? Identity politics much?

Truth is, history is messy, and doesnt fit neatly into any one box. A few years before South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond ran for president as a Dixiecrat on a pro-segregation platform, he was honored by the NAACP for his role in prosecuting a Greenville lynch mob that took a black man out of a jail and killed him.

The people who cry that moving Confederate monuments erases history now want to do that exact thing where it matters most. Some even want to ban books, when anyone who really knows history realizes that book banners are never the good guys.

All this is stirring because race is again center-stage in our national shouting match (debate is too dignified a word). Even Charleston City Council is having a tough time creating a Commission on Human Affairs and Racial Conciliation.

Council members have been bashed by folks who falsely claim that the committee is intent on paying reparations and defunding the police. Which is baloney.

Fact is, this proposed commission is clearly meant as a compromise to those low-information voters. When an ad hoc commission did recommend such radical ideas last year, City Council wouldnt even take official possession of the report that included them. Proposing a more modest, and moderate, commission like cities around the country have had for decades was a polite way to show the first group the door.

But thats not good enough for people who believe only what they choose, what matches their narrow worldview. Those people clearly dont know history and therefore are doomed to repeat it.

Too bad they want to drag everyone else into that scarcely illuminated safe space with them.

See the original post:
Hicks: Censoring history has never been a good idea. History proves that. - Charleston Post Courier

Today, pretty much everyone with access to the Internet has an outlet to express their own or take a look at others views and opinions through personal blogs, online forums and even the comment sections on Instagram or Youtube.

A quick scroll through the tweets under a trending Twitter topic reveals many opinions (unified at times, divided at others) concerning the latest events and affairs. These range from social and political issues to the latest happenings in pop culture.

However, individual posts rarely have the power to influence widespread public opinion. This influence lies with massive media conglomerates, which control a myriad of media sources such as TV channels, publishing houses and film studios. Over time, control over mass media has become concentrated into the hands of just a few corporations.

For example, Comcast, one of the biggest media conglomerates in the US and worldwide, owns DreamWorks Animation, NBC (including NBC News and SNL), Universal Parks and Resorts, and Xfinity, among other things.

This becomes an issue when you think about how much of the media consumed by people on a daily basis is controlled by one single corporation.

Just withholding a few details of a story or embellishing others is enough to sway public opinion. As the subsidiaries, or the individual companies, are controlled by one big holding company, if they wanted to push or restrict the spread of a specific ideology, then a whole wave of media would also go along with it.

These days, political censorship is a prevalent topic. In the US, Democrats and Republicans are constantly feuding over policies and polarized beliefs. Both sides warn the public of the dangers of the beliefs of those who lean far-right and far-left to push their agendas and inhibit the other partys.

News companies publish articles with shocking headlines and broadcast reports discussing controversial topics to sway the people reading or watching into siding against the other side of the argument without considering both sides equally.

News sites can be sorted into different ranges, like those measuring amounts of bias (from reporting facts to fabricating information) and political alignment. Generally, a source with as little bias as possible with less association with any political party is desirable for reliable facts that are not distorted in any way.

But everyones interpretation of these things is different, and charts that can be found online are made with bias. Therefore, it is difficult to have a concrete map of reliable versus unreliable news sources, but a few comparisons of different charts will tell you the general orientation of the news sites on the ranges.

One example of media censorship in recent years is the banning of all of Former President Donald Trumps social media accounts. The platforms involved have stated their reasons for doing so, as the posts he frequently made violated their terms of service. Additionally, they believed his platform aided in the inciting of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and further access to social media could cause more potential violence.

However, this is still restricting an individuals free speech and can be viewed as unjust. According to an article published by Pew Research Center, 49 percent of Americans believed that Trumps accounts should be permanently banned, while half thought that they should not.

The opinions on this case are deeply divided, as with many other cases of media censorship. Politics is also involved, as in Trumps case, liberals were more likely to favor the deletion of his accounts while conservatives denounced it.

Another example of suppression in the media that is not political is the censoring of photos deemed obscene, or pornography. This is sometimes necessary, as in case those photos were posted or taken without consent, they will be taken down. Children on the internet will also be prevented from seeing obscene photos freely posted on social media sites.

Although censorship in this case can protect peoples safety, it also affects others ability to freely express themselves. People who see their content as a valid and acceptable form of artistic expression are being restricted, as well as adult content creators who make a living off these photos.

Censorship is also not limited to occurring at the hands of huge media companies. In many countries around the world, the government is involved in the surveillance and censoring of their citizens on the internet, either to spread propaganda/promote their ideology or to silence those with political views opposite of their leaders. North Korea, China and Iran are among the most censored countries in the world.

Citizens of these countries rely on VPNs (which are oftentimes illegal) to gain greater access to bypass internet restrictions. VPNs are common in China and Iran, but in North Korea where internet access is extremely limited, people tune their radios to forbidden broadcasts and smuggle South Korean drama and music for a brief glimpse at the outside world.

So, is it right to censor?

Those who censor often argue that it is for the greater good, though it often silences or limits others, possibly a minority population, in the process. Censorship in the media can keep us safe from malicious posters, but can also be used by news channels to twist public perception and push people towards specific ideals. Huge conglomerates have control over the media, and when reporting on events, their voices are so loud that they become the only ones we hear.

Link:
How corporations influence our entertainment (and therefore our opinions) - The Tide