Tag Archives: Disinformation

Climate Solutions, Earth Day, Social Media

Social Media Giants’ Climate Misinformation Policies Leave Users ‘In the Dark’: Report

“Despite half of U.S. and U.K. adults getting their news from social media, social media companies have not taken the steps necessary to fight industry-backed deception,” reads the report.

Weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified disinformation as a key driver of the planetary crisis, three advocacy groups published a report Wednesday ranking social media companies on their efforts to ensure users can get accurate data about the climate on their platforms—and found that major companies like Twitter and Facebook are failing to combat misinformation.

The report, titled In the Dark: How Social Media Companies’ Climate Disinformation Problem is Hidden from the Public and released by Friends of the Earth (FOE), Greenpeace, and online activist network Avaaz, detailed whether the companies have met 27 different benchmarks to stop the spread of anti-science misinformation and ensure transparency about how inaccurate data is analyzed.

“Despite half of U.S. and U.K. adults getting their news from social media, social media companies have not taken the steps necessary to fight industry-backed deception,” reads the report. “In fact, they continue to allow these climate lies to pollute users’ feeds.

The groups assessed five major social media platforms—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and TikTok—and found that the two best-performing companies, Pinterest and YouTube, scored 14 out of the 27 possible points.

As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Pinterest has won praise from groups including FOE for establishing “clearly defined guidelines against false or misleading climate change information, including conspiracy theories, across content and ads.”

“One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for fact-based deliberation, discussion, and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data.”

The company also garnered points in Wednesday’s report for being the only major social media platform to make clear the average time or views it allows for a piece of scientifically inaccurate content before it will take action to combat the misinformation and including “omission or cherry-picking” of data in its definition of mis- or disinformation.

Pinterest and YouTube were the only companies that won points for consulting with climate scientists to develop a climate mis- and disinformation policy.

The top-performing companies, however, joined the other firms in failing to articulate exactly how their misinformation policy is enforced and to detail how climate misinformation is prioritized for fact-checking.

“Social media companies are largely leaving the public in the dark about their efforts to combat the problem,” the report reads. “There is a gross lack of transparency, as these companies conceal much of the data about the prevalence of digital climate dis/misinformation and any internal measures taken to address its spread.”

Twitter was the worst-performing company, meeting only five of the 27 criteria.

“Twitter is not clear about how content is verified as dis/misinformation, nor explicit about engaging with climate experts to review dis/misinformation policies or flagged content,” reads the report. “Twitter’s total lack of reference to climate dis/misinformation, both in their policies and throughout their enforcement reports, earned them no points in either category.”

TikTok scored seven points, while Facebook garnered nine.

The report, using criteria developed by the Climate Disinformation Coalition, was released three weeks after NPR reported that inaccurate information about renewable energy sources has been disseminated widely in Facebook groups, and the spread has been linked to slowing progress on or shutting down local projects.

In rural Ohio, posts in two anti-wind power Facebook groups spread misinformation about wind turbines causing birth defects in horses, failing to reduce carbon emissions, and causing so-called “wind turbine syndrome” from low-frequency sounds—a supposed ailment that is not backed by scientific evidence. The posts increased “perceptions of human health and public safety risks related to wind” power, according to a study published last October in the journal Energy Research & Social Science.

As those false perceptions spread through the local community, NPRreported, the Ohio Power Siting Board rejected a wind farm proposal “citing geological concerns and the local opposition.”

Misinformation on social media “can really slow down the clean energy transition, and that has just as dire life and death consequences, not just in terms of climate change, but also in terms of air pollution, which overwhelmingly hits communities of color,” University of California, Santa Barbara professor Leah Stokes told NPR.

As the IPCC reported in its February report, “rhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, disregarded risk and urgency, and dissent.”

Wednesday’s report called on all social media companies to:

  • Establish, disclose, and enforce policies to reduce climate change dis- and misinformation;
  • Release in full the company’s current labeling, fact-checking, policy review, and algorithmic ranking systems related to climate change disinformation policies;
  • Disclose weekly reports on the scale and prevalence of climate change dis- and misinformation on the platform and mitigation efforts taken internally; and
  • Adopt privacy and data protection policies to protect individuals and communities who may be climate dis/misinformation targets.

“One of the key objectives of this report is to allow for fact-based deliberation, discussion, and debate to flourish in an information ecosystem that is healthy and fair, and that allows both citizens and policymakers to make decisions based on the best available data,” reads the report.

“We see a clear boundary between freedom of speech and freedom of reach,” it continues, “and believe that transparency on climate dis/misinformation and accountability for the actors who spread it is a precondition for a robust and constructive debate on climate change and the response to the climate crisis.”

Originally published on Common Dreams by JULIA CONLEY  and republished

Related:

Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Business, Climate Solutions, News, Observation, Politics

“They’re Lying”: Lots of Climate Misinformation Detected During Testimony of Big Oil CEOs

Video

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

“There is no longer any question: These companies knew and lied about their product’s role in the climate crisis, they continue to deceive, and they must be held accountable.”

Fossil fuel executives who testified Thursday at a U.S. House of Representatives hearing focused on decades of coordinated industry misinformation refused to pledge that their companies will stop lobbying against efforts to combat the climate emergency driven largely by their businesses.

That joint refusal came in response to a challenge from Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform—who at the end of the hearing announced subpoenas for documents the fossil fuel companies have failed to provide.

Earlier in the hearing, Maloney had asked if the Big Oil CEOs would affirm that their organizations “will no longer spend any money, either directly or indirectly, to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change.”

Advocates for climate action pointed to the moment as yet another example of major polluters impeding planet-saving policy.

“The silence, non-answers, and repeated deflections from Big Oil’s Slippery Six exposed once and for all that the fossil fuel industry won’t back off its commitment to spreading climate disinformation and lobbying against climate action in order to protect their bottom line,” Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.

“For the first time ever, fossil fuel executives were confronted under oath with the evidence of their industry’s decadeslong efforts to deceive the American people about climate change,” Wiles continued. “They not only refused to accept responsibility for lying about the catastrophic effects of their fossil fuels—they refused to stop funding efforts to spread disinformation and oppose climate action.”

“There is no longer any question: These companies knew and lied about their product’s role in the climate crisis, they continue to deceive, and they must be held accountable,” he added. “Today’s hearing and the committee’s ongoing investigation are important steps in those efforts.”

Maloney and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who chairs the panel’s Subcommittee on the Environment, had threatened to subpoena the industry leaders—collectively dubbed the #SlipperySix—if they declined to join the hearing, entitled, “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action.”

The historic event included testimony from four industry executives—ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, BP America CEO David Lawler, Chevron CEO Michael Wirth, Shell Oil president Gretchen Watkins—and leaders from industry trade groups: American Petroleum Institute (API) president Mike Sommers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne Clark.

Kyle Herrig, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, warned that “lawmakers should be wary of testimony from executives who have consistently put their industry’s bottom line over the health of the climate and the American people, no matter their rhetoric.”

Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, a pair of climate misinformation scholars at Harvard University, have warned of a “fossil fuel savior frame” that “downplays the reality and seriousness of climate change, normalizes fossil fuel lock-in, and individualizes responsibility.”

Both Oreskes and Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn observed the presence of such framing during the hearing. Henn said that “it’s striking how much all these Big Oil execs come across as hostage-takers: ‘You need us. You can’t live without us. You’ll never escape.”

The fossil fuel witnesses’ initial remarks and responses to lawmakers’ questions were full of industry talking points. They advocated for “market-based solutions” like carbon taxes while failing to offer specifics. They also highlighted carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology and hydrogen—both of which progressive green groups have denounced as “false solutions”—as key to reaching a “lower-carbon future.”

While suggesting a long-term need for oil and gas, the executives claimed to believe in anthropogenic climate change and said fossil fuel emissions “contribute” to global heating. Some critics called them out for using that term, rather than “cause” or “drive.”

Using the the word “contribute” rather than cause, saidHuffPost environment reporter Chris D’Angelo, “downplays/dismisses the science, which shows they are the primary driver… Frankly, it’s climate denial—the very topic of this hearing.”

After inquiring about how long all four executives had been in their current roles, the panel’s ranking member, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), asked whether they had ever signed off on a climate disinformation campaign. They all said no—which experts and activists promptly disputed.

While progressives on the panel grilled the executives, Republicans repeatedly apologized to the CEOs for Democrats’ supposed “intimidation” efforts. Blasting the GOP lawmakers’ actions as “pathetic,” Henn said that “they really do see themselves as servants to Big Oil.”

The panel’s GOP members also tried to redirect attention to planet-heating activities of other countries, particularly China, and complained about President Joe Biden’s move to block the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, even inviting Neal Crabtree, a welder who lost his job when the project was canceled, to testify.

“The GOP’s strategy at this hearing is clear: It will not attempt to claim Big Oil *didn’t* mislead on climate,” tweeted climate reporter Emily Atkin of the HEATED newsletter. “Instead, the GOP is claiming Democrats are wasting time by focusing on climate change, and that it isn’t important to ‘everyday Americans.'”

Thanking Atkin for spotlighting the Republicans’ strategy, ClimateVoice noted that new polling shows the U.S. public does care about the issue. According to survey results released this week, a majority of Americans see climate as a problem of high importance to them and support Congress passing legislation to increase reliance on clean electricity sources.

Maloney, in her closing remarks Thursday, lamented that the hearing featured “much of the denial and deflection” seen in recent decades. She also called out the companies for not turning over requested documents, refusing to “take responsibility” for their contributions to the climate crisis, and continuing to fund groups like API. The chair vowed that her committee will continue its investigation.

Originally published on Common Dreams by JESSICA CORBETT and republished under Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Related Articles:

Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Sustainable Energy Solutions and Climate Science and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Breaking News, Observation

Bernie Sanders ‘Help’ from Russia is a Smear showing that Trump and Putin are Worried

Even Democrats are Repeating the Nonsense that Sanders is “Putin’s Choice”

On February 21st, Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders revealed in an interview that, about a month ago, U.S. Intelligence Dept. Officials briefed him that Russia has plans to ‘assist’ him in the 2020 election. Sanders response to the prospective foreign assistance was direct—he told Russia to “Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”

The Vermont Senator also went on to call Russian President Vladimir Putin “an autocratic thug” and clarified, “Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend… I stand firmly against (Russia’s) efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.” He speaks of course of Trump’s close relationship with the Russian leader, and of Trump’s encouragement, in plain sight, of Russian interference in his 2016 campaign.

Despite Sander’s straight answer to the news regarding Russia, Trump was not hesitant to bring it up during a Las Vegas rally the day before the Nevada caucus. He quipped about Bernie honeymooning in Moscow and snidely warned Democrats to be careful about foreign interference in elections. Then, he bragged that Putin really wants four more years of Trump.

Trump’s snarky speech is ironic given the fact that when Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire first informed the President about Russia’s support of him for 2020, he reportedly threw a fit, angry that Maguire would disclose such information with Democratic nemesis Adam Schiff in the room. Even though reporting such activity to the POTUS is part of the DNI job description, Trump ended up terminating Maguire for, essentially, telling the truth and doing his job.

No one Knows Who is “Electable” even though all the Candidates Try to Claim they are the One that can Beat Trump

The conventional wisdom is that only a moderate centrist Democrat can defeat Trump. There are, however, only a lot of theories, based on the standard data, to support this contention and the same people espousing those theories are the ones that said that Hillary, based on the same methods of predicting election outcomes, would beat Trump with ease.

Bernie Sanders does have “extreme” proposals, compared with the bland, compromise based plans of the more moderate wing of the party. Maybe, just maybe, going up against the most extreme most volatile and completely corrupt politician in recent history requires an extreme challenger? Trump will cheat and lie, that is clear, and someone to take him on must be ready for that and must be able to show that he (or she) can survive the shit storm he will create and then take the country out of this nightmare.

You can not compromise with a sociopath.

2016 All Over Again but with a twist, and perhaps, a Different Outcome

The propaganda spin that appears to have been planned long in advance seems to be working already. Viewing various tweets from Democrats who are not aligned with Sanders indicate that they are actively parroting the Putin planted misinformation.

The two threads they have, apparently subconsciously, picked up are:

A – Sanders has no chance and the proof is that he is the Putin’s preferred opponent for Tump (unsubstantiated inferences stated as fact and as original thought)

Or

B – That Sanders is going to be called a Communist (or is a Communist) and that his past, regardless how innocent compared to Trump, makes him an easy target that he has no chance to win in the general election. There are even those that posit that he must be a Communist because Putin “likes” him.

In other words, they have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

According to the New York Times:

The Russians have been preparing — and experimenting — for the 2020 election, undeterred by American efforts to thwart them but aware that they needed a new playbook of as-yet-undetectable methods, United States officials said

They have made more creative use of Facebook and other social media.

Rather than impersonating Americans as they did in 2016, Russian operatives are working to get Americans to repeat disinformation, the officials said. That strategy gets around social media companies’ rules that prohibit “inauthentic speech.”

(emphasis mine)

Typical examples of the parroting of the Russian disinformation:

The disturbing thing is that these supposedly intelligent Democratic voters are immediately jumping to the first thoughts that Putin has planted in their minds.

The real truth is that Sanders is the most dangerous candidate to both Trump and Putin and should be seen as such. They have an elaborate plan to stop him but they fear that he will do the one thing that they can not overcome; awaken the American people to the power they already have.

And Outsider Rises Up in Spite of Both Republican and Democrat Establishments being Against Him: Sound Familliar?

The cable news pundits have already started repeating that Sanders, “a socialist candidate” has little chance to win and will hurt down ballot races for the House and Senate. Naturally, they have no proof of this and no idea if another candidate would do any better in that regard. They are parroting conventional “wisdom” and creating noise just like Putin wants.

There are also already rumblings and propaganda-troll posts that are implying that because Sanders was in Moscow many years ago on his Honeymoon (supposedly) that he is therefore, obviously, a Communist.

The fact that so many have taken it at face value that Putin is “helping” him, although zero evidence has been revealed and no details exist showing what exactly this “help” consists of, creates a perfect launching pad for what is likely to be the most blatant and ridiculous-nonsense mudslinging contest in history.

Want to know more about Putin’s Corrupt Rise to power? Click to buy “Blowout” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores

On the other side is the rock-solid record and consistency of Sanders. People can disagree with his goals and platform but it will be difficult, indeed, to rattle him when trying to sling random insults and trying to make up lies about him to dissuade those who have followed his political career.

Likewise, Trump’s response to the briefing—both his hysterics in Washington and his jests in Vegas—illustrates a subliminal touch of fear. Fear that Bernie will win the primary, which he did, “bigly”, without but in reality in spite of, supposed Russian assistance.

As Bernie leads the Democratic race after definitive wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, it is looking increasingly likely that it will ultimately come down to “Trump v. Sanders” in November.

Trump and the Republicans will undoubtedly try to turn this murky Russian briefing report against Bernie again, spinning the wheels of propaganda over and over. We can all relate, in the meantime to the sentiment of Bernie’s final word when interviewed on the topic on the eve of the Nevada Caucuses: “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president.”

Find books on Big Tech, Sustainable Energy, Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.