Posted on 03/30/2022 4:52:36 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Facebook pushes climate sceptics towards increasingly extreme disinformation and conspiracy groups, a human-rights body's research suggests.
A report released Wednesday by Global Witness found Facebook's algorithm amplified doubts rather than nudging people towards reliable information.
Facebook says its systems are "designed to reduce misinformation".
Researchers created two users - climate sceptic "Jane" and "John" who followed established scientific bodies.
They then tracked what Facebook's algorithm suggested to both accounts.
Jane soon saw content denying man-made climate change, including pages calling it a "hoax" and attacking measures to mitigate its effects.
Meanwhile, John's account began by liking the page of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations scientific body.
And in contrast to Jane, John was consistently shown reliable science-based content.
The Facebook algorithm has been shown to send users down rabbit holes - where content becomes increasingly fringe as users engage with posts on a particular topic - in other areas, such as gender-based abuse.
The IPCC says disinformation is one of a number of issues preventing governments and the public from addressing climate change.
Its latest report, backed by 195 governments, emphasises misinformation around climate science "undermines climate science and disregards risk and urgency".
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Translation: Facebook, you’re not doing enough to drive people into climate change propaganda. Bad facebook. Not woke enough.
“Meanwhile, John’s account began by liking the page of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations scientific body.”
Because the UN isn’t political but Dr. Malone is.
Translation - Actual facts sunk into their feed…
So Facebook manipulation is the reason I think the IPCC is full of shit? Nope. I thought that long before Facebook came around and nothing in the actual data has made me think otherwise. If you actually practice science you don’t worry about so-called deniers; you worry about how you can back your conclusions or change them from the data available.
The press keeps using the world “disinformaiton”.
I do not think that word means what they think it means.
Actually, given the past few years, I do not think that they think at all.
disinformaiton is anything that doesn’t agree with their agenda
Translation: INFORMATION is preventing the public from believing (like cultists) in the bogus BS of the IPCC.
No one denies there is a climate. No one denies that climate changes. More and more people deny the IPCC and UN are "here to help." Why? Their message remains the same. Send money, send more money, send lots more money.
“designed to reduce misinformation”.
Sounds more like telling us that only their opinion is right.
The pearl clutching continues.
Or does does it drive climate bots to skepicism?
The more eyes looking at sham constructs like the IPCC the more skepticism grows. It’s instructive how it seems critical that we all accept their ridiculous lies.
How likely is it that warming, cooling, flooding, drought, storms and lack of storms are all caused by the same invisible force?
Well, censorship does exactly that. And, the more intense the censorship, the more it loses credibility to continue to control information.
Even Pravda figured out they would have more credibility by criticizing the Politburo once in awhile. Our lamestream media, by and large, still has not.
The IPCC is not a “scientific body.” The I stands for intergovernmental, meaning politicians and bureaucrats. The report they feed to the media, a “Summary for Policymakers,” is composed and approved by politicians. There are research reports which purportedly support the summary but there is little resemblance once the pols get through gutting the research.
Reporters never read the actual research because 1) they are lazy and 2) they don’t know enough to understand what they would be reading. Instead they simply regurgitate public relations releases from green advocacy groups.
You are wise enough to know better than to credit information from facebook.
May be it’s just the tin foil hat conspiracy theorist side of me, but I suspect that most of Face Books logarithms are designed to display adds that may be of interest to the user.
Yup.🙄
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.