As it becomes clear the Chinese government has covered up the true extent of the Wuhan coronavirus–as they did with ASF–“experts” are blaming climate change for the virus spreading, and pinning meat as the source. Studies link viral mutagenesis to solar minima. Though the crisis is nascent, already meat is being blamed.
17 January 2020
This article originally appeared on VICE News.
If you search for “climate change” on YouTube, one of the videos you will be recommended to watch is “What do scientists say?” which will tell you that there is “no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor in climate change.”
Not only is this false, but the video being promoted by YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is also being monetized by the company with ads from Greenpeace.
The revelation comes in a report from Avaaz, a non-profit rights group, which claims that YouTube is promoting climate change misinformation to millions of users while making money from that content by selling ads to organizations like Save the Children and the World Wildlife Fund. The bombshell report comes despite repeated claims by the company that it is making big efforts to eradicate the problem of misinformation about climate change being promoted on its platform.
“YouTube is the largest broadcasting channel in the world, and it is driving millions of people to climate misinformation videos,” Julie Deruy, a senior campaigner at Avaaz, said in a statement. “This is not about free speech, this is about free advertising YouTube is giving to factually inaccurate videos that risk confusing people about one of the biggest crises of our time.”
YouTube has long claimed to take the issue of conspiracy theories and disinformation seriously, and in 2015 it launched a campaign called #OursToLose that urged content creators “to continue helping people to broadcast their message, empower their communities, and even catalyze a global movement to further action on climate change.”
Last year, the company published a whitepaper on disinformation where it claimed that it “introduced a higher bar for videos that are promoted through the YouTube homepage or that are surfaced to users through the “watch next” recommendations.”
But Avaaz’s research suggests otherwise.
To compile its research, Avaaz conducted a series of YouTube searches in English on three climate topics — ”climate change” global warming and “climate manipulation.” They collected the top results and queried YouTube APIs asking for the top related videos from these search results, which are the videos that appear in the ‘Up Next’ feature and the suggestions bar.
The end result was a cache of 5,537 videos with the following results:
- For the search term “global warming,” 16% of the top 100 related videos included under the up-next feature had misinformation about climate change.
- For the related videos recommended to users who searched “climate change” this number equals 8% and rises to 21% for the search term “climate manipulation.”
- The climate misinformation videos Avaaz reviewed had 21.1 million views collectively.
- Ads for some of the world’s most trusted brands were found on climate misinformation videos including household names like Samsung, L’Oréal, Decathlon, Danone, Warner Bros, and Carrefour.
- One in five ads found were from green or ethical brands including Greenpeace, WWF, and Save the Children.
YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is hugely powerful, driving up to 70 percent of total views on the platform. Yet, despite the evidence presented in the report, YouTube asserts that the algorithm is working as intended.
“As our systems appear to have done in the majority of cases in this report, we prioritize authoritative voices for millions of news and information queries, and surface information panels on topics prone to misinformation — including climate change — to provide users with context alongside their content. We continue to expand these efforts to more topics and countries,” YouTube told VICE News in an emailed statement.
A company spokesperson also pointed out that Avaaz’s use of the YouTube API to return a set of videos linked to the original search result could be impacted by outside factors, such as the fact that a third-party website would link to a set of videos in the same article.
YouTube faced similar criticism last July, when social scientist Joachim Allgaier from RWTH Aachen University in Germany, published a report that found that searching for climate change-related results for which “fewer than half of the videos represent mainstream scientific views.”
At the time YouTube said it was working on improving its algorithm to boost “authoritative voices” over conspiracy theories, but Avaaz’s report suggests little has changed in the last six months.
“YouTube said they are taking this issue really seriously and that it’s going to improve, but from what I read here, I get the impression that it has not improved that much really and if they are still monetizing this content and also recommending it. It is actually really, really disappointing,” Allgaier told VICE News.
When this was put to a YouTube spokesperson, they said that if you look at the videos cited by Avaaz in the report, several come from what YouTube labels as authoritative voices — such as Fox News and Canadian conference series IdeaCity.
YouTube doesn’t manually pick and choose these authoritative voices, but relies on a ranking algorithm that is constantly being tweaked to recommend what it deems trustworthy sources to users.
This means that YouTube’s algorithm is coded to boost this content even if it contains misinformation. YouTube told VICE News that the content shared by these trusted channels as simply discussions on controversial topics and that going down the road of banning channels simply for mentioning contrarian views would be very dangerous.
But the reality remains that YouTube is making money from videos espousing climate change misinformation and boosting those videos by recommending them to users.
“The fact that there is still quite a lot of misinformation on YouTube when you’re looking for climate-related terms and also the fact that still a lot of people are watching it shows us that something is wrong here,” Allgaier said.
Also on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/H7xR1r4n1nU/
What do you get when the US government earmarks $4 million for “climate intervention” otherwise known as geo-engineering plus massive amounts of ash and pollution in the atmosphere? Did any geo-engineers take into account a VEI5 eruption to mix with their experiments?
2 January 2020
Dr. Frank Furedi, author and social commentator is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury.
British ‘ethical vegan’ Jordi Casamitjana hopes to have his whole movement recognized by an employment tribunal as a protected belief, similar to a religious faith – which could give vegan zealots free rein in the workplace.
Casamitjana says he was fired from his job because of his beliefs – he disclosed to other employees at the League Against Cruel Sports that it invested its pension funds in firms involved in animal testing. He couldn’t leave well enough alone because he is an ‘ethical vegan’ – someone who doesn’t just avoid animal products, but also holds veganism as a “philosophy and a belief system”, and, apparently, feels the need to spread it around.ALSO ON RT.COMUnashamedly intolerant: Veganism promotes a religion of hate, attempts to guilt-trip & ridicule meat eaters
During hearings on Thursday and Friday, Casamitjana hopes to convince an Employment Tribunal that his beliefs should enjoy the same status as long-established religions such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Beyond merely vindicating the man in his job dispute, the process could end up opening the door to endowing veganism with the authority of the sacred.
In an era where lifestyle identity and politics dominate public life in the Western world, there is a constant tendency to transform individual beliefs into a sacred cause. Vegans are only the latest of a long line of life-style warriors who have demanded that their beliefs should enjoy the legal protection afforded by the Equality Act. In response to these demands, the courts have adopted a relatively relaxed attitude towards dishing out protected status. In 2011, a court ruled that belief in the sanctity of animal life should be protected. As a result of recent rulings, the status was bestowed on the conviction that fox hunting is evil, and the belief that it is possible to communicate with the dead using psychic powers.
“Vegan from ma head tomatoes”.
Hundreds of #vegan activists marched through central London on Saturday to raise awareness of animal rights.455:10 AM – Aug 20, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy38 people are talking about this
‘Protected beliefs’ dilute the idea of what’s sacred
There is, of course, a weighty argument against the proliferation of protected beliefs; which is that it undermines the moral authority of long-established religions. As more and more everyday views are accorded the same moral status as long held religious ideals, the idea of the sacred becomes diluted and emptied of meaning.
Nevertheless, I do not mind if veganism gains legal recognition for what it really is – a proselytising would-be religion. The zealotry of many vegans resembles the attitudes and forms of behaviour that are generally associated with the worst features of theocratic intolerance.
Crusading veganism needs to be distinguished from the personal decisions to eat only vegetables and avoid animal products. It regards non-vegans as akin to ignorant heathens, who must be converted to the cause. Towards its critics it has adopted the ruthless temper of the Inquisition. Vegan fanatics have targeted turkey and livestock farmers, butchers and steak houses.
Even the mainstream of this movement has adopted the intolerant habit of treating meat eaters as their moral inferiors. They ceaselessly moralise and lecture people about how they should live their lives. Unlike vegans in the past, who regarded their attitude to food as a private dietary issue, their contemporary brethren believe that converting others to their way of life is a public duty.ALSO ON RT.COMPaper beer bottles & wooden cutlery: Do eco-moralists care more about the environment, or turning people’s lives upside down?
Vegans unleashed to set their rules
The real question at stake is not whether or not veganism becomes as protected as a religion, but the practical consequences of this decision for the rest of society. In a democratic society, individuals are entitled to hold strong beliefs. However, they are not entitled to impose those beliefs on others. Nor are they entitled to expect that employers, colleagues and other people must accommodate to their beliefs. Yet, that is exactly what the drive for protected status for veganism hopes to achieve.
The most significant issue here is to what extent the public will have to accommodate to the ambitions of veganism. Recently a nursery that introduced a plant-based only menu was forced to backtrack after the children’s parent revolted against its unilateral imposition. If nurseries believe that it is OK to enforce their doctrine on little children, how long before other institutions follow suit? Will employers be expected to provide employees with vegan meals? Will they have to accommodate to vegans’ dislike for leather chairs and clothes because of the ‘stress’ and ‘mental harm’ they cause them? Though the answer to these questions is far from clear, it is likely that protected belief status will embolden these attempts to impose a certain lifestyle on the rest of us.
In reality, veganism does not need protected status, because it enjoys significant support from the UK’s cultural establishment. The Economist rightly predicted that 2019 would be ‘the year of the vegan’ and that veganism would go mainstream. Celebrities like Arianna Grande and Benedict Cumberbatch regularly endorse their vegan diet. On the media and the domain of youth culture, a vegan diet is often portrayed as a mark of virtue. However, for the vegan crusade, the adherence of celebrity culture to its cause its not enough. It wants to force itself on the meat-eating majority. Gaining protected status for its dogma would provide them with legal clout to further that ambition.
Also on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1TS6rAYup5I/
Also on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/wP321Miy7zQ/