Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the Institute for Economic Affairs, has written a great piece for Spiked pointing out that the social science research about the role of social media in driving political polarisation and extremism is decidedly mixed and certainly insufficient to demonstrate a need for further restrictions on free speech. In other words, the case for the Online Safety Bill and other attempts to censor social media is unproven.
For example, some research suggests that social media ‘reinforces the expressers’ partisan thought process and hardens their pre-existing political preferences’. But other studies have found that partisanship has grown more among groups who are less likely to use social media, that it has grown more in the US despite social media expanding across the planet, and that Facebook’s news feature may even reduce polarisation by exposing people to more viewpoints.
On the question of filter bubbles and echo chambers for news, the evidence is just as mixed. One study found that Facebook’s algorithm fails to supply people with news that challenges their attitudes. But other studies suggest that most users (and conservatives especially) subscribe to a variety of media outlets, that social media actually drive a more diverse array of news sources, and that social media might actually help decrease support for right-wing populist candidates and parties.
Then there’s the issue of foreign disinformation allegedly warping elections. While there is evidence that material from Russia’s Internet Research Agency has reached tens of millions of people in the West in recent years, it is less clear that this has had a strong impact. Russian trolls have largely interacted with individuals who are already highly polarised. Furthermore, studies indicate that just 0.1% of people share 80% of the ‘fake news’ that is in circulation.
To the extent that serious issues with social media have been identified, many studies indicate that they are not widespread. For example, one study found that just 5% of users are in a news echo chamber. On the question of YouTube rabbit holes, another study found that extremist videos are largely watched by people who already hold extremist views and that other people are not driven to that content by recommendations.
This all points to the possibility that partisanship, extreme views and political dysfunction are driven by deeper social and cultural factors. To the extent that you come across more extreme views on social media it is because individuals who are more partisan are more likely to use those platforms. But it is easier to blame social media for, say, the election of Donald Trump than it is to address the disenchantment that drove his victory in 2016.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Has anyone noticed how people who claim to be worried about climate change never seem to be heartened or happy by any evidence that global warming might not be as bad as they thought?
It’s the opposite, the seem to get angry and disappointed.
Of course, they’re having their belief system challenged and not being proper scientists they cannot respond logically.
Because it’s not science, it’s a cult.
Have you actually managed to get them to look at/listen to the evidence though? I find that trying to discuss AGW with believers (and it’s the same with covid lovers) usually results in an unpleasant personal attack – both seem to be subjects that bypass a logical, adult and interesting exchange of views, in favour of red faced cries of ‘so you’re a denier then?!’ I find it so depressing I avoid those sort of conversations except with like minded folk, coward that I am – but life’s just too short.
I have managed to have the odd sensible conversation.
Where it ends up is them not believing the evidence I put forward. In other words, they don’t believe the good news.
It’s fair enough. None of us really scrutinise or fully understand the data we are given. We basically trust our sources. If the DS publishes an article saying no global warming in the last 20 years, I might read through the rationale, but I don’t really. have any real basis for challenging it, or knowing whether it’s right or not.
We are each in our belief systems. I don’t believe we’re facing a catastrophe, they think we’re doomed unless we do some crazy drastic stuff.
It’s strange because if you were sick and a doctor told you you needed an operation and then after several months – it’s the NHS remember, it takes many months to get an operation – when you’re due to have your operation and they do some pre-op tests and the doctor suddenly tells you: good news, it turns out you’re not as bad as we thought and you don’t need the operation, you’d be pretty happy. You might want to get a second opinion, but you wouldn’t get angry and defensive about the new diagnosis.
Unless you’re a hypochondriac. Maybe that’s what climate freaks are, like hypochondriacs.
You may not but others can and do. All you need is to be able to read a graph.
How do you know the data in the graph is correct?
How do you know that is all the data?
How do you know that the graph tells the full story?
You think the climate freaks don’t have graphs and don’t know how to read graphs (to put it in your simplistic terms)?
Understanding some things in depth requires knowledge and expertise.
I take the trouble to understand the arguments presented and I verify them against my own personal observations and experience where possible. But that doesn’t always give me certainty. Rarely, in fact.
Their ‘belief’ is non-evidence based and depends on unfalsifiable claims… Man is destroying the Planet, future generations will suffer, for example.
Where there is no evidence to support a hypothesis, there can be none to refute it.
That is why ‘science’ used to support ideology and in politics is all about abstractions, which are impossible to challenge as there is no substance – it is like trying to fight with air molecules.
If a person claims there is a teapot on Mars, then it is up to them to prove it or at least to provide evidence for that. It is not up to anyone else to disprove there is a teapot on that planet. This is basically what has been happening in the global warming/ climate change issue now for years. But if something cannot be falsified, it isn’t science, and if everything that happens is due to your theory then you are not indulging in science. Most people who come in from work and stick on their 6 O’clock News every night to hear another and another and another global warming story accompanied by images of a typhoon sweeping cars down the street would be amazed to find out that in the real world there is no increase in the frequency or intensity, of any type of weather event anywhere in the world. What we do know however is that there are more people and buildings in the way of weather events that have always occurred. Until people get some basic understanding of the politics involved in this issue, they are forever going to be easily manipulated and their prosperity and freedoms will continue to be removed ——to “save the planet”
I liken this type of response from global warming alarmists to someone who is told by a doctor that they are likely to have cancer. Obviously cancer is bad news, as is the claim that the earth may warm by 5 degrees or more, and the patient is rightly worried. If a second doctor then says that he’s taken a closer look at the data and/or undertaken more tests and it turns out that the tumor is benign, and there is nothing to worry about, every sane person would welcome this as excellent news. Only an idiot would get upset and say “this can’t be true, I must have cancer” or call the second doctor a liar or charlatan. Therefore it genuinely puzzles me why people who quite rightly care about the future of the planet/humanity refuse to accept the good news and insist that things have to be bad.
Note also how they happily take holidays to sunny, warm places and.or go skiing in plenty of snow.
“This just in!”…apologies for leaving an off-territory Mogwai dump here but Dr Aseem Malhotra just dropped a massive truth bomb on the BBC. The segment starts off talking about statins but at around 3mins 20secs he goes off on one talking about the gene therapies and excess deaths. You can tell the BBC woman is having voices in her ear urging her to shut him down and get back to the safe topic of statins! lol Very good and top marks to Dr Malhotra for getting the truth out on the Beeb of all places.
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra
Did they really think they were going to get him on to talk about Statins and he wouldn’t mention the Jim Jones Juice? They are even more stupid than I thought.
Fabulous interview, not just for the mRNA truth bomb, but also the processed foods warning!!
Many Americans have seen their climate warm considerably in the last couple of years, but that’s because they’ve moved to Florida. people like it warm!
They like lower taxes and non-wokery better.
Many Florida immigrants are ex California – it’s warm there.
They like DeSantis better..(don’t tell anyone,we are Democrats)
A few weeks ago Californians were complaining about drought, now its raining and they are still complaining. No suiting some people.
Any one who has lived the city life and then moves to the countryside is fully aware of the urban heat Island effect. I moved a few miles from my town to a more isolated setting in a village, even there the difference in temperature is noticeable. For anyone to therefore quote surface temperatures as we rapidly grow towns over the years is playing fast and loose.
I lived in central London and my office was in a North London suburb.
In Winter, a couple degrees above freezing and no frost or snow when I left home, freezing and frost or an inch of snow when I got to the office.
The urban heat island effect in central London is around 3 degrees C, with temperatures similar to the Channel Islands. It’s very noticeable in winter.
Averaging temperature readings from different locations is still meaningless nonsense and Nonsense value moved in direction! is not news.
‘… the Met Office HadCRUT global dataset recorded warming of 0.03°C per decade during the hiatus years of 2000-2014.’
That’s interesting because most – nearly all – surface temperature measuring instruments are not accurate to more than one tenth of a degree, many accurate to half a degree.
So HadCRUD produces output numbers to a far greater accuracy than the input data. Clever. So global warming is Manmade in the bowels of HadCRUT Central computer algorithms.
And since the global near surface temperature record is an average, has a margin of error of at least +/-1C therefore, so warming of 0.03C is in effect zero.
And… in the late 90s one of the ‘Climate Cabal’ said, if the current ‘pause’ lasts more than 15 years, then they would have to reconsider their claims. Well…?
Accuracy of temperature measurement is a complex issue, and the accuracy does not necessarily stay the same across a range of values. It might be (say) +/- 0.2 °C at 0 °C, but less accurate at (say) 30 °C. But, as you say, tiny changes like 0.03 are virtually meaningless.
I think it’s more to do with the embarrassment, and realisation of being took for a fool!…all those years teaching it and believing it and preaching it only to find you where wrong! that’s a lot for any ego to swallow,and,… you where on the majority side? How could this be?
“It’s not true, fingers back in ears, eyes covered, whistle!”
I can’t find anywhere the justification for increasing the temperatures in HADCRUT – they must have offered some explanation for this, especially as the adjustments are all one way.
WHY WHY WHY use a chart 1979-2022, a ridiculously brief period, showing a period of rising temperatures and COMPLETELY DESTROY the points you are trying to make?? A lot of people just skim read but they DO look at pictures/graphics and you reinforce their warmist thinking.
Some years ago a lead author at the IPCC said” In about 10 years time we are going to have to concede that there must be something seriously wrong with our models, as a 20 year pause in warming does not occur in a single one of them”———–Time has passed by and that 20 year period has been reached and now passed, with very little warming of any significance despite more and more CO2 going into the atmosphere. So the theory of human caused global warming is falsified by ——The Evidence.— Some of us have seen for years that the whole climate change charade stinks. It is eco socialism masquerading as science, where anyone who dares question any aspect of it is told “So you think you know more than the scientists.”? But science is NOT a dictatorship, and the whole idea in science is to question everything, especially when the facts do not fit the theory. Everything we hear about this issue is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. When we are told “Listen to the scientists”, what that really means is “Listen to the modellers”, but models are NOT science, and they are NOT evidence of anything. All of the models, sometimes costing millions have been way off the mark, projecting way more warming than has actually occurred, yet that does not seem to matter and all that we get is the next modelling fantasy rolled out as if it represented some kind of ultimate truth rather than un-validated speculation in models full of assumptions. The general public though, busy with work and family life see endless storms, floods and extreme weather on their TV screens beamed from all corners of the globe, with wheeled out experts insisting that this is all due to “global warming” and it is virtually impossible to shift that notion from their heads. Propaganda is such a powerful tool. I have on occasion noticed that if you say to someone eg “Polar Bear numbers are increasing”, they look at you like you are from Mars. So entrenched is the idea that Polar Bears are in big trouble that the person becomes like a rabbit in the headlights. So why then would people say there was dangerous climate change if there isn’t? ———-That is the crucial question, and for the answer you must turn to POLITICS. Because all of this climate change dogma emanates from the UN IPCC. A Political body, not a scientific one, whose remit is to look for everything that would seem to indicate that humans affect the climate while ignoring everything that doesn’t indicate that.
The Net Zero lunacy isn’t about the climate. That’s just the means by which the Globalists have brainwashed the very comfortable western sheeple, particularly young people, to support their objectives
It’s about control; gradually equalising global living standards by levelling down the successful west and transferring vast sums of money to the least successful countries/regions: UN Agenda 2030.
There is no genuine evidence that human-generated CO2 is a problem: there IS evidence that environmental degradation and and unsustainable population explosion a is having a negative effect in some countries ie in Pakistan where the impact of the recent flooding was made worse because of their vastly expanded and poor population and de-forestation.
But, strictly speaking, that is not OUR fault or OUR problem and remedying it will not happen by depriving British citizens of gas central heating.
I notice the New Scientist has “paused” it’s climate doom mongering!!
What is most important is free open debate about climate change without one side being censored or demonitized.
True science is based upon free speech, and any and all ideas and theories being open to scrutiny and criticism.
If anyone says ‘the science is settled’ you know they are talking about ideology and not science.