Source: Ethan Huff
Fiona Godlee, the editor of The British Medical Journal (BMJ), has written a letter to Facebook (Meta) CEO Mark Zuckerberg blasting him for the social media platform’s “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible … fact-check” protocols that we now know are just a censorship tool.
One of the oldest and most highly respected scientific journals in the world, The BMJ recently published a report entitled, “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial” that calls into question the “science” behind Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine.” Because the report does not unquestioningly praise the jabs as “safe and effective,” Facebook “fact-checked” it and deemed it as containing “false information.”
TRENDING: WHO Head Admits Vaccines Being Used To Kill Children
Starting on November 10, Facebook users who tried to share the article encountered problems. Many were unable to share it at all while others say the post was flagged with a warning that stated: “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Still, others were prompted with warnings advising them to not try to share “false information.”
It turns out that Facebook contractor “Lead Stories” was responsible for all this censorship. After learning what had happened, Godlee ripped Zuckerberg a new one, highlighting the following points about the so-called “fact check” in her letter to him:
- It did not present any assertions of fact that The BMJ article supposedly got wrong.
- It used the following nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.”
- The first paragraph inaccurately labeled The BMJ a “news blog.”
- A screenshot of The BMJ report that Facebook posted with a “Flaws Reviewed” stamp over the top of it failed to identify anything false or untrue.
- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert.”
- Lead Stories was contacted by The BMJ concerning these and other issues but the company refused to make any changes.
- The BMJ also tried to contact Facebook directly about removing the “fact check,” but was refused.
Instagram (owned by Facebook) caught censoring article by Cochrane
If this was just one random incident, one might argue that it was just a mistake or “flaw” in Meta’s fact-checking system. The problem is that this is not an isolated incident at all.
Meta’s other brand, Instagram, has also been caught censoring similar content by plastering “fact-check” warnings over the top of peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals like The BMJ.
Recently, Instagram censored an article by Cochrane, for instance, which is well-known in the scientific and medical community for providing high-quality reviews of medical evidence.
This is simply unacceptable, and Godlee really made that known to Zuckerberg in her letter. She called on him to “act swiftly” to correct the error related to The BMJ article and to also review the internal processes that continue to allow this type of thing to happen.
“This fully exposes the complete fact that is the ‘fact-checkers!’” wrote one commenter at Reclaim the Net. “Most people already know it’s a snow job that is really meant to censor any narrative they don’t want people to know!”
In response to a Natural News piece we published about how Facebook recently admitted in court that its “fact checks” are really just third-party opinions, another commenter wrote that “fact check” simply means “truth that they do not want you to know.”
“Anyone with an ounce of purity in their soul would have the common sense to have already detected and know this,” commented another.
More related news about Big Tech censorship can be found at Censorship. news.
Sources for this article include:
Thank you for posting this article, Nwo. This censorship business has got to stop. We the People shouldn’t have to wait for DJT to come up with his anti-censorship platform. Our social media platforms are not supposed to be able to do this sort of diabolical, brainwashing thing: Under the Communications Act Sect. 230, they are absolved of any liability IN EXCHANGE FOR acting like a public forum. The law doesn’t need to be changed; it just needs to be enforced properly. Why isn’t it? Well, that tells you a lot, doesn’t it.
I don’t understand why people still use fakebook? Be brave, turn your back on evil today, and get rid of it.