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."
"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."
Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Those who own the ink.
Re:Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people pushing global warming as fact are also fundamentally dishonest.
They're correct, but they're not honest.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on who pays for the science.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The earth physically has a total cycle of 30,000 years related to orbit and rotation of the axis. Its climate is generally unstable and the last 10,000 years are very unusual. Statistics state we need 30 samples (900,000 years) to get an accurate picture of the climate based on the physical side. This in turn ignores biology and evolution, something that is impossible to measure in cycles. While we are contributing to the changes we are experiencing, the fact is we don't know shit about the climate and likely never will.
So there is no energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere that are scientifically based on it's composition? Radiative forcing does not exist?
Y'all want to cite things - I take it you just forgot to mention that. But I'd like your refutation if you'd be so kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Perception is subjective. Reality is reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Perception is subjective. Reality is reality.
Unfortunately us humans have no idea what reality is and are stuck in our subjective universes. Often we agree, often we disagree because the same facts were presented in a different order.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately us humans have no idea what reality is and are stuck in our subjective universes. Often we agree, often we disagree because the same facts were presented in a different order.
Learning science will sometimes give you the facility to change that. Find your disagreement, identify a thesis based on it. Test the thesis with an experiment and move forwards towards a consensus with the person you disagree with. Science is not love and cannot answer all questions, but for those it works on it's a great extension of the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately us humans have no idea what reality is and are stuck in our subjective universes. Often we agree, often we disagree because the same facts were presented in a different order.
Learning science will sometimes give you the facility to change that. Find your disagreement, identify a thesis based on it. Test the thesis with an experiment and move forwards towards a consensus with the person you disagree with. Science is not love and cannot answer all questions, but for those it works on it's a great extension of the mind.
All I'm asking for is a thesis that radiative forcing does not exist, and that the composition of an atmosphere has no relation to it's energy characteristics.
Apparently the answer from these tools is crickets chirping.
The real answer is most deniers are rather selfish, and if they live in an area that won't be underwater, they like it getting warmer.
Re: (Score:2)
The way out of that mess was established with the Scientific Method.
People today have this odd psychological need to believe they are smarter than the scientific consensus. It will be our undoing as a species if our leaders continue to take their side.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the "objective reality" that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Serious problem with bad solutions (Score:3)
Scientific knowledge comes from unencumbered debate and discussion of data.
Not when such discussions are also unencumbered by a basic understanding of existing science and data analysis.
Data was silenced during COVID and only government data from 'scientists', 'officials' and 'experts' was allowed.
Where else are you going to get reliable data from? We cannot start accepting "here are some numbers I just heard that prove me right" as "data" without knowing where that data came from.
That being said I am very uncomfortable with people being silenced because some "commissioner of truth" has determined that what they are saying is not true. However, I am equally concerned that doing nothing
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Bullshit Asymmetry Problem writ large. Since it takes ten times the effort to debunk bullshit as it does to create it, the flip side is that only 10% of the people need to be spewing bullshit before there isn't enough time in everyone else's days combined to combat it. It's weaponized stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
The government cannot force this.
If you ignore them threatening internet media companies with hundreds of billions in losses via section 230 evisceration, unless they "voluntarily" censor the way the politicians want.
If you watch the language, you will see they try to stay within the lines:
"Harrasement" -- An escape clause allowed in limited domain areas like business (a sscond-rate right, easily trompable)
"Dangerous ideas" -- Skipping for the moment this is exactly the phrasing dictatorships use, they are
Re: (Score:2)
What gene therapy treatments? mRNA is not gene therapy.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific knowledge comes from unencumbered debate and discussion of data.
And it can, just not on Pinterest, a place that does not market itself as a forum or platform for scientific debate.
If that there the principle behind this, they would ban all information about climate change, not just that information that does not support one end of the political spectrum gaining ever more power over the lives of other people, telling us - literally - to shiver in the dark taking cold showers, while flying around in their private jets and driving around in their limousines at conferences that would actually be more efficient and productive (there being less drugs and fewer hookers) on Zoom.
But that's n
Re: (Score:2)
just because there's a political spectrum to what facts are accepted doesn't change what's factual, sorry buddy :)
telling us - literally - to shiver in the dark taking cold showers, while flying around in their private jets and driving around in their limousines at conferences that would actually be more efficient and productive (there being less drugs and fewer hookers) on Zoom
lol
the only literal thing pinterest is telling you is not to post stuff that they don't think is true on pinterest. literally
as fo
Re: Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
because there's a monopoly?
It's just an image board. Post your graphics on /b/.
Lectures on mathematics can be found on Pornhub.
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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).
It really doesn't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
Yeah I do (Score:2)
So why do I do it? Well I genuinely believe I'm right, and I've been hanging out here since the '90s and didn't like watching right wing chuds and shills tak
Re: Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:2)
It's 100% confirmation bias all the way down. Skepticism should be the default position for everyone at this point.
Re: Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with "the present day scientifically informed consensus" is that climate science is an echo chamber. You cannot become a climate scientist unless you agree with the current "consensus". You cannot get in to a Masters or PhD program if you question the "consensus". You cannot get a paper published if you question the "consensus". It stopped being science when the scientists decided to stop all scientific debate. It's more of a religion than anything at this point.
On the political side, "clim
Re: (Score:2)
"they don't accept you if you don't accept what we already know"
you can make this argument about every field under the sun, and yet to listen to this argument it's like it's some magical scientific field that somehow behaves unlike any other area of study. try getting a phd in physics by rejecting consensus and see how that goes, and then come back and tell me how it's evidence that we're not allowing for a good possibility that core tenets of what's currently believed about physics are bullshit but we'll n
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't whether or not there is scientific consensus on climate change, it's the policy itself. Once this has been established it will be applied to other topics, and many of those are MUCH less black/white than climate science. And even within climate science, some things are canon (I.E. humans are affecting climate) while other things are very much not settled (like how high sea levels may rise in x amount of years).
Re: (Score:2)
-Catholic Church to Galileo.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're dumb enough to believe the international scientific community is an authoritative government, uh, sure then. The problem is Galileo is being shouted down by a thousands of recognized, educated people who have no single formalized economic or authoritative structure. Note I say single and formalized. I get the argument that scientists are routinely influenced by funding and money to varying degrees, but the level of consensus about this far exceeds the natural product of informal common interest. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Direct rage at Trump too, he set up the peace deal with the Taliban, and the deadline to pull the troops out.
Re: Who checks the fact checkers? (Score:2)
The problem though... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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,
One person’s misinformation. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:One person’s misinformation. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
science is settled
science has changed
where have i heard this before
Philosophy of science texts? Every scientist everywhere? Your poor physics teacher in school who probably did her best suffering through trying to get you to grasp the ideas. Newtonian gravity is just as true as it ever has been whilst being wrong. We just discovered the idea that dark matter might be made up of gravitons, which is a change from our point of view. The first thing doesn't mean that Newtonian gravity is the last word in truth. The second thing doesn't mean that things will suddenly start fall
Re: (Score:3)
If the "consequences ... changing every day", then don't you dare pretend to know and to require harsh mandates & economic punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
If the "consequences ... changing every day", then don't you dare pretend to know and to require harsh mandates & economic punishment.
We don't know the details, but we know the outline. The more we burn oil and coal, the worse the future for our children. I watch your arguments and see you change them and flex them; never holding an honest belief (it's not happening / we can't tell the details / okay it is happening but don't "punish" me). I'm not sure I believe that you don't know the consequences. If you are spreading these lies deliberately then the punishment should go far beyond economic.
Re: (Score:2)
> The more we burn oil and coal, the worse the future for our children.
If the magnitude of this "worseness" is a matter of vague or changing science, yawn yawn and more yawn.
> I watch your arguments
Welcome to my fan club!
Re: (Score:2)
"The science - that we, humans, have been seriously changing the climate and that it's a bad thing, is clear"
Is it clear that it's a "bad thing". "Bad" is subjective and an opinion. It's not science. Many of the proposed solutions cause "bad" things too. Shouldn't their be debate on which "bad" thing is actually a worse thing?
The majority of people accept that humans change the environment around them. It's impossible not to. The debate is to what extent is acceptable and what the actual impact of su
Both sides do not misrepresent that data (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One person’s misinformation. (Score:4, Informative)
Do you accept that the observed temperature increase is at the lower end of the ensemble of climate models on which dire predictions of the consequences of warming are based?
Do you accept the plausibility of a claim, made by a Canadian statistician (people in STEM hate the stats people they have to work with as annoying scolds) that the Hockey Stick graph that discounts the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climatic Optimum could have been the result of sloppy principal components modeling? This is the same statistician who uncovered the Bre-X gold-mining scam where many Canadians lost money.
Do you accept the fact that the models predicting dire warming are not based solely on the warming resulting from increased CO2, which is indeed pure thermo and p-chem, but on a positive-feedback/multiplier effect on atmospheric water content, which is based on speculative atmospheric models?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you accept that the observed temperature increase is at the lower end of the ensemble of climate models on which dire predictions of the consequences of warming are based?
Why would I? It's not true. https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
Sawyer, 1973 One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UK’s Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity – how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels – of 2.4C, which is not too far off the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.
Unlike the other projections examined in this article, Sawyer did not provide an estimated warming for each year, just an expected 2000 value. His warming estimate of 0.6C was nearly spot on – the observed warming over that period was between 0.51C and 0.56C.
Or you have Hansen, 1988, whose projection is absolutely spot on given the emissions scenario that matches the one we have experienced.
First IPCC of 1990 observed a little below the mean, but within the min/max limits.
Second IPCC, 1995, underestimates warming a bit.
Third, 2001, underestimates a bit less
4th, 2007 - very close indeed.
It's almost as if the original estimates from 50 years ago were pretty reasonable and it's been getting more accurat
Re: (Score:2)
Or you have Hansen, 1988, whose projection is absolutely spot on given the emissions scenario that matches the one we have experienced.
This is a lie, although a lot of people have repeated it. You're talking about this graph [skepticalscience.com]. Read his paper. "Scenario C" corresponds to a drastic cut in CO2 output, which did not happen.
Re: One person’s misinformation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you accept the plausibility of a claim, made by a Canadian statistician (people in STEM hate the stats people they have to work with as annoying scolds) that the Hockey Stick graph that discounts the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climatic Optimum could have been the result of sloppy principal components modeling?
Do you have a citation for that?
Re:One person’s misinformation. (Score:4, Informative)
What is "dire" supposed to mean? It reminds me of a "theory" called CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) that climate dismissives simply made up as far as I can tell (climate scientists never use that term). There has been a consensus since 1979 that the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is 1.5 to 4.5 celcius. Finally this was narrowed in the latest IPCC report to 2.5-4.0 celcius, most likely around 3 celcius, which means that if we double the CO2 concentration and wait a few hundred years, the global average temperature will rise about 3 celcius. The immediate effect, known as TCR (transient climate response -- the immediate warming effect of rising CO2) is estmated to be around 1.5 to 2 celcius, and yes, temperature increases have been around the low end of that expected range, but it's not some huge discrepancy unless you look at misleading charts made by people doing their best to cast doubt on climate science (e.g. Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH). Here's how mainstream scientists might, for example, present the same information [realclimate.org].
Steve McIntyre's mission in life seems to be casting doubt on climate science by, for example, slamming Michael Mann's "hockey stick", but it's not as though Michael Mann is the only paleoclimatologist in the world. There are lots of other climate reconstructions and pretty much all of them reproduce the "hockey stick", provided that they included the entire 20th century as part of their reconstruction. Here, I've done all the work of Googling it for you. [google.com]
As for "uncovering" the Bre-X gold mining scam, Wikipedia just says that McIntyre "states that he noticed discrepancies in climate science papers that reminded him of the false prospectus that had duped investors". The Weekly Standard says "McIntyre smelled a rat and demanded the raw data. Bre-X collapsed shortly after," which indicates that he noticed something wrong, not that he uncovered the scam. A certain dead body with missing hands and feet might have "uncovered" that one?
The correlation between temperature and absolute humidity isn't speculative, it's fact. You don't even need multiple years of data, just take samples from all over the Earth at any given moment in time, and observe that higher temperatures are correlated with higher absolute humidity (not relative humidity, mind you). Look at oceanic data where the correlation is particularly obvious.
So yes, if you could double CO2 instantly it would cause modestly higher temperatures immediately, which in turn would modestly increase absolute humidity, which in turn would modestly increase temperatures a second time soon afterward (because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas).
No time and No trust (Score:2)
Do you accept that thermodynamics is a feature of our universe?
Yes, but that's like saying "Do you accept the Standard Model?" and then implying that if you do you know everything except gravity and Dark Matter. Thermodynamics by itself says nothing about global warming. You need to use it to build a model of the climate and the instant you do that you get to question the assumptions and data that went into that model.
This is the crux of the matter. It has taken us decades to build sophisticated computer models of the climate that show there is a significant proble
So, (Score:2)
What's Pinterest?
Re: (Score:2)
Social Media is about the fix (Score:2)
Can we at least ... (Score:2)
so for example (Score:2)
...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
What the Hell is Going On in the Comments? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: What the Hell is Going On in the Comments? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Not as though the predictions came to pass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a lying sack of shit. I could explain why, but you already know.
Fuck off.
Re: Not as though the predictions came to pass (Score:2)
Wow! What a great idea! (Score:2)
Hold my beer (Score:2)
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!!!
Stealing pictures is still OK though (Score:2)
Hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
A safe space, indeed, but only if you agree with the party line.
Ya, but it's their [Pinterest's] party and they can deny [ban] if they want to. :-)
(Apologies to Lesley Gore [wikipedia.org].)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the only kind of safe space there is.
When you're a delicate, fragile flower, that's the only kind of safe space even remotely possible.
Then leave (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you could argue climate change denier should be a protected class. If so, please proceed with your arguments. I'm all ears.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of Speech is intended to allow people to present their arguments fairly, even if they are wrong.
But how do you know it is "people" presenting arguments if everything is anonymous and there is no accountability?
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you know it is "people" presenting arguments if everything is anonymous and there is no accountability?
I'm sorry, it's my fault the cat was on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is using Pinterest as a news/info source!?
Prior to blocking it, I only ever saw it as the cancer of Google image search...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll be absolutely devastated by your departure, but first they'd have to notice that you ever showed up in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
The article said,
Under the new policy the site is committing to take down content that distorts or denies the facts of the climate crisis
And you turned it into,
So why limit Pinterest users to the far end of the range of opinion on the matter?
It's funny how you just turned "facts" into "opinion". That tells us a lot about how you think. Apparently you don't see a difference.
There can be a range of opinions on any issue, but there isn't a range of facts. The facts are what they are. You have the right to invent whatever opinions you want, but you don't have the right to invent your own facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't use their platform.