Facebook Censors For Daring To Say COVID Came From Wuhan Lab, Then Reverses Due To Pressure
On Feb. 23, Steven Mosher, president of the conservative Population Research Institute, had a commentary piece published in the New York Post regarding the origins of the novel coronavirus in China.
He wasn’t entirely convinced of the official origin story, infected bats being sold or eaten at a wet market in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
Instead, in the piece, he argued that the origin of the virus might be from an accident or an unauthorized leak from a laboratory in Wuhan.
As the Post noted in an editorial published Friday, “Mosher cited a host of suggestive facts, including urgent government directives, the sudden trip of China’s top biowar expert to Wuhan and that nation’s shoddy record of lab safety — as well as gaping holes in the wet-market explanation, such as the fact that the market in question doesn’t sell bats, the animal from which the bug supposedly jumped.”
This was reasonably persuasive stuff, presented weeks before the rest of the media started covering it — and not just the conservative outlets, which we’ll get to in a bit. It was an opinion column, albeit one written by a persuasive individual who knew quite a bit about the subject. What could be wrong with that?
Facebook Censors Findings
It turns out this was a problem with Facebook, who decided that this was a message that should not get out, so they immediately flagged the message, they were determined to shut down the distribution of this article.
“The social media giant’s ‘fact-checkers’ decided this was not a valid opinion. If you tried to share Mosher’s column on Facebook, the social network stuck a ‘False Information’ alert on top, saying that finding was ‘checked by independent fact-checkers’ and preventing your friends from clicking to connect to the original article to see for themselves,” the Post editorial board wrote in Friday’s piece, describing what can only be called censorship by the social media giant.
“Again, this was an opinion column, not a news report,” the editorial continued.
“How, exactly, did Facebook determine that Mosher’s reasoned arguments constituted ‘False information’? Well, it didn’t so determine: Rather, it was an ‘independent fact-checker.'”
The question has to be asked since experts have shown this as highly likely, but what right does Facebook censor this? Who are their experts, are they, infectious disease experts, and if not, why?
The social network without having any actual scientific fact-checking had the article flagged as invalid. This is nothing but blatant censorship, something Facebook promised not to do.
That independent fact-checkers piece, somewhat unbelievably, used information from an individual who “had a clear conflict of interest: She has regularly worked with Wuhan’s researchers, and even done her own experiments there,” the Post wrote.
In other words, Facebook is allowing people controlled by China, putting out the misinformation they are demanding, to have priority over actual experts.
“Danielle E. Anderson, assistant professor, Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, personally attested to the lab’s ‘strict control and containment measures.’
“Anderson did admit, however, that Mosher was correct when he mentioned that SARS did twice escape a Beijing research lab in 2004,” the Post editorial added.
What we are seeing is more control of what we are getting by leftist ran organizations. I find this interesting; we started up 0censor Community. We did this to get away from this if something conflicts, give access to the conflicting data, let you, the reader, decide what you find acceptable or not. We are gatekeepers, not censors. Our call is to give open and free access to data, not control the data seen, to manipulate your opinion.
If something is false, let people dispute it, show the facts, not silence, this is how good and new ideas are stamped out.
In all fairness to Facebook, this could have been a mistake, but we have seen far too many of these “mistakes” over the years. It seems in their quest to control information the gatekeepers are trying to close the gates to information they don’t want to get out.