Connect with us

Tech

Facebook Calls Report on Dr. Fauci Funding Wuhan Coronavirus Experiments ‘Partly False’ Based on Unrelated Information

This is an example of how Facebook deceptively uses fact checking to censor information.

Published

on

Last week, Big League Politics reported on the astounding revelations that Dr. Anthony Fauci through his National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded coronavirus studies in bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology shortly before the pandemic shook the world:

The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which Dr. Fauci has served as director since 1984, supported the grant approved by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the Wuhan Institute shortly after another $3.7 million project expired after four years. This means that the federal bureaucracy subsidized this sort of mad scientific research in China to the tune of $7.4 million!

Scientists have blown the whistle on this type of research for its extreme danger. It involves laboratory work manipulating viruses to discover exactly how they can spread to humans. Critics have long argued that studies such as those supported by Dr. Fauci create a serious risk for causing a pandemic, and their fears may have been realized with coronavirus…

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

In their response to Newsweek, the NIH downplayed the possibility that their funding could have caused the entire coronavirus pandemic.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Most emerging human viruses come from wildlife, and these represent a significant threat to public health and biosecurity in the US and globally, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic of 2002-03, and the current COVID-19 pandemic…. scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory,” they said.

However, their denials are becoming less and less plausible as more information enters into the mainstream. An independent, non-biased investigation is needed post haste into the origins of the coronavirus that is not tainted by Chinese or deep state influence.

This news was reported widely with Newsweek, a mainstream outlet, initially breaking the story. The report has greatly damaged the narrative pushed by the establishment that the public must listen to the infallible expert class of government-funded scientists. The news indicates that it could have been these scientists who fueled the coronavirus pandemic with their heinously unethical research.

This is why the Orwellian truth commission at Facebook is painting the report as “partly false” to cast doubt on the findings. To perform this sleight of hand, Facebook is fact checking unrelated claims that were not made in the article. Facebook is linking to a fact check article that does not even pertain to the news of Fauci funding coronavirus research in Wuhan.

Facebook references to a fact check from USA Today, which claims accurately that “Obama administration did not send $3.7 million to Wuhan lab.” The only problem is that claim was not made in the Newsweek article, the Big League Politics article, and many other articles referencing the NIAID payout for coronavirus experiments in bats.

The USA Today fact check article mainly referenced claims that were made on various social media platforms by random accounts. Facebook tied the fact check to the Newsweek article and is now sending warnings to pages sharing the article that it is “partly false” even though the USA Today article never references it a single time. The fact check actually confirms that the U.S. did fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China shortly before the pandemic broke out.

Here is the message that Facebook is sending to pages, warning them that they could be blacklisted on the platform and demonetized for sharing the article:

Facebook’s dishonest and immoral business practices could result in the loss of their privileges under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents their victims from filing civil suits against them.

Tech

Twitter Launches Crowdsourced Fact-Checking System Called “Birdwatch” to Fight “Misinformation”

Who saw this coming?

Published

on

Twitter has rolled out a new feature to fight what they consider to be “misinformation.”

The new feature, released Monday, is called Birdwatch. In a post on the Twitter Blog, Vice President of Product Keith Coleman writes that Birdwatch will allow people to identify information in tweets that “they believe is misleading” and to write notes “that provide informative context.”

We believe this approach has the potential to respond quickly when misleading information spreads, adding context that people trust and find valuable,” Coleman said.

As of now Birdwatch is a standalone site, though Twitter claims they will eventually make notes posted to Birdwatch directly visible on certain tweets.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

VP of Product Coleman continues: “In this first phase of the pilot, notes will only be visible on a separate Birdwatch site. On this site, pilot participants can also rate the helpfulness of notes added by other contributors. These notes are being intentionally kept separate from Twitter for now, while we build Birdwatch and gain confidence that it produces context people find helpful and appropriate. Additionally, notes will not have an effect on the way people see Tweets or our system recommendations.”

The format of Birdwatch will supposedly combine elements of Wikipedia and Reddit’s moderation tools, according to NBC News. Birdwatch users will be able to flag tweets from a dropdown menu on Twitter itself, but discussion about the flagged tweets will only be able to take place on the Birdwatch site. Birdwatch will also implement a rating system that will allow users to upvote or downvote the notes of others.

This is the logical development of Twitter’s commitment to identify and suppress content they deem “false” or “dangerous.” Keep an eye out for more such features in the future.

YOUR NEW MASTER: Twitter’s Head of Conversational Safety, a “Young, Queer Asian-American Businesswoman,” is “Rethinking” the Concept of User Safety

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending