Skip to main content

Silencing Unpopular Thought with Swarm Complaints

This story has been developing.  It started with a popular (70k member) Facebook site called We Love GMOs and Vaccines.  The site is run by Stephan Niedenbach and runs into the burning building of science ignorance.  While many of us find a softer, non-provocative touch as a way to expose the masses to science, WLGMOV pushes buttons, piles on some snark, and also shares information that is consistent with the scientific literature. 

Over the last month there have been coordinated efforts to foment action against the site.  A number of prominent social media sites provided step-by-step instructions on how to register a Facebook complaint so that the page would be withdrawn.  The results look like this:


Gloating about interruption of free speech.  Smooth move, Holly Moses. I'd never do that to you here. 


The WLGMOV site is down permanently, and Stephan is banned for 30 days. 

Here is the problem, and we see it again and again in non-scientific activist movements-- if you don't like the science, attack the scientist.  If you don't like what the science says, find a way to have it expunged. 

And shame on Facebook.   They let pages stand that target public scientists.  They let pages stand that discourage the cancer afflicted from seeking chemotherapy.  They allow borderline hate speech and dangerous ideas to thrive.  Somehow science violates your Community Standards

That's fine.  It is a marketplace of ideas, and in an enlightened society we should be able to suppress unpopular thought simply by making it unpopular through education. That's not how these folks work.  To them, science stands in the way of their beliefs and financial bottom line.

Tearing a page out of the Food Babe Vani Hari's playbook, followers are instructed explicitly on how to get an unappreciated page removed by poking the throngs of willful followers, and then arming them with the cyber pitchforks and torches they need to finish the job. 

*** Importantly ***

This is not to say that I agree with the way that WLGMOV chooses to communicate all ideas.  I too find some of the presentations of low caliber and offensive. One post recently caused me tons of personal grief with people I care about and communities I professionally serve.  That does not mean that they should be silenced. 

***  Most importantly  ***

If you are a fan of WLGMOV, a fan of science, or someone that just treasures open dialogue and free exchange of ideas-- do not ever take part in such actions, especially in retaliation. 

Instead, share the story about how free speech about science is being suppressed, and make an accounting of those that promote it. 

This kind of asymmetric cyber attack strongly sours the people that are unsure of what to believe.  Let's show them that they now lose a viewpoint because of an aggressor that felt they should not have access to that information.  Information is being withheld from them-- because it is factual.

Elevate the dialog. Teach. That's how we fix this.   






Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…