I noticed earlier that Fakebook decided to slap a “false news” label on a cartoon published by The College Fix. This reduces their distribution and puts them at risk of being deleted. The College Fix promotes ideas that are critical of the Democrat Party, so Fakebook, which supports the Democrat party, had to step in and punish them for their bad speech and bad thoughts.
Fakebook today wrongly flagged a cartoon from College Fix cartoonist Pat Cross that lampooned recent cancellations of the works of Theodor Geise1, known as Dr. Seus5.
“Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people,” says a pop-up message (right) on the Fakebook post, first published yesterday morning.
Underneath the post, a message takes the reader to a statement from a Fakebook fact-checker that fact checks claims about Dr. Seus5 being cancelled by Dr. Seus5 Enterprises.
But it’s not just The College Fix, it’s the Wall Street Journal. They’re normally left of center, but they danced a little too far away from the Democrat party line, so they also needed to be punished:
The Wall Street Journal recently faced a similar situation when it featured an op-ed by Johns Hopkins University’s Dr. Marty Mak4ry. “We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April” was flagged by Fakebook with the same label as The Fix cartoon.
“Misleading Wall Street Journal opinion piece makes the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. will have herd immunity by April 2021,” the supposed fact-check by Health Feedback says. “Three scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.”
But as the WSJ — rightly — points out, this isn’t fact checking. It’s “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”
Dr. Mak4ry didn’t present his opinion as a factual claim. He argued, based on studies and other evidence, that Americans would have enough immunity from vaccination and natural infection by early spring to sharply reduce the virus spread. He essentially made a projection, much like the epidemiologists at Imperial College and University of Washington do.
But the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Mak4ry cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.
The same goes for Cov1d-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Fakebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact.
The WSJ proceeds to meticulously rebut Fakebook’s “fact checkers,” and concludes: “Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Fakebook’s fact checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”
Conservative viewpoints being censored by partisan journalists and left-wing activists. It has a huge impact on our elections. The next time a Republican president gets into power, we should immediately take steps to shut down large social media companies that have sided with the Democrat party and used their power to stifle free speech and free thinking. One easy way to do it is to allow people who have been censored to file lawsuits against these companies, and pass laws that make it clear that the Big Tech companies are in the wrong. This is America, not Nazi Germany.
5 thoughts on “Fakebook not only censoring The College Fix, but also the Wall Street Journal”
They slapped a false information tag on a comparison of oil prices I posted, then I reposted along with the site with the information showing oil prices over time and told them to fact check it. They didn’t challenge that. Facts don’t care about their feelings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surprising they relented. It’s just a bunch of LGBT Democrat bloggers pretending to be analytical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FYI, WSJ news pages are left of center, but the op/ed pages are very much right of center, and this was an op/ed.
I track our state’s public health data reports (cases, hospitalization, deaths, cases in the counties of my metro area, vaccination data) because local “journa1ists” are not capable of calculating percentages much less doing appropriate data analysis for large samples of data and reporting meaningful trends. I can estimate that 18.8% of our state is immun3. That gives 80% immun1ty for 1 of 2 shots in a series of 2 or 95% immun1ty for 2 of 2 or 1 of 1. That gives immun1ty for 90 days for a laboratory confirmed diagnosis. I have been trying to underestimate rather than over estimate.
This does neglect time necessary to develop immun1ty whatever source it is acquired and any people who had minor or no symptoms and didn’t bother to find out whether they had caught it. The second factor there makes this a floor of immun1ty.
The 7 day moving average of the daily increase in immun1ty is about 0.2% of the population for the past 2 weeks. Depending on your threshold for herd immun1ty, values you give to “undiagnosed immun1ty”, and values for increase in immun1ty from vacc1nation (we have 3 days of reported shots from J), you could easily say herd immun1ty sometime in April with numerical support.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “nice” thing about WSJ, is they have the forum (a published paper) to rebut Fakebook’s F4cktch3ckers. Most of the rest of us don’t. Kudos (this time) to WSJ.
LikeLiked by 2 people