Posted on 06/06/2021 12:42:17 AM PDT by knighthawk
Facebook's 'independent fact checkers' relied on a letter spearheaded by a major financial backer of the Wuhan Institute of Virology to 'debunk' articles exploring the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic originated in a leak from the lab, it has emerged.
For nearly a year, Facebook censored articles exploring the lab leak theory, labeling them 'false information' and punishing news publishers by limiting their reach on the platform, before the social media giant sheepishly reversed course last month.
Facebook relies on third-party fact-checkers to 'debunk' false claims, and in the case of the lab leak theory, a February article from Facebook partner Science Feedback played a key role in the social media site's censorship.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
recorded in Feb 2021, but broadcast on taxpayer-funded ABC Australia yesterday.
AUDIO/TRANSCRIPT: 12 Feb 2021: WNYC RadioLab: Facebook’s Supreme Court
JAD ABUMRAD: Three, two, one. Hey. I’m Jad Abumrad. This is RADIOLAB. Today, we have got a special collaboration with The New Yorker magazine and The New Yorker Radio Hour - very excited about that...
KATE KLONICK (professor of law at St. John’s University): It’s part of, like, a larger sense, I think, that he (ZUCKERBERG) sees Facebook becoming more and more - like, a government isn’t even the best term, but, like, a system of government...
SIMON ADLER: This is Brent Harris, who led Facebook’s effort to build this board, this court...
BRENT HARRIS: I mean, I spent about 15 years working on climate before I came to Facebook. And I think the issues here are deeply analogous...
BRENT HARRIS: They are human-generated. There are major regulatory actions that are needed. There’s a serious responsibility by industry to step up and think about the responsibility that they hold. And the solutions that will come forward as we start to figure out how to address these types of challenges will inherently be incremental...
BRENT HARRIS: You know, is the Paris agreement enough? No. Is it a lot better than what we had before? Yes. Is the Montreal Protocol enough? No. Is it a (laughter) substantial step forward against this challenge? Yes. And building this board is only one step in a wide array of many other steps that need to be taken on.
SIMON ADLER: It sounds to me that what you’re saying is this is the first piece in this global governance body Facebook is imagining.
BRENT HARRIS: Well, if it really works and people end up believing in it and thinking it’s a step forward, then, yeah, further steps can be taken...
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/facebooks-supreme-court
re Brent Harris:
Redstone Strategy: Brent C. Harris
Head of Strategic Initiatives, Facebook
Before Facebook, he was a director at Redstone. During his time at the firm, he started the California office and provided counsel to boards and executives on public policy and philanthropy.
Earlier in his career, Brent was the vice president for operations at ClimateWorks and a lawyer for the presidential commission on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He has contributed to several books and written op-eds for the New York Times. He holds a B.A., M.A., and J.D. from Stanford University, where he was an editor of the Stanford Law Review.
https://www.redstonestrategy.com/people/brent-harris/
WE CAN STOP ALL THIS TROUBLE IF WE JUST LET THE msn HAVE THEIR WAY!!!
That’s Facebook for you. Mark Zuckerberg is the “Arbiter of Truth”.
bookmark
baby Harp Seal clubs.
Some assembly required.
These big tech social media companies and such have absolutely no clue that they are sowing the seeds of their own demise. China will utterly crush them if China got half the chance.
Facebook started as a harmless fun social network, yeah right! Their fact checkers are the propaganda protectionists
Fact checkers, riiight.
Ever see one that doesn’t trumpet the Left’s point of view? Me either.
Facebook is an EVIL company!! And MUST be reined in!!
“ Daszak has also not yet responded to a list of 34 questions about his involvement with the Wuhan lab that the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent him in April, despite a May 17 deadline to respond. ”
Nice ally we got there, eh?
They say trust the science. Yet, top scientists at the very root are financially invested to protect the lie.
Fortunately, there are still truth seekers, documents, and brave whistleblowers. What I find interesting is the complete disconnect. So much of what is being revealed was accessible for a year and seemed like common sense to many of us. Yet, there is a blindness that covers so many. They tout ‘follow the science’ as if they are so smart. Yet, they have no common sense nor the ability to think. They are mentally lazy and only believe what is laid out in front of them.
Facebook is the one corp guilty of crying fire in the theater.
I posted this article to FB. Will see what happens.
They are clearly editorializing. How it is possible that FB and Twitter are not in violation of Section 230?
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#fn002008
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
My question, btw, is rhetorical. I just can’t believe they’re still hiding behind it. Disgusting.
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.