Climate Skeptic Censorship by Google, Twitter, and Microsoft LinkedIn

Climate Skeptic Censorship by Google, Twitter, and Microsoft LinkedIn

http://ift.tt/2EuuZxI

Censorship can be performed only by a government.  But, the Obama administration has granted status akin to a government branch to GFTM+RW (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Reddit, and Wikimedia Foundation) and a few other corporations. The means for that included subjecting citizen internet access to Title II restrictions (Obamanet), so that their actions to suppress scientific and political speech result in censorship.  As mentioned in the Reply to The New York Times I experimented with distributing the climate realism message using advertising options on GFTM+R. The short report on this follows.

Twitter has behaved the worst. If it doesn’t like one tweet in a paid promotion, it halts all promotions by the account.  This happened to me twice, and I stopped trying after that.  Twitter bans tweets with “inaccurate content.”  Twitter doesn’t even bother to phrase it as “content that we consider inaccurate.”  It’s as if Twitter’s management considers itself an omniscient and omnipotent divine power. This is one of the “violating” tweets:

 

The notification from Twitter:

This account is ineligible to run Twitter Ads due to a policy violation by one or more users. Any active campaigns have been paused.

Twitter broadly disseminates and/or promotes some tweets without marking them as ads (and even when it does mark them, it usually does so by adding the almost unnoticeable word promoted in tiny font). If Twitter is deciding which tweets to deliver and which not to, it might be considered an accomplice in what I see as a coupe attempt by Netflix and Chelsea Handler.

Google

Google has censored and banned multiple my messages on its AdWords platform, and boasted about that to the NYT.  A sample banned message:

Scientists blast climate alarm – Watch Nobel Winner in Physics.

Not a single distinguished US scientist agreed with the UN global warming agenda

Below are screenshots, showing some of my Google Adwords messages disapproved by Google for alleged misrepresentation (status Disapproved):

 

Some of the ads were disapproved in the middle of the campaign run.  Unnecessarily to say, none of these ads or their landing pages contain any misrepresentation.  One of the landing pages contains a well known list of the most distinguished scientists – opponents of climate alarmism.  One ad, containing the word CO2, was banned for “excessive capitalization”.  Additionally, some ads were disapproved initially and approved after the appeal.  The messages that show up as disapproved are those that were not approved even after an appeal, or were banned after having started to run.  Some ads were approved only after days of delay.  Google has also threatened me with suspension of my AdWords account.  Multiple previously approved ads were suddenly banned about a week before the Paris conference re-enactment on December 12.

In the same time, Google banned my message about the semi-annual “anniversary” of the shooting of the building of Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer in the University of Alabama in the middle of the run, and stopped the campaign.  The message was running in Alabama.

Google probably learned something toward the end of the experiment, stopped banning my new creatives, and had a customer support person to talk to me and help me make small changes in the text of the ads for approval.

Microsoft LinkedIn

Microsoft LinkedIn has banned multiple messages, both from the start and in the middle of the campaign.  The official explanation was always the same: hate, violence, discrimination and opposition.  Which one of them caused them to ban the following messages?

LinkedIn also practices censorship by keeping messages in review indefinitely.  In the screenshot part below, one creative is rejected, and another one is “In Review” for almost a month.

Microsoft LinkedIn has also probably learned something toward the end of the experiment, and almost stopped banning my new creatives.

Reddit

Reddit banned my promoted posts under false and offensive pretexts, but Reddit is much smaller than Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft, and is not worthy of your attention.  Reddit is also a cheap place to receive death wishes.  It cost me less than $80 per death wish message.

Facebook

Facebook has been acting squeaky clean.  None of my messages have been banned for content.

Conclusions

The theory of parallel government might not withstand legal scrutiny, but these companies, each of them being a monopoly in multiple markets, also collude in the markets where they are expected to compete.  Simultaneous refusal to deliver my ads is just another piece of evidence.  More evidence of collusion is various agreements and understandings in which they entered with the European Commission and German government to suppress various content that those governments dislike and to advance “alternative narrative.”  They also collude by hiring the same “fact checkers” and the same censors. For example, the foreign student that deleted the President’s Twitter account also worked for Google.  As a side note, a monopolistic collusion between competitors is not the same as becoming a monopoly through other means.  Such collusion is a criminal offense. Officers and directors of violating companies might face prison terms from up to one year (per 15 U.S. Code § 24) to up to ten years (15 U.S. Code § 2).

Of note, Wikipedia is supported and promoted by Google and has acknowledged relationships with it.

 

End Notes

A typical Microsoft LinkedIn censorship notification:

Thanks for submitting your ad for the C02 campaign for review. This email is to let you know that an ad within this campaign will need to be revised before it can run on LinkedIn.

Here’s what’s wrong:

  • Hate, violence, discrimination and opposition: LinkedIn does not allow ads that include hate speech or show or promote violence or discrimination against others or are personal attacks on any individual, group, company or organization or otherwise advocating against or targeting any individual, group, company or organization.

Please update the ad and resubmit it as soon as possible

Here, “opposition” means negative ads about persons and organizations. I do not dispute their right to disapprove ads for opposition, as long as they use it uniformly and not as a pretext to ban climate realist ads.

A Twitter promotion ban notification (emphasis is mine):

We’ve reviewed and confirmed the ineligibility decision for Twitter Ads based on our Quality policy. Violating content includes, but is not limited to, the use of excessive or unnecessary capitalization, punctuation, image and video content that is of low quality or distasteful, incorrect grammar and/or spelling, content that is inaccurate or unclear and where more than 50% of the landing page contains advertisements. If the violating content has been removed, please respond and we will re-review for policy compliance.

Superforest,Climate Change

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s