#Countering Climate Misinformation

[meteorologistaustenlonek]

"I was the greatest threat the Continuum had ever known. They feared me so much, they had to lock me away for eternity, and when they did that, they were saying that the individual's rights will be protected only so long as they don't conflict with the state. Nothing is so dangerous to a society."" - Star Trek Voyager: Deathwish --- “These defenders are basically trying to save the planet, and in doing so save humanity,” Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, told the Guardian last year. “These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments and corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power and economics.”

[lizardsfromspace]

The factchecking this cycle has been so profoundly incompetent that it's finally getting some real backlash, but the extent of it really should be clear. So much of factchecking is not based in reality, but in a kind of contorted moon logic that can find true claims to be false and false ones to be true based on wildly inconsistent reasoning.

But this one really shows off some of the base assumptions of modern factchecking, and also bc it got a community note which is funny:

Let's take this one by one

The idea that quotes have any options but "he said it" or "he didn't say it". It is a binary, maybe with a third option of "it was clipped wildly out of context", but something you see constantly now is the idea that quoting someone's direct words without deceptive editing or removal of context can somehow be false

Pointlessly noting that it's from 2016, and that it's not clear if he currently believes it. What the hell does that matter to the question of if he said that in 2016? People understood that the "dig up someone's tweets from when they were 17" thing was inane, but they counter-balanced by apparently deciding that citing anything someone said more than about six months ago is Misinformation if we don't have objective evidence they would say the exact same thing now, even if there's no evidence they believe anything else. Analyzing someone's high school tweets and analyzing something the literal President said seven years ago are not equivalent

Noting that he walked it back following criticism. You see this constantly, too. Again, what does that matter to the question of if he said it? But this is just taken as a given now: if someone gets blowback and says "whoops I didn't mean it", that should be taken at face value. Effectively, Politifact is letting Donald Trump self-factcheck Donald Trump: their only evidence (and I read the article too) this is at all false is that Donald Trump said Donald Trump didn't really mean the words he said, so they must agree with the judgment of Donald Trump that Donald Trump was treated so unfairly here.

A general confusion over what factchecking is. If you're asked "did Donald Trump say this in 2016?", your sole job is to determine if he really said that in 2016. It's not to divine if he, deep in his heart, still believes it now. That's completely irrelevant.

The two guiding principles of modern factchecking are this: one, it's strongly rumored - and also, obvious to everyone literate - that the major factchecking sites have either standing orders to find equal numbers of lies on both sides, or are staffed by people who think it's their job to hold both sides equally to account (the exception is Snopes, whose writers are just terrible at their jobs). In the name of this, Donald Trump can say something on camera only for it to be judged false, while a Democratic politician can be excoriated for mildly rounding down a figure in a speech. A factchecking website once determined that saying climate change was a threat to life on this planet was a lie, because climate change won't kill all life on this planet. Politifact's lie of the year one year was a Democrat saying a Republican plan would "end Medicare as we know it", which was judged to be a lie because it wouldn't literally end Medicare completely. Figurative language needs to be scoured, comments said directly on camera need to be made fuzzy. This makes factchecking sites worthless at factchecking, because what even is this?

It's not true that Donald Trump will refuse to accept the election results, because he's merely said he won't accept, and has said if he loses, it's only because the election was fraudulent. Okay, what, do you demand that people prove he said his plans in exact words? What is the actual, functional difference between "he said he won't accept it" and "he said if he loses it's because he won and they stole it from him, and he won't commit to saying he'll accept it"? What are you talking about, who is this for? When you go to the Logic and Reason Site for Debunking & end up having to puzzle out their convoluted logic and reasoning to understand anything, the plot's been lost a bit

The other is the idea that context is exonerating. Any context at all. If they said they didn't mean it, partially false. If they walked it back, partially false. If they said it was taken out of context, partially false. If they said it a certain number of years ago, partially false. If there's a longer video, even if it shows functionally the same thing, pants on fire, five pinocchios.

Again, we have footage of Trump saying this, and the footage in the ad is unedited, and the factchecking website is declaring something that OBJECTIVELY HAPPENED WITH HARD EVIDENCE IT HAPPENED didn't really happen bc we don't know his heart, maybe he believes something different now, we simply can't know for certain. But we do know for certain. Because "false" at least used to mean "didn't happen". But factchecking sites are now on those Beyond Belief definitions of "true" and "false" I guess

But the real problem here is that they just accept anything someone being factchecked says at face value. Because, and I can't believe I'm saying this

It seems like the people paid to determine if other people are lying...have forgotten that people lie sometimes

[probablyasocialecologist]

“So, relax and enjoy the ride. There is nothing we can do to stop climate change, so there is no point in worrying about it.” This is what “Bard” told researchers in 2023. Bard by Google is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot that can produce human-sounding text and other content in response to prompts or questions posed by users.  But if AI can now produce new content and information, can it also produce misinformation? Experts have found evidence.  In a study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, researchers tested Bard on 100 false narratives on nine themes, including climate and vaccines, and found that the tool generated misinformation on 78 out of the 100 narratives tested. According to the researchers, Bard generated misinformation on all 10 narratives about climate change. In 2023, another team of researchers at Newsguard, a platform providing tools to counter misinformation, tested OpenAI’s Chat GPT-3.5 and 4, which can also produce text, articles, and more. According to the research, ChatGPT-3.5 generated misinformation and hoaxes 80 percent of the time when prompted to do so with 100 false narratives, while ChatGPT-4 advanced all 100 false narratives in a more detailed and convincing manner. NewsGuard found that ChatGPT-4 advanced prominent false narratives not only more frequently, but also more persuasively than ChatGPT-3.5, and created responses in the form of news articles, Twitter threads, and even TV scripts imitating specific political ideologies or conspiracy theorists. “I think this is important and worrying, the production of fake science, the automation in this domain, and how easily that becomes integrated into search tools like Google Scholar or similar ones,” said Victor Galaz, deputy director and associate professor in political science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University in Sweden. “Because then that’s a slow process of eroding the very basics of any kind of conversation.” In another recent study published this month, researchers found GPT-fabricated content in Google Scholar mimicking legitimate scientific papers on issues including the environment, health, and computing. The researchers warn of “evidence hacking,” the “strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base,” which Google Scholar can be susceptible to.

18 September 2024

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jay Kuo at The Status Kuo:

As climate disasters increase in frequency and severity, we are faced with still another grave threat: misinformation, along with its more sinister sibling, disinformation. 

As strong evidence that the writers of 2024 have jumped the shark, we have to begin today’s discussion with a simple fact: The government cannot control the weather, let alone create catastrophic hurricanes that it can send at will. Yet because of irresponsible conspiracy mongering by political leaders, with a healthy assist from online influencers and amplification by foreign actors, this bizarre claim became a top priority that many leaders, both Democratic and Republican, had to spend valuable time debunking, when they could have been focused on saving more lives and property. It’s tempting to simply laugh, but just as with the insane and false claims about immigrants eating pets in Springfield, this disinformation also carries serious and dangerous consequences. In today’s piece, I discuss how we got to this point and how political leaders and experts are pushing back. I also will place this particularly weird claim in the larger context of everything else we are seeing to help make the otherwise nonsensical make a bit of perverted sense, at least in terms of the political value it contains for those seeking to undermine our democracy. “They can control the weather.”

In a press conference yesterday, President Biden’s exasperation was evident as he shot down the newest conspiracy theories around relief efforts and hurricanes. Biden noted that “even one congresswoman” was “suggesting I control the weather and implying I’m sending it to red states.” “This stuff is off the wall. It’s like out of a comic book,” Biden declared. He’s talking of course about the Jewish Space Lasers QAnon lady, Marjorie Taylor Greene (Q-Moscow), whose tweets around the hurricanes have reached new levels of both stupidity and dangerousness. In one particularly off-the-wall tweet, viewed five million times as of this writing, Rep. Greene attached a video of a speech by CIA Director John Brennan from eight years back. Director Brennan at the time was discussing innovative ways to use aerosols to deflect the sun’s heat to reduce climate change. But in Greene’s smooth, hollow brain, that somehow became “Yes they can control the weather”—implying the hurricanes were manmade and not the long warned about by-product of an overheated ocean following decades of increased carbon in the atmosphere.

Note how she provides ample cover for her ignorance, telling her followers that anyone who counters or ridicules her claims “is lying to you” and that this is all part of some massive cover up and “the people” know it. (As Jimmy Kimmel pointed out last night on his program, Greene used to say bad weather was God’s way of punishing liberal sinners. Funny how that changes when it’s her region that is hit by it.) Rep. Greene also posted a map of the areas affected by Hurricane Helene, with an overlay of an electoral map by political party, implying strongly that the hurricane was created by Democrats to hurt the political chances of the GOP. 

Notably, however, when Democrats presented the North Carolina legislature, which has a GOP supermajority, with a proposal to extend the time for affected voters to register and to allow absentee votes more time to arrive, not a single GOP legislator voted in favor of it.

[...] But experts are worried about more than their own safety or the difficulty of their jobs. A sharp decrease in public trust during severe weather crises could lead to some terrifying outcomes. As Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who served as director of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management for two years, warned on MSNBC, “At some point in time, we’ll see people tell residents not to evacuate because the hurricane’s not really hitting you.” If that sounds implausible, we’re already seeing versions of that from large, influential accounts on the right. The troll account Catturd (again, I can’t believe I have to write about this) declared last night that, due to the changing wind speeds of Hurricane Milton, “I’ll never listen to weather channel again.” As of today, that was viewed 2.4 million times.

Why lie about the weather?

There’s something particularly sad when the weather—one of the last, normal topics of conversation, even between people of divergent political views—is no longer uncontroversial. Victims of the hurricanes cannot even commiserate without the threat of political backlash.   “How did you ride out the hurricane? “You mean the one you Democrats sent here to destroy us?!”’ Never mind that this government weather machine seemed to batter the Gulf and the Caribbean during Trump’s presidency, and he never bothered to turn it off or order it to stop. Our foreign adversaries have long viewed the ignorance of U.S. voters as an exploitable weakness. They understand that during crises, Americans historically have come together and stood united, helping each other out wherever we can without regard to political viewpoint. And that is precisely why they have targeted these crises now, to spread rumors about the government seizing lands, bulldozing whole towns and hundreds of bodies in massive cover ups, and apparently now even generating and directing the deadly hurricanes in the first place. Bad political actors thrive where there is little common factual ground remaining for the public to stand upon. Their goal is to continue until it has all been swept away, the zone flooded from a storm surge of shit, to coin Steve Bannon’s infamous strategy.

Jay Kuo rightly calls out the far-right climate-denying conspiracy theorists pushing dangerous lies about Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

See Also:

The Guardian: How could hurricane misinformation affect the US election?

[rebelwheelssoapbox]

The Influences Of Ableism in Veganism: A Disabled Vegan Perspective

by Michele Sommerstein

I don't know about you, but for me between the multiple genocides, the rise in COVID cases, the massive COVID denial, the related rise in mask bans, the elections, police violence, the rising threat of fascism, climate change, and so many other issues – for fuck's sake! it's a lot. And so lately, I've been feeling like while I am doing what I can to be part of the collective effort for justice, (for another world is possible), I can't only make protest art. My heart also needs lighter projects.

[image description: a collage. background is a field with a blue sky and white clouds and a field of rows of flowers of various colors. standing in the field is a silhouette of a pig that takes up most of the art. their shape is filled with a photo of from the universe (space) there is a human eye on them that slightly blends in with the space pattern. lastly behind them but towards the right is a pink cosmo flower with an orange center. as if the pig is smelling the flower. ] And so recently I've returned to making vegan content. But not some call for intersectionality, articles discussing inner-movement issues, kill counter references, and environmental stats, as I had done in the past. Just lighter. And perhaps because it has been a while since I have made vegan content, I found myself unexpectedly reflecting on the intersections of my disability and vegan identity. Before my disability identity-themed YouTube show (Rebelwheels NYC), I had a short-lived vegan cooking show called My Easily Amused Kitchen.

[image description: video thumbnail. a screenshot from the video taken in my apartment. a white wall and a purple couch behind me. text reads MEAK ep 1 creamy pea soup of vast fantasticness! my easily amused kitchen. there is olive oil being poured onto a bowl of peas. and I am pointing with my finger up sitting next to a penguin stuffed animal. I have glasses, a black shirt, and longer hair with bangs] And looking back on that time, I realize that I really wasn't being fully authentic in the videos. Of course, it was done in my motorized wheelchair and there was some of my quirky humor, but I remember I often downplayed any kind of physical fatigue even though that is part of my disability.

You see, between my animal rights activism at the time and the vegan content that I watched on YouTube, I was very much familiar with the protein myth. The false idea that if you go vegan, that you will by default, be physically weak due to not being able to get enough protein on a vegan diet. Often I saw other (physically able-bodied) vegans whether in person or via YouTube videos who were very intentional about presenting veganism as part of an energetic lifestyle in an attempt to counteract said misinformation.

And there are many professional athletes who are vegan. I personally knew a guy (not professional) who was vegan, who lifted weights and ran marathons with ease.

[image description: The background is a colorful collage of blue, yellow, and pink. The main text reads pity is not compassion! The vibe is artsy and punk. There is smaller text on top that reads spare us your pity we want our rights! And then towards the lower left-hand corner, it reads intersectional disability solidarity. Lastly underneath the word compassion is the phrase unlearn ableism.]

And then there was me, a disabled vegan, and not Paralympic disabled, disabled with low spoons (slang term for energy), disabled with health problems, disabled where muscle weakness is literally part of my disability. And now I can type that and say “represent” with a sense of disability pride, but back then it almost felt like it was a hindrance to the cause. And to be clear, no one ever said to me “hide parts of your disability for the movement.” It was just the way it was presented that made me feel like I should. And it wasn't just the impression I got from a lot of people in the vegan community. I could sneeze and an omnivore would say “Is that because you're vegan?” (as if they themselves never sneezed?)

As a result, I was very aware of how my disability was somewhat being linked to the protein myth. As if I wouldn't be disabled if I wasn't vegan. As if people aren't born with disabilities. As if disability and veganism were somehow incompatible.

[image description: white background. black typewriter font. "Ableism is... (a form of) discrimination. The false idea that disabled people are by default, inferior. When in truth disability is just another way for a mind and/or body to be." ] And so part of me felt that to show my truth was feeding into that weakened stereotype, thus hurting the movement and thus hurting the animals, which obviously as a vegan and animal rights activist, you don't want to do.

Looking back, it was also a lot of internalized ableism on my part, for I had yet to be aware that ableism was even a word, let alone working to unlearn it, and certainly had not yet found my groove and voice in my disability identity.

That said, I now see how essential it is to have a variety of vegan representation in all areas but in this case, ability and health.

And so, in the name of creating something lighter, and because it just so happened that I needed a new vegan cheese (long story), I filmed a taste test where I was un-apologetically me. Full throttle neurodivergent, processing delays, immensely honest, not downplaying when I was physically fatigued or in pain nor the fact that while there are many vegan cheeses out there, I could not try a lot of them, due to dietary intolerances and ingredient sensitivities.

[image description: tumblr has cropped the video thumbnail. the full thumbnail is as follows. Background gold glitter. Over that rainbow stripes. Purple blue green yellow orange red and dark red. To the left a photo of myself wearing a silence equals death with a watermelon pink triangle symbol on it holding up a piece of vegan cheese. I have oversized black cat eye eyeglasses and my rainbow flower crown hair band is pushing back my dark hair. Next to me is a collage of various vegan cheeses. And over that is the text in a bold black font "disabled and neurodivergent vegan taste test vegan cheese." Every line has a white rectangle behind it and behind that is a black rectangle shadow. In white text with a black rectangle behind it. "Not sponsored. Very honest."] And as a result of being authentic and sharing my truth, I'm starting to come across other disabled vegans like me, chronically ill vegans, neurodivergent vegans, etc. and it's lovely Many years ago, I wrote an article entitled Is Veganism Ableist? A Disabled Vegan Perspective. And in regard to the ideas of veganism, the answer remains no. However, I do think in the wanting and sometimes desperation to do all we can to save the animals (and to a certain degree, the planet as animal agriculture is one of the larger contributors to climate change), a lot of us took action to dispel the protein myth, and while in ways it was good, some of our actions had consequences that also caused harm. It is a reminder that when we take action to fight misinformation, we must make sure that we are also not punching down in the process (whether intentionally or not.) This is something that goes far beyond veganism. In the end, us vegans from marginalized communities must represent with as much realness as possible, not only so people know that vegans vary, but so other marginalized people who are perhaps 'vegan-curious', will know that they too are welcomed in the movement. After all, the animals need as many allies as they can get. (Author's Note: In the past, I have written articles using my birth name Michele Kaplan. However, in the past year, I have decided to use my mother's maiden name, and thus why this article is by Michele Sommerstein, while past articles are by Michele Kaplan. Same person. I didn't get married. This just felt right to me for personal reasons)

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this article from Jacobin:

In Canada, false environmental claims are now illegal. Under legislation passed in June, companies may be penalized for making representations to the public about their products’ ability to mitigate climate change without being based on an “adequate and proper test.” It was a success for environmental groups who spent a year and half working on the antigreenwashing law.

The legislation is just one moment in a much wider “disinformation turn” in the climate movement: the US Congress has been holding high-profile hearings with titles like “Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change.” Academics are convening conferences on “climate obstruction” with multiple days of deep dives from the network of scholars that meticulously track corporate climate misinformation. Environmental NGOs are making disinformation databases with lists of individuals and scientists and leading programs on climate disinformation. And think tanks that work on disinformation are now moving into climate, with reports like the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s The New Climate Denial.

Disinformation is a curious focus for the climate movement at this moment, however, at least from a US standpoint. This is because we actually have some funds for climate action on the ground. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) unleashed a trillion dollars to use to address the climate crisis. But much of the public is unaware of this massive investment — and local governments, tribes, and organizations often struggle to navigate accessing the new funding.

These material victories would make it the perfect time for a climate movement to focus on things like explaining to people what heat pumps are, campaigning to expedite transmission lines, and helping communities understand the labyrinth of federal funding. Indeed, many regional government organizations, municipal planners, and volunteer committees who work on climate action have their hands full with these activities. They are engaged with the ground game of mitigation and adaptation.

Yet the nationwide connective tissue and broader narrative about climate action feels absent. If there is a role for “climate intellectuals” — for the online climate commentariat, the journalists and national NGO leaders who tell us the story of climate action — it would be to focus on the new opportunities for action on the ground, and knit together those people in Peoria or Altoona who are trying to talk to people about resilience, connecting them in a broader story that fuels their motivation. Instead, the intellectual wing of the climate movement has decided to wage an information war focused on uncovering what Big Oil knew and policing speech.

Given that funding and public attention is limited, this climate-disinformation obsession is a missed opportunity and a strategic dead-end — part of a larger liberal tendency to make disinformation a bogeyman we can blame for our major political problems.

[acti-veg]

News had a section on the issues of agave farming, how rising demand gets them prematurely harvested without being able to flower, more monocultures and loss of genetic diversity in the plants. To no one's surprise, the reason is increasing tequila consumption in Europe and agave syrup wasn't mentioned even once. And while we're at it, blaming rich vegans in particular for agave syrup consumption makes no sense anyway, as organic agave syrup is in the lower price range of the honey sortiment at the stores I checked.

I’ve found that when it comes to misinformation, it doesn’t actually matter how visible or readily available the truth is. They choose a narrative that fits their existing views based on whatever clickbait article they’ve stumbled on, and it takes an enormous amount of counter-information to force them to let the fallacy go.

Even when they do let it go, they move on to the next thing before circling back. We debunked the quinoa thing five years ago, then it was agave, then soy, then plastic. Now we’re talking about agave again, as if this wasn’t already widely debunked. Anything to avoid talking about the actual issues. It’s the same with climate denial, it’s a constant battle to address misinformation, and every victory is unfortunately only temporary.

[ritunn]

A Very Short "Essay" On Why They Should Teach Philosophy in School (and Why You Should Learn It Anyway)

Something I've realized formally studying philosophy now is that holy mother of all gods, this stuff would be super useful to teach in school. Why? What are Plato, Aristotle, and even modern philosophers going to teach us that's useful for adulting as many people are concerned about now when it comes to high school? Philosophy boils down to how to live a good life, a civic one at that in many cases! It's how to be a good person and how to have direction in life. Honestly, that's something I think a lot of people need right now. There's no one philosophy either, there's so many schools of thought, so you can find the one that fits for your life.

Other than this though, philosophy also helps deal with a few other surprising things: misinformation and being a fudging a**hole. Misinformation is rampant in online spaces, HBomberguy even highlighted how misinformation from James Somerton led to it being accepted as fact by some people. Philosophy is a counter to this. It asks to think critically of life, of the things we encounter in it, and how we accept it. Misinformation thrives on either willful ignorance, or a simple laziness to not fact check what you're hearing. Sometimes that's understandable, like with the case with James, people trusted him and the information he shared. However, spreading something like that like fact yourself requires you to first confirm the information, often from an additional source (always have multiple sources for information, it's a life saver). Philosophy itself as a subject is the art of critical thinking, and this is exactly what critical thinking teaches us, to never trust the words of just one person. Get different views, look into it yourself! Teaching philosophy can reinforce this idea and help folks avoid falling down rabbit holed that lead to social isolation in the cases of things like flat earth and climate change denial.

I also mentioned preventing a**holes. A**holes are a pretty common problem. Just look at Elon Musk, Trump, or rich guy YouTubers like Logan Paul. Why does this happen? It can be a mix of social pressure, how they were raised, and even the very institutions of our world that can lead to it. A**holes: A Theory, by Aaron James, is a great way to learn more about this, but to put it plainly, a**holes often exist because they feel an entrenched and high sense of entitlement. They won't apologize for their actions in a meaningful way, and they certainly don't see you as having the same moral standing to them. They're a bane to a cooperative society. So, how do we deal with this? James suggested a few ways, landing on that there's an understanding that life kind of sucks. However, if we, as cooperative people, unite, we can life a little less sucky, and by virtue, better. Philosophy comes into play here yet again. It teaches social values, how to be a good person, how to be a civil person. Being a civil person means we can meet that call, we can make society less sucky, and make it better. If we understand our civic duties to one another, learn critical thought, and have meaning in this turbulent boat of world, we can be better people, we can live better lives! Teaching philosophy does that.

In the end, life sucks, but it doesn't have to. In fact, I'd say there's hope. I know some schools (especially in the States, I'm Canadian myself) already teach philosophy. Does it help? I can't quite say. I can tell you it's helped me when I learned it just as an interest by myself, but my peers who did go to schools with it often share that they were the better for it when I ask them about it. So, give it a try. Explore philosophy a bit! It can truly be a delight.

[thoughtlessarse]

Repeating false and sceptical claims about climate science makes them seem more credible – including to people who accept the science and are alarmed by the climate crisis – new research has found. The study’s lead author, Mary Jiang, from the Australian National University, said: “The findings show how powerful and insidious repetition is and how it can influence people’s assessment of truth.” Published in the academic journal Plos One, the study said people were more likely to judge a statement as probably true if they had encountered it before, a behaviour psychologists called the “illusory truth effect”. The paper is among the first to test the effect of statements about the climate crisis. The findings highlight the dangers of repeating and sharing misinformation. “A single repetition is enough to nudge recipients towards acceptance of the repeated claim, even when their attitudes are aligned with climate science, and they can correctly identify the claim as being counter-attitudinal,” the paper states.

continue reading

[coochiequeens]

The event planned for Wednesday evening was prevented from going ahead by students who blockaded the doors of an Edinburgh University lecture theatre on George Square. The screening of the documentary, titled ‘Adult Human Female’, has attracted controversy, after the film was criticised for containing "transphobic language” and "spreading misinformation about trans people”. Feminist and LGBTQ+ societies also gathered outside the building in protest.

One attendee who was scheduled to speak after the film, Lisa Mackenzie, wrote on Twitter: “I’ve turned up to the screening of Adult Human Female to participate in the discussion afterwards and a group of students has occupied the lecture theatre in a bid to stop the screening from going ahead.”

While the attendees attempted to switch rooms, the group of protesters moved to block the other lecture theatre. Security eventually asked everyone to leave the building, so the event did not go ahead.

One of the activists, Dylan Hamilton, wrote on Twitter: “Earlier this evening myself and other activists engaged in direct action. A screening of a transphobic film was to be held at Edinburgh Uni, we decided that wasn't happening. You don't get to spread hatred and expect to be unchallenged.” He claims he was shoved, yelled at, and insulted by the crowd who were waiting to see the film.

Reacting to the events, Edinburgh South West MP Joanna Cherry said: “Is this what my country & my alma mater have come to? Entitled students stifling #FreedomofSpeech & silencing women & lesbians who want to talk about their rights? Those who have fostered this authoritarian neo-fascist climate have a lot to answer for.”

Prior to the screening, Edinburgh’s University and College Union wrote to the Principal, Peter Mathieson, describing the film as “a clear attack on trans people's identities” and asking for the event to be cancelled or moved from an official University building. However, their request was denied, as a spokesperson for the University claimed that the event: “As part of our commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom it is our duty to make sure staff and students feel able to discuss controversial topics and that each event allows for debate.

Online ticketing website Eventbrite has since withdrawn its billing for the event, as well as the details of the screening, which was being run by Edinburgh Academics for Academic Freedom (EAAF).

Police officers were called to the demonstration, however, no arrests were made. A Police Scotlandspokesperson said: “Around 6.15pm on Wednesday, 14 December, 2022, police were called to a report of a demonstration at George Square, Edinburgh. Officers attended and engaged with those present. There were no arrests.

“Police Scotland is a rights-based organisation that puts our values of integrity, fairness, respect and a commitment to upholding human rights at the heart of everything we do. This means that we will protect the rights of people who wish to peacefully protest or counter-protest, balanced against the rights of the wider community.”

The University of Edinburgh has been approached for comment.

And then there is this

I know she is young but how the hell can she not know about sex based oppression. From the attacks on her personally, included ones involving sexual imagery to the fact that climate change, the issue she is famous for, impacts women directly and indirectly.

[mariacallous]

On July 19, Bloomberg News reported what many others have been saying for some time: Twitter (now called X) was losing advertisers, in part because of its lax enforcement against hate speech. Quoted heavily in the story was Callum Hood, the head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that tracks hate speech on social platforms, whose work has highlighted several instances in which Twitter has allowed violent, hateful, or misleading content to remain on the platform.

The next day, X announced it was filing a lawsuit against the nonprofit and the European Climate Foundation, for the alleged misuse of Twitter data leading to the loss of advertising revenue. In the lawsuit, X alleges that the data CCDH used in its research was obtained using the login credentials from the European Climate Foundation, which had an account with the third-party social listening tool Brandwatch. Brandwatch has a license to use Twitter’s data through its API. X alleges that the CCDH was not authorized to access the Twitter/X data. The suit also accuses the CCDH of scraping Twitter’s platform without proper authorization, in violation of the company’s terms of service.

X did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

“The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s research shows that hate and disinformation is spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk’s ownership, and this lawsuit is a direct attempt to silence those efforts,” says Imran Ahmed, CEO of the CCDH.

Experts who spoke to WIRED see the legal action as the latest move by social media platforms to shrink access to their data by researchers and civil society organizations that seek to hold them accountable. “We're talking about access not just for researchers or academics, but it could also potentially be extended to advocates and journalists and even policymakers,” says Liz Woolery, digital policy lead at PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for free expression. “Without that kind of access, it is really difficult for us to engage in the research necessary to better understand the scope and scale of the problem that we face, of how social media is affecting our daily life, and make it better.”

In 2021, Meta blocked researchers at New York University’s Ad Observatory from collecting data about political ads and Covid-19 misinformation. Last year, the company said it would wind down its monitoring tool CrowdTangle, which has been instrumental in allowing researchers and journalists to monitor Facebook. Both Meta and Twitter are suing Bright Data, an Israeli data collection firm, for scraping their sites. (Meta had previously contracted Bright Data to scrape other sites on its behalf.) Musk announced in March that the company would begin charging $42,000 per month for its API, pricing out the vast majority of researchers and academics who have used it to study issues like disinformation and hate speech in more than 17,000 academic studies.

There are reasons that platforms don’t want researchers and advocates poking around and exposing their failings. For years, advocacy organizations have used examples of violative content on social platforms as a way to pressure advertisers to withdraw their support, forcing companies to address problems or change their policies. Without the underlying research into hate speech, disinformation, and other harmful content on social media, these organizations would have little ability to force companies to change. In 2020, advertisers, including Starbucks, Patagonia, and Honda, left Facebook after the Meta platform was found to have a lax approach to moderating misinformation, particularly posts by former US president Donald Trump, costing the company millions.

As soon as Musk took over Twitter in late October 2022, he proceeded to fire many of the staff members responsible for keeping hate speech and misinformation off the platform and reinstated the accounts of users who had been previously banned, including Trump and influencer Andrew Tate, who is currently indicted under human trafficking laws in Romania. A study released earlier this year from the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute, Oregon State University, UCLA, and UC Merced found that hate speech increased dramatically after Musk took the helm at Twitter. Over roughly the same time period, the company saw its advertising revenue slashed in half as brands—including General Motors, Pfizer, and United Airlines—fled the platform, apparently concerned about their products appearing next to misinformation and hate speech.

And this has bothered Musk, immensely. On November 4, 2022, he tweeted, “Twitter has had a massive drop in revenue, due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists. Extremely messed up! They’re trying to destroy free speech in America.”

PEN America’s Woolery worries that, whether or not X’s lawsuit against CCDH holds water, the cost of fighting it will be enough to intimidate other organizations doing similar work. “Lawsuits like this, especially when we are talking about a nonprofit, are definitely seen as an attempt to silence critics,” she says. “If a nonprofit or another individual is not in a financial position where they can really, truly give it all it takes to defend themselves, then they run the risk of either having a poor defense or of simply settling and just trying to get out of it to avoid incurring further costs and reputational damage.”

But the lawsuit doesn’t just put pressure on researchers themselves. It also highlights another avenue through which it now may be more difficult for advocates to access data: third-party social listening platforms. These companies access and analyze data from social platforms to allow their clients—from national security contractors to marketing agencies—to gain insights into their audiences and target messages.

Tal-Or Cohen Montemayor, founder and executive director of CyberWell, a nonprofit that tracks anti-Semitism online in both English and Arabic, says that in November 2022, shortly after Musk took ownership of the company, CyberWell reached out to Talkwalker, a third-party social listening company, to get a subscription that would allow them to analyze anti-Semitic speech on the platform then called Twitter.

Cohen Montemayor says Talkwalker told her the company could not take them on as a client because of the nature of CyberWell’s work. She says it appears that “the existing open source tools and social listening tools are being reserved and paywalled only for advertisers and paid researchers. Nonprofit organizations are actively being blocked from using these resources.”

Talkwalker did not respond to a request for comment about whether its agreements with X prohibit it from taking on organizations doing hate speech monitoring as clients. X did not respond to questions about what parameters it sets for the kinds of customers that third-party social listening companies can take on.

According to X’s lawsuit against CCDH, a 2023 agreement between Brandwatch and X outlined that any breach of X data via Brandwatch’s customers would be considered the responsibility of the social listening company. On X competitor Bluesky, Yoel Roth, the former senior director of trust and safety at Twitter, posted, “Brandwatch’s social listening business is entirely, completely, 100% dependent on Twitter data access, so I guess it’s not surprising to see how far backwards they’re bending to placate the company.”

For its part, in a July 20 tweet, Brandwatch referenced the same CCDH report cited in the X lawsuit, saying, “Recently, we were cited in an article about brand relevance that relied on incomplete and outdated data. It contained metrics used out of context to make unsubstantiated assertions about Twitter.”

Brandwatch did not respond to a request for comment.

But CCDH’s Ahmed says the assertion that his organization’s research is based on incomplete data is a way for X to obfuscate problems with its own platform. “Whenever you claim that you’ve found information on there, they just say, ‘No, it’s a lie. Only we have the data. You couldn't possibly know the truth. Only we know the truth. And we grade our own homework,’” he says.

A representative from another third-party social listening tool that uses X data, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their company from retaliation by X, confirmed to WIRED that companies like theirs are heavily reliant on Twitter/X data. “A lot of the services that are very Twitter-centric, a lot of them are 100 percent Twitter,” they say, noting that Instagram has long since shut down its API, and that conversations on Meta’s platforms tend not to be as public as those on X. “In terms of data, Twitter continues to play a significant role in providing data to analytics companies.” They note that, while X’s new paid-for API has put the squeeze on third-party analytics companies—“it’s basically almost like they’re holding you for ransom”—losing access to X data entirely could kill a company.

They add that they have not seen guidelines that restrict the use of X data for hate speech or advocacy research, but there are specific “know your customer” guidelines that prohibit sharing X data with government agencies without prior permission. The same day X announced the lawsuit, on July 31, America First Legal, a right-wing nonprofit led by former Trump appointee Stephen Miller, announced that it had filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to examine communications between CCDH and various US government agencies, alleging that it is a “coordinator of illegal censorship activities.” (Ahmed says his organization has never coordinated with the US government). This would, if true, seemingly also be a violation of those terms of service.

The X lawsuit also alleges that the CCDH is being funded by X’s competitors as well as “government entities and their affiliates,” but says that “X Corp. currently lacks sufficient information to include the identities of these entities, organizations, and persons in this Complaint.”

Even without legal threats, there are significant costs to researchers focused on disinformation and hate speech on platforms. Experts who spoke to WIRED say they worry the threat of legal action could cause a chilling effect on other organizations that study hate speech and disinformation.

After publishing a report showing that anti-Semitic content had doubled on the platform after Musk’s takeover, Sasha Havlicek, cofounder and CEO of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a London-based think tank focused on extremism and disinformation, says the company experienced a deluge of abusive tweets. “In response, Twitter came out with a thread that got 3 million views or so,” she says. “Musk himself responded with a poop emoji.”

In December, Musk worked with right-wing journalists to release the so-called Twitter Files, a selection of internal documents that seemed to show that pre-Musk Twitter had silenced some conservative users. Some of the documents included the names and emails of disinformation researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory, many of whom were undergraduate students at the time. One former student, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of harassment, says that people whose emails ended up in the Twitter Files have been targets of ongoing harassment for their role in disinformation research.

“Seeing how things have gone, and seeing the possibility of being harassed, has made a lot of people that worked on it very closely to now think twice,” says the former student.

“You have to ask,” says the ISD’s Havlicek. “Who’s the censor now?”

Havlicek says she hopes that the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which will eventually mandate access for researchers to data from large social platforms, will be a road map for other countries. Whether there will be legal land mines regarding data pulled legally by European researchers under the DSA but shared with non-European researchers or advocates is another open question.

“I was in Brussels a few weeks ago talking to the Digital Services people about how we can use the data that will be made available through the DSA data transparency regime,” says Ahmed. “And when that appears, we will use that in the most effective way possible.”

[bumblebeeappletree]

You shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet. Particularly when it comes to renewable energy. We started debunking some of the biggest myths about wind and solar energy – and ended up in a world of shady lobby groups and secret money streams. Come follow us down the rabbit hole.

Credits

Reporter: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann

Video Editor: Markus Mörtz

Supervising Editor: Joanna Gottschalk, Michael Trobridge, Kiyo Dörrer

Factcheck: Kirsten Funck

Thumbnail: Em Chabridon

We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world — and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.

#PlanetA #RenewableEnergy #Disinformation

Read more:

NREL's life cycle assessment of electricity generation technologies:

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80...

University of Texas snowstorm report: https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/defau...

Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s4158...

Obstructing action: foundation funding and US climate change counter-movement organizations: https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2...

The Debunking Handbook: https://www.climatechangecommunicatio...

Chapters:

00:00 Intro

00:51 What we did

01:58 Emission myths

03:55 Texas snowstorm fiasco

06:11 The misinformation cooking pot

08:34 Cui bono?

[actualrealnews]

The challenges you’ve outlined—fascism, systemic injustice, environmental destruction, and economic instability—are immense.

Social media can be a powerful tool in addressing these issues, but its effectiveness depends on strategy, intentionality, and community building.

Here are some ways people can use social media to combat these crises:

1. Build Awareness and Share Reliable Information

Amplify Credible Voices: Share content from activists, journalists, and organizations who are directly involved in addressing these issues. Highlight marginalized voices, especially from immigrant, environmental justice, and economically vulnerable communities.

Fact-Check and Debunk Misinformation: Fascist ideologies often thrive on misinformation. When you see falsehoods being spread, provide evidence-based corrections in a respectful but firm manner.

Create and Share Explainers: Break down complex topics (e.g., environmental policy, immigration law) into digestible, shareable posts to educate your network.

2. Organize and Mobilize

Promote Protests and Direct Actions: Use platforms to spread the word about marches, rallies, and boycotts. Link to local organizing groups.

Fundraise and Share Resources: Highlight mutual aid funds, legal defense funds for immigrants, or environmental groups in need of support. Social media excels in grassroots fundraising.

Facilitate Networking: Create or join groups focused on resistance. Platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and Discord have spaces for activists to coordinate locally and nationally.

3. Advocate for Policy Change

Engage Politicians: Publicly pressure elected officials by tagging them in posts, calling out inaction, or praising effective action. Social media can hold leaders accountable.

Support Local Efforts: Local elections and policies often get less attention than federal ones. Spotlight candidates and measures that combat fascism and environmental destruction.

Petitions and Campaigns: Share petitions or social media challenges that align with specific actions (e.g., calling representatives, attending town halls).

4. Counter Fascist Narratives

Expose Hate and Lies: Identify and counter hate speech or fascist propaganda. Use tools like screenshots and reporting mechanisms to expose bad actors while keeping yourself safe.

Promote Positive Alternatives: Share stories of resilience, solidarity, and progress that inspire hope and counter feelings of despair or inevitability.

5. Support Community Care and Resilience

Create Safe Spaces: Use your platform to foster dialogue, offer emotional support, or share mental health resources. Combatting fascism is exhausting, and people need to feel connected and supported.

Celebrate Wins: Share victories, however small, to maintain morale and remind people that change is possible.

6. Fight Burnout and Algorithmic Manipulation

Use Social Media Intentionally: Avoid doomscrolling. Focus on what you can act on rather than passively absorbing negativity.

Diversify Platforms: Centralized platforms like Twitter (X) or Facebook may manipulate algorithms to suppress activism. Decentralized or alternative platforms like Mastodon or smaller community forums can foster genuine connection and activism.

Set Healthy Boundaries: Burnout undermines movements. Log off when necessary to recharge.

Examples of Effective Social Media Activism

#BlackLivesMatter Movement: Raised global awareness of police brutality and systemic racism, turning social media into a tool for protests and policy advocacy.

Climate Strikes: Greta Thunberg and others have used social media to rally millions to demand climate action.

Immigrant Justice Advocacy: Groups like RAICES and United We Dream leverage social media to share stories, fundraise, and mobilize support for immigrants.

Remember: Online Action is Not Enough

Social media is a starting point, not the whole solution. Pair online advocacy with offline action:

Attend town halls, protests, and community meetings.

Volunteer with local organizations addressing these issues.

Build local coalitions to protect vulnerable populations.

Social media can amplify voices and mobilize action, but long-term change requires structural and community efforts. By using social media thoughtfully and intentionally, people can push back against authoritarianism and contribute to solutions for these pressing issues.

[wausaupilot]

Your letters: Writer finds conservative attitude on global warming 'objectionable'

"Many conservatives dismiss evidence of climate risk because they fear that acceptance of this evidence will lead to greater government intrusion in our lives." - Terry Hansen of Milwaukee

Dear editor, Former President Donald Trump mocks the threat posed by human-induced climate change. He once declared, “Global warming is an expensive hoax!” And Trump can find support for his views among Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Tom Tiffany.   To counter this misinformation, I encourage reading “The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism.” It’s available online and…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ilana Berger at MMFA:

Even after demonetizing the YouTube channel of climate-denial think tank The Heartland Institute in June, other large channels still contain climate-denial content that seemingly violates the platform's policies. 

[...]

Channels run by Tony Heller, PragerU, John Stossel, and Jordan Peterson are still being monetized while seemingly violating YouTube’s misinformation policies

Tony Heller

Like the Heartland Institute,Tony Heller regularly posts YouTube videos that attempt to delegitimize scientific consensus on climate change. In January 2024, the Center for Countering Digital Hate published a report that highlighted Tony Heller as one figure still promoting the false narrative that Arctic sea ice isn’t melting. Since CCDH published its report, which analyzed videos from January 1, 2018, to September 30, 2023, Heller has posted well over 100 videos, many of which promote the idea that the warming we are currently experiencing is not being driven primarily by burning greenhouse gases. For example, Heller posted the documentary Climate: The Movie, which promoted “more than 2 dozen long-debunked myths” according to Skeptical Science, a blog that was launched by academic and disinformation expert John Cook. One such myth is that climate change is caused by the sun; in fact, the sun’s energy has decreased while the Earth warms. Heller also relies on an outdated theory suggesting that a warming period that occurred around 6,000 years ago debunks the idea of man-made climate change. [Skeptical Science, 3/23/24; YouTube, 3/21/25, 6/5/24, accessed 7/25/24; Center for Countering Digital Hate, 1/16/24; NOAA, 10/21]  

[...]

PragerU

PragerU videos receive millions of views, and the channel has a history of posting videos that feature climate change denial. Media Matters recently identified six videos on PragerU’s website that dismiss the scientific consensus that the changes we are currently experiencing are primarily being driven by burning fossil fuels. These videos can also be found on PragerU’s YouTube channel, and they have over 14.7 million views combined. [Media Matters, 4/16/24; YouTube, 4/15/24, 10/25/21, 2/5/18, 4/18/16, 7/27/15, 7/27/15]

[...]

Jordan Peterson

While Peterson does not post videos about climate change denial as often as other influencers or organizations devoted entirely to the topic, his videos have a much larger reach than Heartland’s, amplifying their impact. After the Center for Countering Digital Hate released a report about YouTube climate deniers, Peterson uploaded an interview with climate denier Dr. Patrick Moore, who falsely claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. The April 11 video is titled Climate Lies, referring to Moore’s views on the scientific consensus on climate change. The video has over 253,000 views, far more than the 10 most recent videos from the Heartland Institute combined. [Greenpeace, 7/6/10; YouTube, 4/11/24, accessed 7/25/24]

[...]

John Stossel

Former Fox Business host John Stossel sued Meta after it said that two of his videos about climate change were missing context. In 2021, Stossel sued Meta (then Facebook), claiming the company defamed him by adding a fact-checking label to these videos. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed and the court found that Facebook’s labels were protected under California’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute. One of the videos included excerpts from an event Stossel moderated at the Heartland Institute. This video can also be found on YouTube. In it, one climate denier on the panel claimed that climate change is not causing sea level rise because “water has been rising for approximately 20,000 years and probably will continue.” He also claimed that hurricanes are not becoming more intense. [E&E News, 9/28/21; Courthouse News, 10/13/22; Climate Change Litigation Databases, 10/11/22; YouTube, 11/19/19]

Google demonetized climate change denier outlet The Heartland Institute.

[dertaglichedan]

Penzeys spices

About Republicans

As we’ve now said on our first-ever About Us page on our website, there’s something unique about humankind’s relationship with spices that time and again have caused spices to be a driving force for change. We live in a time calling out for change and for solutions to the very real problems our country and our planet face. There’s two very different futures ahead for us totally dependent on whether we solve these problems or not. With so much at stake we feel obligated to use the unique position spices hold in our lives to try to help promote the solutions to these problems as best we can.

Watching the slow decline of the Republican Party over the last half century, and the steep decline/bottom falling out over the last decade, it can be easy to see the nonsense that has overtaken the party as pretty much random. Once you start seriously looking at the problems America and the world face and who and what are standing in the way of solving those problems, it quickly becomes clear there is nothing random to what the Republicans are promoting.

The Republican departure from conservative values and embrace of what, from a distance, looks a whole lot like insanity didn’t happen by chance. All of it has been intelligently crafted with the goal of preserving the position of those who profit from the inhumanity that is at the very roots of pretty much every problem we are facing. From the environment, to racism/discrimination, to health, to saving our democracy at home and growing it abroad, half the time Republicans are intentionally blocking the solution to the problems we face. The other half of the time they are the problem we face.

The truth of our time is we’ve arrived at the point where there’s no way to respect the nonsense the Republican Party is promoting and have any hope of overcoming the problems we as a nation and we as a planet face. Given the choice between saving America and planet Earth or saving the feelings of Republican voters, we are choosing to side with saving our country and our world. I’m sorry it’s come to this.

And no, there is no HATE!!! in any of this. There is a whole lot of propaganda at the heart of much of how Republican voters have been steered away from conservative values to what they now seem all too happy to vote for. The thing to remember about propaganda is that it doesn’t just misinform, it also works to make people immune from the truth by convincing them any facts that counter their propaganda are nothing more than HATE!!! But we really have no hate for Republican voters. None at all.

I actually like and respect most of you guys. Sure, there are a growing number that are there for the racism, but I still believe the majority of you have good hearts that want to help and do the right thing. I know you to be trustworthy, and honest, and funny, and caring, and good souls. The problem isn’t what you are, the problem is what you are now voting to support. You guys have been turned around.

Remember when your distrust of big city types, and your deep rooted beliefs in paying your debts, respecting your marriage, raising kids willing to serve, honoring your word, and going to church every week had you voting for Donald Trump over Joe Biden all because Biden’s son had a computer? Or how you couldn’t vote for Hillary because she was over-prepared and used emails? I know that to you your actions seem rational and in keeping with your values, but when it comes to voting you are now consistently voting in people who are the exact opposite of you and the values you hold dear.

What does any of this mean? Going forward we would still be glad to have you as customers, but we’re done pretending the Republican Party’s embrace of cruelty, racism, Covid lies, climate change denial, and threats to democracy are anything other than the risks they legitimately are. If you need us to pretend you are not creating the hurt you are creating in order for you to continue to be our customer, I’m sad to say you might be happier elsewhere.

If on the other hand you still want the best spices and don’t need us to respect what you now vote for to be our customer, Hooray! We are happy to have you here, but know that we will, on a regular basis, try to wake you up from this dream that has you believing there is anything conservative left at all to what the Republican Party has become. We can and will work without Republicans to solve the problems we face, but it sure would be nice to get back to a time where Republicans were equal defenders of equality, the environment, and democracy. We look forward to that day.

Thanks for reading. Thanks for being here,

Bill