Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinformation, report finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/facebook-fossil-fuel-industry-environment-climate-change

by shivbhatt • 5 years ago

82 50 5 years ago

raxxorrax6• 5 years ago

A social network will contain misinformation. The solution isn't to force facebook to ban content, the solution is getting people educated so they can form their own opinion. That more or less already worked and everyone tries to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, so this isn't even a problem.

grumpyprole2• 5 years ago

These were adverts from large corporations that Facebook published on their platform, not user content.

system2• 5 years ago

Facebook didn't publish them under their own name. Corporations did it, paid or not paid, who cares. The point is the users must be intelligent enough not to use facebook as their news and learning platform. If they want to believe whatever and decide the fate of the planet, so be it. Natural selection wins, we die as stupid species and the planet wins.

If it wasn't facebook, they'd find it elsewhere. Majority of the people is already opinionated and irreversibly ignorant.

raxxorrax6• 5 years ago

I expect a lot of advertisements to lie to me to be honest, especially political ones. They should be marked as advertising and this is something that was actually improved in the last years, even just for affiliations as the industry tried to hide the nature of their messages.

There are actually rules against false advertising, but they are ineffective. So people should have no illusion on content in ads. So much can be transported in education.

sofixa• 5 years ago

the solution is getting people educated so they can form their own opinion. That more or less already worked

Are you sure? The spread of batshit crazy and easily debunkable conspiracy theories such as Q, flat earth, Pizzagate, Covid is fake, etc. and empty populist political movements and people ( UKIP, Brexit, AfD, Trump, FN, etc.) would imply otherwise.

Too many people are thoroughly incapable of forming their own opinion based on reality and actual provable facts.

forcry2• 5 years ago

flat earth,

There is no rational reason to believe this. True. But there is no rational reason to believe "CDC/Scientists can be trusted" as well.

So do you consider the statement "CDC can be trusted" to be a batshit conspiracy theory?

raxxorrax6• 5 years ago

Flat earth, Q and friends are not part of the endemic beliefs of the general population. These are fringe beliefs. People might have the wrong impression about their spread because people like to write a lot about them. Curiosity makes luminaries waste out time or offer us entertainment. Also attractive to people that aren't too sure about themselves and try look for reassurance while looking at the clearly absurd. "At least those are more stupid than I am", "If those are not afraid of X, why should I be?".

Ukip, Brexit, AfD, Trump, FN are different phenomena in my opinion.

Some of Brexits arguments were objectively correct and there are no certainly correct or wrong opinions here. Especially on hot button terms like sovereignty and self-determination. It depends on what level you look. Self-determination against the EU or Russia/China/US? There are different answers here and none of them is entirely true. But the opposition just shut them down, so people responded in kind. That it was basically 50:50 is surely accidental, but I like to see it as a hint.

The AfD is radicalized now, but it was firstly headed by someone that has been vindicated by projections other economists failed at. He isn't in the party anymore, but what do you think happened with those that shared his beliefs? Those were correct too, what do you think they believe about their opposition today?

These beliefs aren't mine, but I understand their distrust. In many cases it is distrust that was earned, not by their failure to form an opinion, quite the contrary their opposition was in many cases completely incapable to understand the nature of their opposition, which paints a shadow on their own judgements.

The indignation against people not being able to think is misplaced in many cases, that is also true for the other way around of course.

altacc4• 5 years ago

The problem with that approach is that social networks are where people are getting educated. For large numbers of people, social media is their gateway to other sources of information, including news, opinion & their interests.

That more or less already worked and everyone tries to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, so this isn't even a problem.

Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power, I don't think you can be confident in that statement. Until recently, one of the largest polluters & economic powers in the world had a government that actively promoted fossil fuels over renewables and denied the fundamentals of anthropomorphic climate change. Environmental awareness & harm reduction is far from a given.

raxxorrax6• 5 years ago

Given that there is still large scale climate change denial and opposition to renewable power

You will never reach 100% consensus on any topic and acknowledging it does also not mean that you have to support certain policies.

Don't point your finger at those that are in denial of your perspective, it won't help you solve anything.

If you try to ban them, they will get secondary support at least from people that support human rights like freedom of expression, which is also valid for wrong or stupid opinions.

So you have to go the difficult route of making a good argument for your position and convince others. There is no shortcut here.

jaspax2• 5 years ago

I find the article to be disingenuous to the extreme, and indicative of the current trend of calling all politically disfavoured speech as "misinformation". They denounce the ad, but fail to actually note a single factual error or misleading claim beyond the broad statement that they presented fossils fuels as necessary for a quality of life and part of a green lifestyle. Yet surely if that's not true, then it should be trivial to point out the factual error, right? But they don't, they don't even bother, and at the time I'm writing this, the link to the actual report is a 404.

I'm not carrying water for Exxon and would like us to move to sustainable energy, but by the same measure I'm sick of being told that something is "misinformation" with no justification given other than the fact that it was put forth by unpopular person or organisation.

zpeti5• 5 years ago

Perhaps the guardian can point out scalable sustainable ways to create billions of car tyres per year, corrosion resistant plastics for underground pipes and sea cables, sustainable scalable replacements for the cosmetics industry, and then call this misinformation.

Until then it’s basically them spreading misinformation about what quality of life without fossils is like.

This is such a gray and difficult area this propaganda pretending to be journalism is ridiculous.

throwaway2048• 5 years ago

So reporting about problems that don't have obvious solutions is misinformation?

RangerScience2• 5 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

isn't there kind of a huge difference, regarding climate change, with using fossil fuels for plastics, etc, and burning them for energy?

Like - plastics (particularly in the ocean) do present a massive issue, but they're dwarfed by the problem that is C02 and climate change?

yongjik• 5 years ago

create billions of car tyres per year, corrosion resistant plastics for underground pipes and sea cables, sustainable scalable replacements for the cosmetics industry ...

Textbook example of climate misinformation. People are talking about not using fossil fuels. Nobody's talking about banning tires or lotions. (Well, I mean, nobody who's being taken seriously. I'm sure you'll find a few village idiots wanting to go back to wooden chariots, if you look hard enough.)

eyelovewe6• 5 years ago

And your so-called-quality of life comes with the price of extinguishing any future above ground for our grandchildren, mass extinctions, and a whole lot of low quality of life for the vast majority of humanity.

We MUST prioritize R&D for precisely the things you mention, but the onus is on industry to adapt, not stymie necessary conversations and necessary change.

Get on board

grumpyprole2• 5 years ago

The adverts probably don't contain any "facts" that can be easily disproved. Broad statements like "fossil gas can be green" are what you will find, but it's propaganda none the less.

jaspax2• 5 years ago

By that standard, the Guardian article itself is propaganda because it insinuates malfeasance without making any specifically refutable claims.

And that's probably true. Almost all news is propaganda.

11235813213455• 5 years ago

Those industries buy themselves a clean environment-friendly image

A recent example I found is Formula1 planning to be "carbon-free" by 2030 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51226066, but carbon-offsetting is something very discussable, and they wouldn't account for their fans carbon cost which represent 8 times theirs (a solution could be no spectators, and at this point they could avoid travelling around the planet which would save from almost all their pollution)

To be fair, I'm not especially against those producers, I think the ones that need to act responsibly are consumers and their elected governments. Consumption decrease → demand decrease → production will adjust accordingly

systemvoltage• 5 years ago

I 100% support green initiatives, but I had an argument with someone in Bay Area that basically boiled down to whether I should exist or not - because existence itself is waste of energy and warming up the planet. I wish I was joking.

dead-snake• 5 years ago

Self-hatred, or general misanthropy, seems to be a strong element of the modern "environmental"/anti-energy-use movement.

th0ma5• 5 years ago

Is it really their job to restate something that has been proven for decades? Two entire generation have grown into adulthood with the truth about climate change being known, but for some reason, somehow, you're still calling opposition to fact "politically disfavored" when usually you would call that not factual, or misinformation at the least, and at worst disinformation, or otherwise deliberately misleading information. I'm sure a lot of facts in the world people don't like. That doesn't make it any less misinformation.

I don't know why you think that they need to restate what you should already know, and also seemingly already know because you state that you agree with it.

By not playing that game, to try to justify it further when there is no need, they're showing that it is indeed misinformation.

MattGaiser3• 5 years ago

That climate change is real is proven and has long been proven. But they didn't claim that an oil company disputed that.

Lutger2• 5 years ago

I disagree. The guardian article reports that according to some US senators, facebook permits ads that contain 'demonstrably false claims'. However, most of the article is about misinformation that is actually more subtle than having false claims.

It seems you mistake misinformation for false claims. They are not the same. Misinformation is a truth claim that has the intention to deceive in order to further an agenda. It's doesn't even have to be false!

For example, Shell used to push really hard that it 'planted 5 million trees' and invests in renewables in the Netherlands. The intention was clearly prop up a reputation as a green company. But actually, that investment is not even a blip on the radar compared to their continued investments in fossil fuels, including exploring new sources in the arctic, which is completely incompatible with the Paris agreement. This is pure greenwashing and rightly called misinformation, even which there isn't a single false truth claim.

Your post, on the other hand, has a couple of false claims, but it clearly isn't misinformation. Unless it's really good and you have me fooled.

By the way, the 404 isn't really the guardians fault, InfluenceMap seems to have (re)moved the report.

zpeti5• 5 years ago

So saying facts, that they planted 5 million trees, is “misinformation” because they also pump a lot of oil?

Not that there ever was a definition of misinformation but wtf is your definition? And how the hell do you objectively decide what is misinformation if facts can be that?

And how is Facebook supposed to measure what facts are actually misinformation by your standards? Should they build an AI that is able to recognise that because shell pumps a lot of oil they shouldnt be able to run ads about planting 5m trees?

Do you realise what you are advocating for?

mjevans• 5 years ago

An alternate conclusion might be to employ a third party firm. Actually two or more third party firms. There'd be some overlap and a majority vote among the overlap for strongly Approved / Rejected ads.

Crucially the rate of pay would be based on a given provider's quality for the over-reviewed test cases.

Also every provider would verify with "moron in a hurry" standard of confusion / disinformation. They might also flag questionable items for review by regulatory bodies in cases where it isn't clear.

MattGaiser3• 5 years ago

What are the factual errors here?

promoting claims that natural gas is a green or low carbon fuel, even though research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says otherwise.

Context matters here. I have usually seen natural gas discussed in comparison to coal. And in that context, especially if you calculate point source emissions only, it is definitely true.

continued use of oil as affordable, reliable and important to keep the US from relying on other countries for its energy supply.

Is any of this factually inaccurate? It is affordable on account of being the standard. It is reliable as we all use it without a second thought. And it is probably the energy source that is most reliably American at the current on account of rare earths.

There are still lots of areas where there are no real non oil and gas solutions, like steel making or tires.

I personally don't see oil and gas having much of a future long term, so I am by no means on their side, but if you want to fact check, you need to do it with a specific claim in context and the article gives no indication that this is what is going on.

RangerScience2• 5 years ago

reliably American

What does this mean?

MattGaiser3• 5 years ago

The USA controls the supply chain for obtaining energy from oil and most oil used in the USA comes from the USA. This is not the case with solar in my understanding. Not sure about wind.

Popegaf• 5 years ago

Facebook let's everybody push misinformation; just like Twitter and Reddit. At this point, it'd just be more useful to point out who's spreading misinformation, what that is, why it's misinformation, and what the up-to-date facts are.

That it's been spread on social media is a given and not at all surprising.

aaron695• 5 years ago

"thinktank InfluenceMap "

Will people catch on that the environment lobbyists are as powerful as big oil. And care about you as much as big oil.

At least big oil sold you a product, so they had some responsibility to make a product that benefits you. Environmental lobbyists like InfluenceMap have zero responsibility to either you or the environment, only the people funding them.

eyelovewe6• 5 years ago

Let’s see, comparing a movement spawned by very clear science that we are endangering our future to an industrial lobby that is lying to maintain profits.

Sorry. Nope. That is intellectual dishonesty of the first rate.

ayngg• 5 years ago

I feel like the threat of misinformation wouldn't be as significant if trust in institutions wasn't so abysmally low right now.

Everyone needs trusted sources to make sense of the world, and if politicians and traditional media sources have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't very trustworthy, it makes sense that people will start looking elsewhere for their information. On top of that, advertising is pretty much just half truths and lies by omission at this point anyways.

Of course it is a lot easier to simply deflect this responsibility onto social media, but do we really want to be empowering these mega corporations to be arbiters of truth? Social media by design isn't really capable of moderating the inflows of content responsibly as it is.

Glench• 5 years ago

Is it just me or are there a lot of HN commenters defending fossil fuels on any story related to the environment?

Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinformation, report finds

Related Stories