Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Earth

Pinterest Announces Ban on All Climate Misinformation (theguardian.com) 172

Pinterest is to block all climate misinformation, as the image-focused social network seeks to limit the spread of false and misleading claims. From a report: Under the new policy the site is committing to take down content that distorts or denies the facts of the climate crisis, whether posted as adverts or normal "organic" content. Pinterest is defining misinformation broadly: the company will take down content that denies the existence or effects of climate change or its human causes, as well as content that "misrepresents scientific data" in order to erode trust in climate science and harmful, false or misleading content about natural disasters and extreme weather events.

"Pinterest believes in cultivating a space that's trusted and truthful for those using our platform," said Sarah Bromma, the company's head of policy. "This bold move is an expansion of our broader misinformation guidelines, which we first developed in 2017 to address public health misinformation, and have since updated to address new and emerging issues as they come to the forefront. The expanded climate misinformation policy is yet another step in Pinterest's journey to combat misinformation and create a safe space online."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pinterest Announces Ban on All Climate Misinformation

Comments Filter:
  • by sabri ( 584428 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:30PM (#62436498)
    Just like we saw with Facebook and Twitshit and the Covid origin... Who determines what's true and what's false?
    • by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:33PM (#62436504)

      Just like we saw with Facebook and Twitshit and the Covid origin... Who determines what's true and what's false?

      Those who yell the loudest?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rickb928 ( 945187 )

        Those who own the ink.

        • by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @01:20PM (#62436682)

          What is true or false is determined by reality. You can measure it with within a given margin of error with science. The fact you have to answer the question and that you don't understand the answer just means that you are unable to determine what is true or false. It doesn't mean that the rest of us are unable to or that there isn't a true or false and you can just shove your propaganda down people's throats.

          • What is true or false is determined by reality.

            Climate models are not reality they are imprecise naive numerical approximations of possible future realities filled with both known and unknown error.

            You can measure it with within a given margin of error with science.

            One can only measure the future after it has arrived.

            The fact you have to answer the question and that you don't understand the answer just means that you are unable to determine what is true or false.

            It doesn't mean that the rest of us are unable to or that there isn't a true or false

            When it comes to a great number of things most of humanity is unable to know what is true or false from first principals. They can only decide whether or not to trust the integrity and judgment of those who claim they do.

            and you can just shove your propaganda down people's throats.

            The inability to tolerate things people don't like or don't believe are correct is de

            • One can only measure the future after it has arrived.

              The error on the future is larger than the present, however I can tell you for sure that the sun will not continue burning stably forever. It is possible that it will be destroyed in a collision with a greater star. It is possible that the sun will nova and shrink into a white dwarf. There may be errors in my predictions, and there are other possible futures like falling into a black hole. However we can measure the size and energy content of the sun and give solid limits to certain futures.

              When it comes to a great number of things most of humanity is unable to know what is true or false from first principals. They can only decide whether or not to trust the integrity and judgment of those who claim they do.

              and you can just shove your propaganda down people's throats.

              The inability to tolerate things people don't like or don't believe are correct is detrimental to society.

              This is not the

              • Most of the people pushing global warming as fact are also fundamentally dishonest.

                They're correct, but they're not honest.

          • What is true or false is determined by reality.

            If all censorship could be based on this question, then censorship might be a good thing, but as we've seen, the censorship always gets co-opted by power hungry fools, and usually sooner rather than later.

          • Ie, is there a war in Ukraine? Yes, it's amazingly obvious. And yet people will dispute this fact anyway. There are people that if they cannot directly see or touch something will deny it, or blame it on propaganda from powerful interests, rather than just say "I dunno".

          • "You can measure it with within a given margin of error with science"

            Depending on who pays for the science.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Do you accept that thermodynamics is a feature of the universe and that CO2 has the energy absorption and re-emission properties that it has?

      If you answer yes to both questions, then AGW is pretty much a physical inevitability of increasing CO2 PPM in the atmosphere. The universe doesn't care about how that makes you feel, or what it does to your stock portfolio, or any of those other things people often seem to feel are so terribly precious and immutable.

      • The parent didn't deny AGW. They just asked the question, who decides where the line is? We were sold a bill of goods on corn based Ethanol for motor fuel. I would say that recent studies have shown it doesn't help so much and may be hurting. Some people in the early days of this push pointed out that it did not make sense to do what they were doing and that it was all just a give away to the corn lobby, but they were not paid much attention. Turns out they were right. Would they have been silenced under th
      • by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        Huh. Not quite sure why you got modded troll on this one.
    • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:38PM (#62436528) Journal

      We live in an objective reality where we rely on our best scientific knowledge and our best understanding of history and legitimate journalism, not some hazy morass of vagueness where facts are like opinions and "alternative facts" are just as good, as you would seem to prefer.

      • You mean like the "objective reality" that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation?

      • We live in an objective reality where we rely on our best scientific knowledge and our best understanding of history and legitimate journalism

        Objective reality and journalism are mutually exclusive.

        • Wish I had mod points for you.

          The people posting "muh objective reality!!!" are completely missing the point.

          It is objectively true that, for example, Hunter Biden's laptop is real, contains compromising videos and emails, and may link the Biden family to criminal activity. That did not stop Twitter and Facebook from deciding it was "Russian Misinformation" and then suppressing it across their platforms.

    • by leonbev ( 111395 )

      Why are people discussing climate change on Pinterest, anyway? Does that topic come up frequently while discussing spring fashion trends or the correct appetizers for Easter dinner?

      • It could very well be more virtual signaling than anything. Although it could be people are selling t-shirts and bumper stickers questioning the acceptable line of thought.

    • Whoever the owners of said platforms decides is a reputable source of information.

      If you don't like who they choose, you're free to stop using the platform.

      That's how it works.

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      Who determines what's true and what's false?

      We all do, by voting with our feet.

      Oops, we can't even do that, because there's a monopoly? Then let's fix that first.

    • Peer review. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @01:49PM (#62436816)
      At this point we've got 99.9% of scientists saying it's a) real and b) an imminent threat. At this point climate change denial is on par with Holocaust Denial. The line is very well defined.
      • Anytime actual scientists raise objections to the official narrative, they're told they're the wrong field of scientist. It's easy to get a very high percentage when you can only be considered to specialize in the right field of science if you completely agree with the others and never question nor propose alternate theories. At this point, you can't even question the future impacts of climate change even if you agree with the premise that it's happening (and caused solely by humans).

        • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @03:42PM (#62437392)
          I wasn't exaggerating when I said 99.9% of scientists believe climate change is an imminent threat. There is a very small number of scientists in the employ of a few right-wing think tanks and Prager U that will downplay climate change. There aren't even that many of those and hilariously more than once the right wing think tanks have hired a scientist to tell them what they want to hear and gotten the exact opposite answer.

          You would have more luck questioning the future of gravity then you would that have climate science. On the other hand if you do prove the science wrong and go through the prereview system you will win a Nobel prize for the work you've done.

          That would require actual work and effort and skill and knowledge. I know this is going to come as a shock but Pinterest isn't a peer-reviewed journal. I guarantee you if any of those scientists want and have successfully disproved the other 99.9% that every journal on the planet would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on their paper and publish it. That's not what happens is it?
        • So then you believe thousands of climate scientists have conspired to abandon the fundamental principles of their profession (the scientific method) for the sake of a political agenda. Do you have proof of this? And why should we believe you when you have to blatantly mischaracterize the consensus with "caused SOLELY by humans"?

    • It's 100% confirmation bias all the way down. Skepticism should be the default position for everyone at this point.

    • Who even uses Pinterest? I've never seen any useful content on it, and only clicked on a link to it by accident.
    • > Who determines what's true and what's false?

      Leftists.

      Pinterest is an image organizing service for Leftists now.

      Go start a Conservative image-organizing service if you don't like it. Host it on AWS maybe!

      (the society crumbles without tolerance for the free-exchange of ideas)

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Actually pretty easy:
      1. Find a larger number of actual experts (relevant research and publication record)
      2. Select what > 95% of them agree on.
      For the climate-questions cited, it is more like what 99% agree on.

  • by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:38PM (#62436530)

    The problem is that folks on the alt-right, who actually believe the misinformation, will just now start screaming again Oh we're being censored by the leftist ruled companies....

    Unfortunately most will not even question whether what they believe is maybe just plain wrong, it is only a case of the left canceling the right yet again...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The alt-right has basically become the anti-empirical partner to Christian Evangelicals. Both are built out of bizarre cultural myths and a tendency towards magical thinking. From a purely scientific perspective, there isn't anything controversial about AGW. Thermodynamics governs the way energy moves through a system, and the nature of GHGs is to raise the thermal equilibrium by increasing the amount of energy trapped in the lower atmosphere (and the lands and oceans that sit beneath it). There's a lot of

      • The arguments from the right in the 80's made perfect sense... Radically changing how power is produced and distributed would be prohibitively expensive, would push thousands of workers out of the the workforce as different production means were shut down, would cost the individual tax payers thousands and thousands of dollars to either replace or retrofit homes, transportation, etc.

        As a liberal, I can understand these arguments, they are fact-based and are certainly issues that can be discussed, mitigated,

  • by Asynchronously ( 7341348 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:38PM (#62436532)

    As with any topic subject to political disagreement, both sides can be guilty of “misrepresenting” the data. Basically, data is presented in a way that supports the preferred narrative. I wonder which side will actually get censored by Pinterest? I think we all know the answer.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 11, 2022 @12:57PM (#62436602)

      This isn't a topic "subject to political disagreement". The science has been firmly settled with anthropogenic climate change for well over twenty years now (and most likely before that), and Pinterest is under no obligation to oblige a false balance.

    • the people who think climate change is an imminent threat (we are way past pretending it's not real) meticulously back up their claims because if they don't their mistakes get used out of context and they become part of that misinformation.

      It's kind of like how Christian Apologists quote the bit where Darwin said it's impossible for something as complex as the eye to evolve while leaving out the next line where he said that based on the science it must have. Or the decades of follow up research that pro
  • What's Pinterest?

  • Facts, information and news are not involved.
  • ... post material questioning the existence of Dark Matte..[NO CARRIER]

  • ...when the non climatologist pointed out (Iirc it was in reply to ipcc 2 around 1998?) that many of their temps were showing false warming because of urbanization effects over time around the measurement starting, and was HOTLY rejected by "professionals"...until ipcc5 (?) when they did start to correct for that (somehow not changing the resulting numbers...), he would have been censored?

    Ok sure, that's how science works.

    I'm glad we have Pinterest to protect us from Badthought. I like the idea of only off

  • by eepok ( 545733 ) on Monday April 11, 2022 @02:56PM (#62437132) Homepage

    This is Slashdot... one of the more educated and knowledgeable open-comment crowds out there. Yet, when there's a post about a company working to reduce the effects of climate denial, the first visible and upvoted posts (score: 2+) argue against that action?

    Look - there isn't much to debate here. The vast majority of research shows that humans are driving changes to the world's temperature (and thus affecting weather patterns) by pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gasses into the atmosphere.

    This isn't new science. The atmospheric sciences and pollution have been the point of major global action in the past. In 1974, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland wrote a paper that asserted that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could destroy the ozone layer. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol called for the massive reduction of the use of CFCs (and other substances) to save the ozone layer. The world stepped up and those substances have since been cut by ~99% globally. Today, the hole in the ozone layer is the smallest it's been since it was originally discovered.

    Without question this shows the layest-of-man that these scientists know what they're talking about. So what's the big deal with climate denial on this website?

    I did a quick survey. The UserIDs are quite a range, so it's not like it's all new accounts spamming. Has a certain portion of the Slashdot readership simply fallen prey to distrust science? If so... what are they doing on Slashdot?

    • We're all just immensely tired of confirmation bias and BS. And tired of people pretending that predictions based on what-if models have the same degree of suasive power as observed facts based on actual controlled experiments.

      • by eepok ( 545733 )

        We're all sick on confirmation bias and BS. There is SO MUCH being flung around so consistently... except in the hard sciences. It's really quite difficult for confirmation bias to show itself in math.

        A person may not like that 1 + 1 = 2, but we have mathematical proofs for this as the basis for all mathematics so saying that accepting "1 + 1 = 2" is proof of a confirmation bias is simply the denial of established fact.

        Similarly, we have proven in controlled experiments that increased carbon dioxide (and me

    • Pinterest should not be a place for facts, it is for Pictorials of related Interests. Anyone that uses Pinterest for facts, news, science or politics is quite frankly, an idiot.

      Now, since Pinterest should not be a place for facts, there really is no need for it to police and censor anyone's interests. See the problem?

      There is also the issue that Pinterest gets to choose their own facts. Now it is their site and they can do whatever they want, but the whole subject of facts and censorship is absurd for
      • by eepok ( 545733 )

        I share with you some level of disdain for Pinterest. I think they have a horrible UI and exploit image searches for ad revenue.

        However, if Pinterest were found to be hosting a bunch of images suggesting that drinking bleach would cure people of the common flu, would it be so bad that Pinterest remove those images? They would be taking action to censor someone's interest in drinking bleach, but it's pretty damn well-established that drinking bleach is detrimental to your health and it really shouldn't be de

    • I'm old enough to take the motto seriously - Nullius In Verba. Someone who doesn't trust the people telling him that the Earth is round has a better understanding science than you have. Even if he is just going on instinct because he doesn't trust people, and even if he is entertaining an idea that is completely wrong - he's still more scientific than you'll ever be.

      To recap - you just made the argument that because people A were right about topic B, that makes people C right about topic D. And you did i

  • Well, they did in a posthumous sense, where the models get tweaked to match what they think happened.
  • Why hasn't anyone else thought of doing that? Do you think it'll work?
  • Government cannot spy on your computer. But the tech giants can, and report to government!

    Government cannot censor, but they can destroy section 230, opening companies to billions in lawsuits, additional costs, and billions in stock value lost, into the hundreds of billions for these trillion dollar club members.

    God

    Damn

    It

    America

    Stop!!!

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Working...