Facebook Fact-Checks Power Line

Facebook Fact-Checks Power Line, by John Hinderaker.

The establishment is in full protect-Joe mode. The Left’s most important propaganda theme these days is that there is no such thing as voter fraud. Thus, when I did a post on Power Line titled Massive Voter Fraud In Wisconsin?, and linked to it on Facebook, the Facebook lefties were lying in wait. This is what it looked like:

If you followed the link, this is what you saw:

The explanation given for Facebook’s “fact check” is that “Wisconsin turnout [is] in line with past elections, didn’t jump 22%.” But my Facebook post said nothing about Wisconsin turnout jumping by 22%. Neither did my Power Line post, which I doubt anyone from USA Today or Facebook actually read. According to Wisconsin officials, that state had a record turnout in 2020, not one that was “in line with past elections,” so Facebook’s “fact check” is blatantly false. Also, obviously, it doesn’t even attempt to deal with anything I wrote in my Power Line post, which, among other things, explained why some observers have made exaggerated claims relating to Wisconsin’s 2020 turnout numbers. Nor does it try to explain why there is something wrong with what I wrote on Facebook, which was that “the numbers suggest” that there was major voter fraud in Wisconsin — a claim that, as far as I know, stands unrebutted.

So Facebook is a Democratic Party platform that will do all it can to help Joe Biden cling to his tenuous electoral lead. No surprise there. But the extent to which the internet platforms that control most avenues for the distribution of facts and opinions are willing to lie and cheat to support one political party is alarming. We live in a world that the Founders never contemplated.

This is how modern censorship works. They complexify the issue with irrelevancies and endless details until your head hurts, but the bottom line is that the establishment says its critics are wrong, misguided, rubes, deplorables, etc.. Easiest to just go along with what they say. Most people have no idea, but see the labels and know it’s not going to worth their time to try and figure it out.

It’s like climate change all over again. Global warming was the first major issue whose course was changed by the Internet. Without the Internet we would all have accepted the official version, because we would have taken their word for it that carbon dioxide was causing dangerous warming. But over the Internet we found that the climate models were deeply flawed, that temperature measurements were suspect, and that leading climate scientists were behaving unprofessionally to protect their theory.

Without these revelations over the Internet, in 2009 the world would have signed up to the Copenhagen Treaty. That treaty would have formed a global body for controlling each country’s carbon dioxide output. The leaders of most of the world’s countries went to Denmark to sign that treaty, but backed out at the last moment in part because (they said) the science now appeared too uncertain. An enforceable global emissions agreement may well have grown to a de facto world bureaucracy, and then a nascent world government. But there is no mention of “democracy” or “voting” anywhere in the draft treaty. We came that close.

But since 2009 the establishment learned to isolate and discredit climate skeptics, prevent them from showing data in the media, overwhelm them on the Internet, downrank them in search engines, and ban them from the media. John Hinderaker (the author above), my wife, and I are all on the global blacklist of 300 climate commentators.

(It’s pretty simple. The climate models are wrong because they get the trends in the upper troposphere backwards. All the relevant measurements say it is drying and cooling, but the models predict it should be warming and moistening. These trends affect the amount of heat it emits to space. Since the upper troposphere is responsible for emitting more than half the world’s heat to space, it is kind of important. No climate model of global warming is going to be correct if it gets the upper tropospheric trend in emitted heat backwards. But hardly anyone knows, so effective has the censorship in the last decade been. We know where the error is in the climate models, and precisely what they get wrong, but no one is listening or seems to care.)

So cheats can prosper, and the censorship John details in the article above (more at the link) is how they do it.