How Fakebook and Twatter use so-called "fact checkers" to ban posts they don't like

A physicist (Steven Koonin) wrote a best-selling book titled "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters," questioning some of the bullshit being pushed by the "global warming" screamers.

Oooh, wait, my bad:  After the warmies screamed for years that "The Science is Settled!" that the planet is warming, due to carbon dioxide emitted by humans, about five years ago (after data showed the earth was NOT warming more than the error in measurement) the warmies stopped calling it "global warming" in favor of "climate change"--which is impossible to falsify, eh?  Anyway...

On April 25th the Wall Street Journal published a favorable review of Koonin's book.  Of course the warmies don't allow favorable reviews of anything questioning their religion, so a few days later eleven self-appointed “fact checkers”--all pro-warmists--published a scathing critique of the WSJ's favorable review of the physicist's book, on the website ClimateFeedback.org.

Now whenever any Fakebook user posts anything referring to the book or the WSJ review, Fakebook shoves the so-called "fact check" warning in the reader's face, warning that Fakebook's "fact checkers" have ruled that both the book and the review are "disinformation."

This moved the book's author to fight back, with an op-ed in the Journal saying Facebook’s “fact checkers” are “no better than trolls."  Facebook, he said, is “spreading disinformation under the guise of ‘fact checking,’” to protect a single narrative that doesn't permit opposition or dispute.

“Wise responses to the changing climate require that we get the unfiltered certainties and uncertainties of climate science into the public dialogue,” Koonin argues, and “there is far more unsettled in the official United Nations and U.S. government reports than we have been led to believe.”

The use of so-called "fact checkers" by Fakebook, Twatter, Instagram, YouTube and similar rulers of social media to remove posts their owners and executives don't like has come under growing scrutiny as evidence mounts how brazenly they push the policies of one party while removing any posts critical of that viewpoint.  For example, the media giants routinely remove any posts that criticize public schools for pushing young children toward transgenderism, or that dispute global warming, or claiming that evidence shows that CO2 can't possibly cause global warming, or noting that BLM and Antifa are Marxist organizations, or critical of mandatory "critical race theory" classes being forced on students of public schools.  Users also aren't allowed to post statements criticising feminism.

But Fakebook et al really hit peak censorship with the Chinese virus:  Their published rules prohibit any user from claiming masks don't help, or that the virus is no more dangerous than the flu, or that total deaths from all causes are virtually unchanged before and after the virus arrived, or that well-known, safe, inexpensive drugs like hydroxychlorquine, alone or combined with zinc, D-3 and azithromycin, cure virus patients at a stunningly high rate.

Perhaps more pernicious, Fakebook bans anyone from claiming that the vaccines are in any way dangerous, or that more people have died from the Covid vaccine than from all other vaccines combined.  Indeed, Fakebook's published rules ban anyone from posting ANYTHING that would discourage someone from taking the vaccine.

Earlier this month the Journal published another essay criticizing Fakebook’s censorship of user posts and the company's removal material it doesn't like.  The author noted that Fakebook routinely locks the account of anyone who posts such material, often claiming the post is “misinformation” or “hate speech”--obviously totally subjective calls.

The essay also noted Fakebook’s frequent use of "shadow banning"--the cunning practice of hiding posts the company doesn't like from everyone except the author, and without notifying the author.  So if a poster sent a friend a link to a Fakebook post, the link would return "Page not found" to anyone except the original author--who would see the post he'd written, looking perfectly normal.

This practice was uncovered by accident.  Current and former employees say the company uses shadow-banning to keep users from learning how totalitarian its censorship is.

In February, Facebook removed posts advertising a book criticizing the “toxic femininity” and Marxist roots of radical feminism, claiming the posts violated the company’s “commerce policies.”  The ads were also banned on Instagram, which is also owned by Facebook, and the book experienced repeated “glitches” on Amazon as well, with the removal of buttons to purchase the book.

Dr. Gress told Breitbart News she thinks her use of the expression “toxic femininity” has irritated radical feminists, who think of toxicity as the exclusive domain of males.

“I can imagine those words in my title could be a trigger,” Gress said. “As I note in the book, women are supposed to be untouchable as long as they do what the reigning culture tells them to do.”