https://downdetector.com/
>site looks like something a russian bot would share on facebook to make you look stupid in front of your friends and relatives
Claire Wardle
https://twitter.com/cward1e
https://clairewardle.com/
https://twitter.com/firstdraftnews
Leading strategy at @firstdraftnews, a non-profit dedicated to tackling misinformation globally.
>https://twitter.com/firstdraftnews
We work to protect communities from harmful disinformation by sharing tips and resources to build resilience and improve access to accurate information.
https://firstdraftnews.org/
https://twitter.com/stevievzh/status/1440596194418249729
https://twitter.com/stevievzh
(they/them) research reporter @firstdraftnews | formerly @ASPI_ICPC @farragomagazine @journalism_melb
https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/best-practices-for-reporting-on-the-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/
The unproven lab leak theory, Wuhan lab and virus origin: Reporting best practices
Over the past few weeks, the unproven lab-leak theory that the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have originated from a Wuhan lab (China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology) have crept back into the headlines.
Uncertainty about Covid-19’s origin and media treatment of the various theories have not only drawn criticism of news organizations, but have also placed audiences in a murky environment where they are left on their own to untangle theories from political influences and conspiratorial disinformation.
What can we as journalists and researchers learn from this, to ensure that this investigation — and similar ones in the future — are properly covered without contributing to more public confusion? Here are First Draft’s tips on best practices for reporting on the so-called lab-leak theory, a sensitive subject with major geopolitical implications.
Be upfront about the ongoing and ever-changing nature of the investigations
Be clear to your audience that the investigation into the virus’ origin is ongoing, and new discoveries or evidence can emerge from time to time. Incremental releases of evidence should not be treated as definitive proof for a theory, as doing so can mislead readers into attributing too much confidence to one theory and discrediting others.
When the first phase of the World Health Organization’s investigation concluded in February, investigators stated that the possibility of the coronavirus leaking from the Wuhan lab was “extremely unlikely” based on current evidence. A number of scientists, including investigators from the WHO team, signed a statement in The Lancet that to some degree ruled out the lab-leak hypothesis, citing studies that had “overwhelmingly concluded” the virus emerged from wildlife. However, this was far from being a definitive conclusion, as others disagreed. Shortly thereafter, a different group including scientists called for a new investigation, saying the WHO report was constrained by structural limitations. This was not decisive evidence in favor of either theory, but rather an indication that more information was needed. Outbreak-origin investigations can often take years and are complicated for a slew of reasons. It took 14 years to confirm where the 2003 SARS outbreak originated; it was also caused by a virus in the coronavirus family. The origin of the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak has yet to be determined.
Thus, being clear about the ongoing possibility that scientific consensus can change helps prepare readers if or when it happens. This creates an understanding that such shifts are natural, even common, in the field of science, and are not evidence of a conspiracy. For the most part, audiences are unused to scientific uncertainty — we often do not get to see an entire fact-finding process play out in front of our eyes, only the conclusion.
Be clear about political influences surrounding the Wuhan lab and virus origin
Major investigations such as this one have and will be subject to political pressures and have an impact on geopolitical dynamics. Unfortunately, public scrutiny often comes to the detriment of the scientific work, so beware of both the pressures that can influence your reporting, as well as how your work might shape the debate.
In the unique political environment of 2020, media organizations pre-emptively shifted toward discounting the theory that the virus might have originated in the Wuhan lab before any official announcement had been made. In particular, when the theory was repeated by former US President Donald Trump, mainstream media widely criticized it for its conspiratorial and Sinophobic tone. But this overshadowed legitimate scientific concerns for the broader public, and for Trump supporters signaled yet another reason for distrust toward the media.
However, in light of President Joe Biden’s call for a renewed probe into the coronavirus’ origin, new reports that three staff members of the Wuhan lab sought hospital care in November 2019 before the first outbreak was reported, and recently released email correspondence from Dr. Anthony Fauci, news organizations are now addressing the theory in a vastly different tone. This turn manifested in both op-eds from the media admonishing peers about how badly they “got it wrong” as well as explainers about why the theory matters now.
What makes this theory challenging to report on is that it is inextricably tangled in the geopolitical dynamics of US-China relations and American domestic politics. Furthermore, irresponsible reporting can shift the onus and political pressure onto scientists, and harm efforts to reach a definitive conclusion on the virus’ origin. To report effectively is to be able to untangle the relationship between conspiratorial and racist actors abusing the theory for their own means, and the facts underpinning the credibility of the theory in the scientific community.
Be aware of the risks of amplification
At this stage, media reporting about the theory and investigation has become something of an ouroboros — a snake eating its own tail. Articles about the lab-leak theory focus on the angle that major public figures and the media are talking about the theory. However, this in itself does not always warrant further reporting.
When reporting on ongoing investigations, following this line of reasoning can also run the risk of amplifying unproven theories from unqualified individuals.
In the case of the lab-leak theory, a fringe anti-Chinese Communist Party group linked to former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon initially circulated a document in February, claiming that it was evidence the Chinese military had floated the idea of creating bioweapons from coronaviruses back in 2015. The document was subsequently picked up by a national Australian newspaper in May, spotlighted by a journalist who claimed this was evidence of a conspiracy by the Chinese military. Around this time, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, a well-known figure in the anti-CCP group who had been pushing the bioweapon theory since early 2020, also promoted the document in an interview with conservative website Newsmax, falling back on her credentials as a virologist, despite already having been discredited by numerous institutions. It spread from there to a slew of Indian and British outlets.
In reality, the document was a book, and while published by a Chinese military publisher, had no official military backing. Also, it said something entirely different — it explored the possibility that the 2003 SARS outbreak was a bioweapon introduced TO China — and was not a secret at all. The book is even available for purchase online. These careless reports add to an already murky and tense atmosphere surrounding the origin of the coronavirus as well as the process of finding it.
Be precise in wording, especially in headlines
It is absolutely crucial to be precise, clear and specific about what exactly is being investigated, and what the theories are.
While the current US-led investigation is concerned with whether the virus emerged from human contact with an infected animal or was accidentally leaked from the Wuhan lab, online reactions were more interested in the possibility that the virus could have been deliberately created or modified at the lab, even suggesting it could have been a bioweapon. Indeed, experts have pointed out that a virus accidentally being leaked from a lab is within the realm of possibility, but the suggestion that the virus was engineered is “so implausible as to have drifted well into conspiracy theory territory.” However, the two vastly different ideas have been referred to interchangeably, and misleadingly, as the “lab-leak theory,” both in the context of further investigation and in debunking. It has thus become increasingly difficult to determine which precise aspect of the lab-leak theory, and its plausibility, is being discussed. Investigations can also be misinterpreted as a fault-finding process and exacerbate already-tense political relations, and can be manipulated by harmful actors to suit their own narratives.
Special attention should be paid to the crafting of headlines. Headlines are the first — and sometimes only — interaction social media users have with the news item. As the press churns out explainer after explainer about why the public should pay attention to the theory again, headlines that do not specify the accidental nature of the possible leak run the risk of creating unfounded credibility for the bioweapon theory. Examples of well-crafted headlines include Bloomberg/Quint’s “Biden Renews Virus Origin Probe That’s So Far Come Up Empty,” which telegraphs to the reader that the leak theory has so far been unproven; as well as The New York Times’ “Scientists Don’t Want to Ignore the ‘Lab Leak’ Theory, Despite No New Evidence,” which includes both a signal that the theory is worth paying attention to, citing an authoritative source, and the context that no more weight should be given to it at the moment as there is a lack of new evidence.
Think about whether anything needs to be written at all
Lastly, consider whether it’s necessary for your organization to publish anything about the theory at all. Repeating it without new, concrete evidence will at best not help advance the conversation, and at worst can create the impression that the theory carries more weight than it does. The best way to serve your readers is to lay out all the facts and remind them that the investigation is in progress, and no definitive conclusion has been reached.
https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/youtube-climate-change-denial/
How 4chan and 8kun users rely on YouTube videos to spread climate change denialism
As journalists and researchers have focused on addressing Covid-19 falsehoods over the past year, conspiracy theories and misinformation linked to an altogether different global crisis - climate change - continued to spread online.
This article is the fifth in our Digital Investigations Recipe Series, a collaboration between the Public Data Lab, Digital Methods Initiative, Open Intelligence Lab and First Draft. Please read our example investigation below first and then refer to the recipe Cross-platform construction of a conspiracy theory over time: URL analysis for a step-by-step guide on how to conduct a similar investigation.
To identify popular climate change misinformation circulating online, First Draft analyzed climate change-related conversations over the past year on the fringe platforms 4chan and 8kun. We found over 2,000 posts on 4chan falsely claiming “climate change is a scam.” A further 250 similar posts were identified on 8kun, the smaller, more radical board that took over from 8chan.
We know from previous work that communities use and repurpose external links to news and blog articles, for example, to build support for a conspiracy theory. To identify the material being used to support these false narratives and conspiracy theories, we extracted the most common domains found in those 4chan and 8kun posts.
What we found
Among the posts claiming “climate change is a scam,” YouTube was the most popular domain, appearing in over 100 posts. That was followed by BitChute, another video platform known for its far-right and conspiracy theory-related content.
The most frequently appearing link in the dataset was a YouTube video called “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It has been viewed over a million times and remains online as of this writing. A statement from the creators of the film falsely claims that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.”
YouTube’s prominence in the dataset makes sense, given the sheer size of the platform as well as what we know about the “echo chamber” of some content on the platform. Nonetheless, the rampant use of YouTube links on 4chan and 8kun emphasizes how misinformation on the platform is being pushed to networks in other online spaces.
Surprisingly, the third-most common domain among the 2,000-plus posts we analyzed were web archive links from sites such as the Wayback Machine, Archive.vn and Archive.is. Web archiving is the process of saving versions of a webpage or social media post to ensure there is a record of it in case the content is banned or taken down. In the past year, actors have used archiving services, such as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, to evade the algorithmic demotion and fact checking of their content on social media.
We also found that 4chan and 8kun users were sharing Wikipedia links to support climate change denialism. Links to the “ExxonMobil climate change controversy” Wikipedia page, which discussed how ExxonMobil in the 1970s and ’80s funded climate change denial initiatives, were among some of the links cited. Other examples include Wikipedia links to “Government failure” and the “Parable of the broken window,” which users cited to push the narrative that money being “wasted on the climate hoax could be used to create other things including medical treatments, housing, and food. Important things that humans actually need.” Wikipedia’s open editing format means that the crowdsourced encyclopedia is often a target for misinformation.
To see the relationships among the domains in the dataset, we conducted a network analysis — looking at the most common domains in climate denialism forums on 4chan and 8kun and how they are used. We organized the links based on whether they appeared in the same 4chan or 8kun thread. This is known as a URL or domain co-link network. The lines (or edges) connecting the dots signify domains that appeared in the same thread.
The larger the size of the circles (or nodes), the more connections these nodes have with other nodes. The large size of YouTube, BitChute, Wikipedia and different web archive links underlines their importance in this network. That YouTube is not only the largest node but also at the center of this network is further evidence of the platform’s significance among climate change conspiracy theory conversations occurring in this dataset.
As the network map shows, YouTube videos often appear next to climate change-skeptical science blogs such as the pseudoscience website “Real Climate Science” and Breitbart News on 4chan and 8kun.
The issue of using links to bolster conspiracy theories extends beyond fringe spaces such as 4chan and 8kun. Often, URLs that are shared among communities on 4chan and 8kun are then pushed again onto larger and more mainstream platforms. We identified various YouTube videos in our data, such as “In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud” and “One hundred years of climate… change?” that had made their way onto Instagram, gaining hundreds of thousands to millions of views in days on YouTube.
Real-world consequences
In February, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that 2021 will be a “crucial year for action on climate change.” A separate UN survey showed broad global support for more action being taken to address this “global emergency.” But we know that climate change misinformation is closely linked to skepticism and denial.
Despite almost unanimous agreement among climate scientists (97%) that people are causing global warming, online conspiracy theories and misinformation have the potential to derail public support for climate change action.
To identify popular climate change misinformation circulating online, First Draft analyzed climate change-related conversations over the past year on the fringe platforms 4chan and 8kun. We found over 2,000 posts on 4chan falsely claiming “climate change is a scam.” A further 250 similar posts were identified on 8kun, the smaller, more radical board that took over from 8chan.
We know from previous work that communities use and repurpose external links to news and blog articles, for example, to build support for a conspiracy theory. To identify the material being used to support these false narratives and conspiracy theories, we extracted the most common domains found in those 4chan and 8kun posts.
YouTube’s prominence in the dataset makes sense, given the sheer size of the platform as well as what we know about the “echo chamber” of some content on the platform. Nonetheless, the rampant use of YouTube links on 4chan and 8kun emphasizes how misinformation on the platform is being pushed to networks in other online spaces.
To see the relationships among the domains in the dataset, we conducted a network analysis — looking at the most common domains in climate denialism forums on 4chan and 8kun and how they are used. We organized the links based on whether they appeared in the same 4chan or 8kun thread. This is known as a URL or domain co-link network. The lines (or edges) connecting the dots signify domains that appeared in the same thread.
The issue of using links to bolster conspiracy theories extends beyond fringe spaces such as 4chan and 8kun. Often, URLs that are shared among communities on 4chan and 8kun are then pushed again onto larger and more mainstream platforms. We identified various YouTube videos in our data, such as “In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud” and “One hundred years of climate… change?” that had made their way onto Instagram, gaining hundreds of thousands to millions of views in days on YouTube.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-misinformation-public-60-minutes-2021-10-03/
Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation
Frances Haugen says in her time with Facebook she saw, "conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook." Scott Pelley reports.
Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga prepare for Bennett's last big concert
The 95-year-old singer is gearing up for two more shows at Radio City Music Hall, though he's grappling with Alzheimer's. Anderson Cooper was there as he prepared.
once read somewhere that when kids cross their 't' low on the bar like that, it's a sign of depression / low self confidence
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/francis-collins-step-down-director-national-institutes-health
Francis Collins to step down as director of the National Institutes of Health
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., today announced his decision to end his tenure as the director of the National Institutes of Health by the end of the year. Dr. Collins is the longest serving presidentially appointed NIH director, having served three U.S. presidents over more than 12 years.
“It has been an incredible privilege to lead this great agency for more than a decade,” said Dr. Collins. “I love this agency and its people so deeply that the decision to step down was a difficult one, done in close counsel with my wife, Diane Baker, and my family. I am proud of all we’ve accomplished. I fundamentally believe, however, that no single person should serve in the position too long, and that it’s time to bring in a new scientist to lead the NIH into the future. I’m most grateful and proud of the NIH staff and the scientific community, whose extraordinary commitment to lifesaving research delivers hope to the American people and the world every day.”
A physician-geneticist, Dr. Collins took office as the 16th NIH director on August 17, 2009, after being appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2017, he was asked to continue in his role by President Donald Trump, and in 2021, by President Joe Biden. Prior to becoming the NIH director, Dr. Collins served as the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) from 1993-2008, where he led the international Human Genome Project, which culminated in April 2003 with the completion of a finished sequence of the human DNA instruction book.
“Few people could come anywhere close to achieving in a lifetime what Dr. Collins has at the helm of NIH,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. “It takes an extraordinary person to tackle the biggest scientific challenges facing our nation — and under three presidents, amidst three distinctly different chapters of American history. Dr. Collins, master of scientific breakthroughs and scientific reason — from mapping the human genome to fighting the most devastating pandemic of a century — has routinely broken ground to save countless lives, while unleashing innovation to benefit humanity for generations to come.”
Known for his accessible, plain-spoken manner, Dr. Collins garnered broad bipartisan Congressional support for NIH research. During his 12-year leadership, NIH’s budget grew by 38%, from $30 billion in 2009 to $41.3 billion in 2021. Dr. Collins proposed and established bold initiatives — extending from fundamental basic science to translational science to focused projects — to tackle some of the most pressing health issues facing Americans, including Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, opioid use disorder, rare diseases and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dr. Collins long envisioned that knowledge gained from the mapping of the human genome would be used to develop treatments tailored to every person’s unique genetics, environment and lifestyle. To spur research in the emergent area of precision medicine, Dr. Collins launched the All of Us Research Program, which is well on its way to enrolling one million people across the U.S. to provide their health data so that researchers can improve the way we prevent illness as well as treat the full spectrum of diseases and conditions. He also is the architect of several strong public-private partnerships such as the Accelerating Medicines Partnership to reduce the time from the identification of biological markers of disease to the development of treatments that target those pathways.
>Francis Collins to step down as director of the National Institutes of Health
In concert with the Obama administration, Dr. Collins launched the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, a multi-billion-dollar effort to develop sophisticated technologies to understand the neuronal networks of the brain and what goes wrong to cause Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, psychosis and other serious brain diseases. He worked closely with then Vice President Biden to launch the Cancer Moonshot Initiative to fuel innovation and speed new treatments to reduce cancer incidence and improve patient outcomes. Under the leadership of President Trump, Dr. Collins launched and galvanized the research and addiction communities around the HEAL (Helping to End Addiction Long-term) Initiative to address the national opioid crisis by improving treatments for opioid misuse and addiction and enhancing pain management. Working with both the Trump and Biden administrations to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Collins helped launch several game-changing initiatives, including the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public-private partnership that developed a coordinated research strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of promising treatments and vaccines; the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostic (RADx) program to create an innovation funnel for COVID-19 testing technologies; the Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Against COVID-19 Disparities to support partnerships in communities hardest hit by the pandemic and reduce health disparities; and the Researching COVID to Enhance Discoveries (RECOVER) Initiative(link is external) to identify why some patients don’t fully recover from the effects of COVID-19 disease and develop ways to treat these patients or even prevent long COVID altogether.
All these efforts have set the stage for a new component of NIH, known as the Advanced Research Project Agency for Health (ARPA-H), proposed by President Biden and strongly supported by Dr. Collins. ARPA-H is currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Modeled after DARPA in the Department of Defense, ARPA-H is envisioned to support and conduct high-risk, high-reward biomedical and health research in a way that is radically different than NIH’s grant-based system. The aim of ARPA-H is to collapse barriers and catalyze the development of transformative, evidence-based, use-driven cures for a range of biomedical challenges, from the molecular to the societal.
On the policy front, Dr. Collins has tackled many long-standing issues that have hampered science. He bolstered policies and activities to address sexual harassment and structural racism, enhance accountability and transparency in clinical trials and ensure broad data sharing. He has been a champion of early-stage researchers, implementing numerous policies to enable their success in a hyper-competitive research environment.
He is an avid supporter of science communication, and the importance of making the findings of NIH research accessible to the public. He shares information about the latest NIH research via his blog, Twitter handle(link is external) and through many social media events. He is known for using music to convene people with different perspectives and for his parodies about science.
Dr. Collins will continue to lead his research laboratory at the NHGRI, which is pursuing genomics, epigenomics and single cell biology to understand the causes and means of prevention for type 2 diabetes. His lab also seeks to develop new genetic therapies for the most dramatic form of premature aging, Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome.
About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.
NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®
>8kun, the smaller, more radical board that took over from 8chan.
>The pod people have arrived