View previous stories
	Scientists comment on the Unites States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement by Union of Concerned Scientists, agencies USA   Jan. 20125   Scientists comment on the Unites States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement:   Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London:   “The Paris Agreement is a human rights agreement.. Climate change is already making life more difficult for people in America, and around the world. With every fraction of a degree of warming, extreme weather events will intensify and impact basic human rights, like the right to food, housing, work, and medical care.   “The basic laws of physics – that a hotter climate causes more dangerous weather – will continue, independent of Donald Trump’s agenda.   “Moving away from fossil fuels and limiting warming to the Paris Agreement will make the world safer, healthier, and more equal. For many of us, these are goals worth fighting for, so it is important, more than ever to tell a different narrative to Trump’s, no matter what he and his government do and say.”   Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at UCL:   “Donald Trump has won a second term as US President and this will have a profound impact on the domestic and international climate change agenda. Trump declared during his election campaign that he does not believe in climate change. Pulling out one of the world superpowers from COP negotiations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is a big deal – as it allows other countries to slow their own decarbonisation and blame the US instead of their own lack of ambition.. The transition from fossil fuels is too slow and the UN have suggested that with current trends we are looking at at least a extremely dangerous 3.1˚C warming by the end of the century.   Julio Diaz and Cristina Linares, scientific coordinators of the Observatory on Health and Climate Change, said:   “The United States is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (11%), after China (30%), but has contributed the most to global warming. Its exit from the Paris Agreement will have an impact on the US’s emissions reduction targets, but the advance of renewable energies is unstoppable, although this will be a major setback. It may also serve as a negative example for other countries (China) to be more lax in limiting their emissions.   On the other hand, the Paris Agreement also talks about financing for the countries most affected by the climate crisis, so the exit may also affect the agreements reached at COP29. In addition, Trump has also signed the withdrawal from the WHO, so it is assumed that the impact of climate change on health is something that does not interest this new administration in the slightest.   A decision that comes in the wake of 2024 being the warmest year globally, the recent fires in California, the floods in Valencia and a particularly harsh winter in the USA. All of this with clear implications for morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. A decision that is incomprehensible from a scientific point of view and discouraging for all of us who work in this field”.   Anna Cabre, Climate physicist, research consultant at the University of Pennsylvania, said:   “This is bad news because without cooperation and funding from all countries it is difficult to make progress. In this case we are talking about one of the countries that emits the most per capita and has emitted the most throughout history, i.e. the one that should take more responsibility, not less. Moreover, it is a country that is already suffering the effects of climate change, as evidenced by the recent fires in Los Angeles. Even economic experts say that the transition to a low-carbon world is a profitable business opportunity.   “For all these reasons, the decision taken is irresponsible. It seems to be acting on the belief that it is not their turn to pay for anything and every man for himself. The only positive thing that could come out of this is that alliances are formed between other, stronger countries without US involvement, and that states, cities and businesses continue to move forward, keeping the process moving forward regardless”.   Ani Dasgupta, President, World Resources Institute:   “The Paris Agreement remains as essential as ever. UN climate negotiations are the only platform where every nation has a voice on one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Whether it’s to tackle the catastrophic climate impacts they face or tap into rapidly growing green technologies, countries recognize the critical value of this international process.   Every year, far too many US communities are bombarded with deadly wildfires, floods and hurricanes that know no borders.. Walking away from the Paris Agreement won’t protect Americans from climate impacts. We are in a generational struggle to move the world to a safer place. Today’s abdication of responsibility by President Trump will not derail the world from this fight".   Ottmar Edenhofer, Climate Economist and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:   "Trump’s return to the White House raises serious concerns about the future of international climate cooperation. His intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement would have far reaching implications. It could disrupt the COP process, weaken the U.S.’s influence in UN climate negotiations, limit domestic climate action, and reduce the pressure on other major emitters, such as China, to adopt more ambitious climate targets. Trump’s plans to expand oil and gas extraction would deepen climate risks.   Johan Rockstrom, Earth System Scientist and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:   "With Trump’s return to the White House, we face renewed uncertainty and significant challenges in addressing the global climate crisis. His previous term saw a dangerous pause in efforts to mitigate climate change; another delay is time we cannot afford to lose.   Science provides the solutions we need to secure a more competitive, resilient, and prosperous future. While the direction of U.S. climate leadership may change, it is essential to focus on phasing out fossil fuels, investing in sustainable food systems, protecting nature, and using resources efficiently. These actions are not sacrifices, but opportunities to thrive within the Planetary Boundaries, ensuring stability, health, and prosperity for generations to come."   U.S. Climate Alliance: “We will continue America’s work to achieve the Goals of the Paris Agreement”.   As the Trump administration announced it will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance – New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham – delivered a letter to UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell making it clear to the global community that climate action will continue in the U.S."   "We write as co-chairs of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of two dozen governors representing nearly 60 percent of the U.S. economy and 55 percent of the U.S. population, to make it clear to you, and the rest of the world, that we will continue America’s work to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and slash climate pollution. We will not turn our back on America’s commitments. For our health and our future, we will press forward.”   "It’s critical for the international community to know that climate action will continue in the U.S. The U.S. Climate Alliance will bring this message to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil (COP30) later this year – just as we have at every COP since our coalition’s founding – as we work to implement our climate goals".   President Trump ignores Science, makes decision to Withdraw US from Paris Agreement - Union of Concerned Scientists   President Trump announced today that he would seek to remove the United States from the Paris Agreement—adopted by nearly 200 countries in 2015 with the aim to limit global climate change. United States withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement would take effect a year after submitting the required letter of intent and mark the second time the country has done so.   Pres. Trump’s announcement comes as massive wildfires continue to rage in California and just weeks after U.S. and global scientific agencies confirmed the planet experienced its hottest year on record in 2024. Last year, the United States also endured at least 27 extreme weather and climate-related disasters that each reported damages of $1 billion or more, many of which were worsened by climate change.   Statement by Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS:   “Withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement is a travesty. Such a move is in clear defiance of scientific realities and shows an administration cruelly indifferent to the harsh climate change impacts that people in the United States and around the world are experiencing. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement is an abdication of responsibility and undermines the very global action that people at home and abroad desperately need.   “Regardless of politics, the scientific imperative to address the climate crisis remains clear and necessitates urgent actions from U.S. and global policymakers. Last year was the first time global average temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for an entire year. Unless world leaders act quickly, the planet is on track for a 3.1 degrees Celsius increase, which would be catastrophic.   As the largest historical emitter of heat-trapping emissions, the United States has a responsibility to do its fair share to stave off the increasingly dire consequences of the climate crisis.   “Instead of seizing the opportunity to expand the economic and public health benefits of clean energy for people across the nation, while working together with the global community to solve this shared challenge, Pres. Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies.   His decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet hellbent on boosting fossil fuel industry profits at the expense of people and the planet.   Scientific experts say fossil fuel emissions must be cut quickly and deeply to avoid the worst outcomes including more extreme weather, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, food and water insecurity and worsening health impacts.   Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate official who now lectures at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy, speaking at the time of the Biden targets being announced in December last year, said: “Trump is risking the climate stability and safety of the planet as part of a culture war political strategy, heedless of billions who will suffer.”   http://wmo.int/media/news/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level http://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/president-trump-ignores-science-makes-disgraceful-decision-withdraw-us-paris-agreement http://blog.ucs.org/kathy-mulvey/why-congress-must-block-a-liability-waiver-for-the-fossil-fuel-industry/ http://blog.ucs.org/series/trump-administration/ http://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/climate/trump-climate-change-executive-orders.html http://www.reuters.com/world/trumps-paris-climate-exit-will-hit-harder-than-2017-2025-01-21 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pik-statement-on-donald-trumps-inauguration-serious-concerns-about-the-future-of-international-climate-cooperation http://www.dw.com/en/what-does-trumps-second-term-mean-for-the-climate/a-70932970 http://usclimatealliance.org/press-releases/alliance-paris-withdrawal http://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2025/01/sierra-club-reaction-trump-s-absurd-energy-emergency   http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-news-that-the-united-states-has-withdrawn-from-the-paris-agreement-again http://www.wri.org/statement-paris-agreement-withdrawal-erodes-americas-standing-world http://ips-dc.org/release-climate-justice-groups-paris-agreement-withdrawal-is-deeply-misguided http://350.org/press-release/keeping-optimism-alive-centering-the-climate-agenda-under-president-trump/ http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/31/scientists-letter-trump-administration http://insideclimatenews.org/news/31012025/trump-administration-war-on-science http://insideclimatenews.org/news/07032025/stand-up-for-science-rallies-against-trump-anti-science-agenda/ http://zenodo.org/records/15696097 http://council.science/blog/science-diplomacy-and-the-global-state-of-affairs http://www.nature.com/collections/jcjhabjhgi http://www.lemonde.fr/en/science/article/2025/03/04/let-s-defend-science-against-anti-knowledge-efforts_6738768_10.html http://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2025/02/18/trump-attacks-climate-science-and-spreads-fear-among-scientists_6738302_114.html http://www.dw.com/en/us-science-funding-freeze-a-threat-to-academic-freedom/a-71501071   http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/10/trumps-usaid-cuts-will-have-huge-impact-on-global-climate-finance-data-shows http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/07/us-exits-fund-that-compensates-poorer-countries-for-global-heating http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/trump-climate-change-federal-websites http://www.propublica.org/article/trump-epa-greenhouse-gas-reporting-climate-crisis http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-workers-resign-trump http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01146-4 http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00243-8 http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00197-x   Feb. 2025   American chaos: standing up for health and medicine - The Lancet Medical Journal   Withdrawal from WHO and the Paris Agreements. USAID shuttered and aid halted, ceasing health programmes globally. A freeze on US$3 trillion worth of federal grants and loans, jeopardising the functioning of Medicaid. A sweeping pause on key activities across the National Institutes of Health (the world's largest biomedical research institution). Stop work orders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Denial of gender diversity. The Mexico City policy reinstated. Communications blackouts, which saw the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report not published for the first time in 60 years. Donald Trump's actions domestically and globally are not a measured reappraisal of US priorities. They are a sweeping and damaging attack on the health of the American people and those dependent on US foreign assistance.   They are also an attack on the health and medical research community. Researchers’ ability to work has been severely limited or stopped altogether. Free speech is restricted. Use of certain terms is banned on US Government websites (and in manuscripts submitted to scientific journals), including “gender”, “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “non-binary”, and a directive has paused the submission of new work for publication for all CDC employees and contractors. At The Lancet, the impact has already been felt. Reviewers are declining and authors are self-censoring. Health institutions may be hesitant to criticise the new administration publicly, but this timidity is a mistake. Trump's actions must be called out for the damage they are doing.   The 90-day freeze of US aid, including funds for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—even with a waiver for “life-saving humanitarian programs”—has left services in limbo, particularly for HIV prevention and key populations. These are not abstract concerns. Swathes of health workers have been fired, clinics have closed, and patients have been affected, as World Reports in this issue show. Elon Musk has called USAID “evil” and a “criminal organisation”, peddling falsehoods in an attempt to justify gutting, if not abolishing, the agency. These decisions are deeply wrong, with far-reaching impacts that set back decades of gains in disease control and health equity. Trump's actions are a particular attack on women's health, notably sexual and reproductive health and rights. The gradual progress that has been made on climate and health is now likely to stall or even reverse. More people will get ill and more people will die.   This moment is a test. How should our community react? The immediate result has been confusion, disruption, and disorientation, but the response cannot be dictated by fear or resignation. There is a need for focus, strategy, and—indeed—hope. Not all executive orders will survive legal challenges. Some orders have been tempered or adjusted thanks to civil society, journalists, government whistleblowers, and some members of Congress who have been vocal about the immediate harms. The health, medical, and scientific communities have a vital role in advocating for their patients, defending programmes, and lobbying for policies and institutions that are good for health and wellbeing. Bipartisan support for global health in the USA has given way to deep polarisation, and the global health community must contend with the fact that the USA is an unreliable partner. As Ilona Kickbusch notes in a Comment in this issue, other member states need to finance and build an organisation that is fit for the challenges ahead.   The health community has overcome huge obstacles many times before to make enormous contributions to humanity's wellbeing. Those experiences have crystalised a vision about what health is, and what it can be. That everyone has a right to health. That the health of Americans is contingent on the health of everyone, everywhere—and vice versa. That cooperation and constructive partnerships are vital, and that science has the ability not only to advance our understanding of the world but also to bring people together. That health is a social good, beneficial for societies, a driver of economies, and a path to development. That medicine can help people at their lowest, alleviate suffering, and improve lives. That equity—treating according to need—is fundamental to what medicine is. And that to care is an act not of weakness, but of strength.   The past 3 weeks have generated much anger, fear, and sorrow—but it is no time for panic. The medical and scientific communities must come together and stand up for this vision. In that spirit, The Lancet will be a focal point of accountability over the next 4 years, monitoring and reviewing the actions of the US Government and the consequences of its decisions for health.   http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00237-5/fulltext http://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r116 http://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r392 http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00562-w http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/msf-statement-us-decision-withdraw-who http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2025/01/us-withdrawal-world-health-organization http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1159266 http://www.kff.org/policy-watch/how-much-global-health-funding-goes-through-usaid/ http://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/health/usaid-cuts-deaths-infections.html http://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/08/health/trump-usaid-health-aid.html http://theconversation.com/usaids-apparent-demise-and-the-us-withdrawal-from-who-put-millions-of-lives-worldwide-at-risk-and-imperil-us-national-security-249260 http://www.cgdev.org/blog/global-health-security-strategic-investment-americas-safety-strength-and-prosperity http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/child-asthma-will-worsen-with-trumps-pollution-rollbacks-and-rfk-jr-s-cdc/
	Calls for greater accountability and governance in the digital space, in line with human rights by Politico, Poynter, Guardian News, agencies   Jan. 2025   Meta is ushering in a ‘world without facts’, says Nobel peace prize winner.   The Nobel peace prize winner Maria Ressa has said Meta’s decision to end factchecking on its platforms and remove restrictions on certain topics means “extremely dangerous times” lie ahead for journalism, democracy and social media users.   The American-Filipino journalist said Mark Zuckerberg’s move to relax content moderation on the Facebook and Instagram platforms would lead to a “world without facts” and that was “a world that’s right for a dictator”.   “Mark Zuckerberg says it’s a free speech issue – that’s completely wrong,” Ressa told the AFP news service. “Only if you’re profit-driven can you claim that; only if you want power and money can you claim that. This is about safety.”   Ressa, a co-founder of the Rappler news site, won the Nobel peace prize in 2021 in recognition of her “courageous fight for freedom of expression”. She faced multiple criminal charges and investigations after publishing stories critical of the former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.   Ressa rejected Zuckerberg’s claim that factcheckers had been “too politically biased” and had “destroyed more trust than they’ve created”.   “Journalists have a set of standards and ethics,” Ressa said. “What Facebook is going to do is get rid of that and then allow lies, anger, fear and hate to infect every single person on the platform.”   The decision meant “extremely dangerous times ahead” for journalism, democracy and social media users, she said.   Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive of Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said on Tuesday he would remove third-party factcheckers in the US and replace them with a crowd-sourced moderating service similar to the “community notes” feature on the rival social media platform X.   He added that Meta would “work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more”.   In October, the human rights group Amnesty International claimed that authorities in the Philippines were using Facebook to “red-tag” young activists, a term referring to the labelling of campaigners and others as alleged “communist rebels” and “terrorists”.   In 2021 a Meta whistleblower, Frances Haugen, claimed there was a lack of safety controls in non-English language markets, such as Africa and the Middle East, and that Facebook was being used by human traffickers and armed groups in Ethiopia.   “I did what I thought was necessary to save the lives of people, especially in the global south, who I think are being endangered by Facebook’s prioritisation of profits over people,” she told the Observer.   At the time, Meta, then operating under the corporate brand of Facebook, said the premise that it prioritised profit over safety was “false”.   In 2018, after the massacre of Rohingya Muslims by the military in Myanmar, Facebook admitted that the platform had been used to “foment division and incite offline violence”. Three years later, the human rights group Global Witness claimed that Facebook was promoting content that incited violence against political protesters in Myanmar. Facebook claimed it had proactively detected 99% of the hate speech removed from the platform in the country.   Social media posts inciting hate and division have “real world consequences” and there is a responsibility to regulate content, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, insisted on Friday, following Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme in the United States.   "Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship. My Office calls for accountability & governance in the digital space, in line with human rights", said Volker Turk.   Mr. Turk said that labelling efforts to create safe online spaces as “censorship… ignores the fact that unregulated space means some people are silenced – in particular those whose voices are often marginalized. At the same time, allowing hatred online limits free expression and can result in real world harms.”   Mr. Turk highlighted that social media platforms have a tremendous ability to shape society positively by connecting people. But they can also fuel conflict, incite hate and threaten people’s safety.   The UN human rights chief said his office would continue to call for “accountability and governance in the digital space, in line with human rights. This safeguards public discourse, builds trust, and protects the dignity of all.”   The decision by the social media giant Meta/Facebook to end factchecking in the United States is “bad for democracy”, Brazil’s communication minister, Sidonio Palmeira, said.   Palmeira said Meta’s decision was “bad for democracy because without factchecking you don’t control the spread of hate, misinformation and fake news”.   Brazil’s public prosecutor’s office sent a letter to local Meta representatives giving the company 30 days to clarify whether it intends to implement the changes in the country, with detailed information. Brazil’s supreme court has taken a strong stance on regulating social media platforms. Last year, it blocked Elon Musk’s X platform for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation.   On Wednesday, the Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, raised the scourge of disinformation during a ceremony marking two years since supporters of his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro stormed the seats of power in Brasilia.   “We defend, and will always defend freedom of expression. But we will not tolerate hate speech and disinformation, which endanger people’s lives and incite violence against the rule of law,” Lula said.   Lawmakers in Brussels and London have criticised Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to scrap factcheckers in the US for Facebook, Instagram and Threads, labelling it “frightening”.   Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP and chair of the science and technology committee for the House of Commons, which is investigating how online disinformation fuelled last summer’s riots, said Zuckerberg’s decision to replace professional factcheckers with users policing the accuracy of posts was “concerning” and “quite frightening”.   “To hear that Meta is removing all its factcheckers [in the US] is concerning … people have a right to be protected from the harmful effects of misinformation,” she said. “The fact that Zuckerberg said he’s following the example of X must raise concerns when we compare how X is a platform for misinformation to a greater extent than Facebook has been.”   A Meta whistleblower told Guardian News: “I am extremely concerned about what this means for teenagers.” Arturo Bejar, a former senior engineer whose responsibilities at Meta included child safety measures, said: “They will be increasingly exposed to all the content categories that they need to be protected against.” Harmful content, including violent or pornographic material, could reach young users more easily, Bejar said, citing Zuckerberg’s statement that tackling “lower severity” transgressions will now rely on users flagging content before Meta acts on it.   In Brussels, the European Commission hit back against Zuckerberg’s statement on Tuesday in which he cited Europe as a place with “an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship – a reference to the EU’s own Digital Services Act, which regulates online content.   A spokesperson for the EU’s executive arm said “we absolutely refute any claims of censorship” and that “absolutely nothing in the Digital Services Act forces or asks or requests a platform to remove lawful content”.   Valérie Hayer, an MEP and the leader of the centrist Renew Europe grouping in the European parliament, said: “The EU will remain uncomfortable for social media giants by standing up for the integrity and independence of free expression and democratic processes. Europe will never accept manipulation and disinformation as a standard for society. By abandoning factchecking in the US, Meta is making a profound strategic and ethical mistake.”   In the UK, Imran Ahmed, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said Meta’s decision would cause “real-world harm”.   “By abandoning its factchecking program in favour of a discredited ‘community notes’ system, Meta is turbocharging the spread of unchallenged online lies, worsening the spread of hate, and creating more risks to our communities, democracy, public health, and the safety of our kids.”   Ahmed said Meta had effectively abdicated its responsibility to try to prevent the spread of misinformation, hate speech and violent online content. “Meta is now saying it’s up to you to spot the lies on its platforms, and that it’s not their problem if you can’t tell the difference, even if those lies, hate, or scams end up hurting you.”   Australian politicians and experts also expressed concern over Meta’s decision to abandon factchecking on its platforms, saying the move would “turbocharge” the spread of lies and hate speech around the world.   Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Meta’s decision to abandon factchecking would create a “free-for-all on misinformation, disinformation, abuse and trolling”. The Greens’ communications spokesperson told ABC radio the changes were “dangerous”.   “This is a very dangerous move at a time when members of the community, parents, young people, women in particular, are increasingly concerned of the unsafe environment on these big platforms.”   Political communication expert Dr Emma Briant said “ordinary citizens should be very concerned”.. “With at least 13 billionaires in his new administration, including big tech oligarchs like Elon Musk, Trump has sent a powerful message across America’s wealthy right-wing elite – now is your time, not theirs,” the Monash University associate professor said. “Clearly Mark Zuckerberg heard him loud and clear.”   Global Witness, a human rights group, said: “Zuckerberg’s announcement is a blatant attempt to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration – with harmful implications. These changes will make it more dangerous for women, LGBT+ people, people of colour, scientists and activists to speak out online, where they already face disproportionate harassment and attacks.”   The Centre for Information Resilience, an organisation whose activities include tracking online hate speech and disinformation based on people’s gender, ethnicity and sexuality, warned it was a “major step back for content moderation at a time when disinformation and harmful content are evolving faster than ever”.   23 Jan. 2025   Spainish Prime Minister accuses Tech billionaires with wanting to ‘overthrow democracy’. (Politico, agencies)   Davos, Switzerland — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Wednesday that tech billionaires want to use social media “to overthrow democracy” — adding he’ll push EU leaders to take action.   “The technology that was intended to free us has become the tool of our own oppression,” he said during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.   “The social media that was supposed to bring unity, clarity and democracy have instead given us division, vice and a reactionary agenda.”   Sanchez said that limits on the length of texts and videos, as well as the absence of fact-checking measures, allow disinformation to flourish on social media platforms. He accused tech barons of designing their sites to “divide and manipulate” society in order to advance their personal political agendas by replacing “votes with likes.”   He lamented that the same sites that had initially helped unite people around the world and empower social justice efforts, such as the #MeToo movement and the Fridays for Future climate protests, were now being used to concentrate “power and wealth in the hands of just a few ... at the cost of our democracies.”   “What truly limits democracy is the power of the elites,” he said. “It is the power of those who think that because they are rich, they are above the law and can do anything. That is why, my friends, that is why the tech billionaires want to overthrow democracy.”   Sanchez said that at the next meeting of European Union leaders in Brussels he will propose that the bloc move to “make social media great again” by imposing regulations and going after their billionaire owners.   Among other measures he proposed fighting bots and fake profiles by requiring that users digitally identify themselves, and using the Digital Services Act to go after tech barons whose sites undermine democracy.   “The owner of a small restaurant is held accountable if their food poisons customers,” he said. “Social media tycoons should be held accountable if their algorithms poison our societies.”   Sanchez didn’t point fingers at any specific social media platform owners, but did reference a piece from 2009 by venture capitalist Peter Thiel, in which the PayPal founder — who has attained a great level of influence in the Trump administration — wrote “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”   Earlier this month Sanchez accused X owner Elon Musk of leading "the international far right," inciting hatred and openly supporting "the heirs of Nazism in Germany." At a separate event in Davos on Jan. 21 he called on Europe to unite against the "tech caste."   Sanchez explained that back in the early 200s, social media began to thrive under a promise that they would unite people and strengthen our democracies. Based on that promise, he says, public institutions, companies and the public all joined social media – which allowed people to interact across physical distances.   But the downsides are now clear, Sanchez says, comparing them to “invaders hidden in the body of a Trojan horse”.   He cited the rise of online bullying,and criticized the world’s most powerful tech billionaires, saying there has been a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of just a few, “at the cost of our mental health and our democracies”.   Sanchez accused the major social media sites of harming the liberal order and social system in three ways which cannot be ignored.   1) Oversimplying and polarising the public debate. 280 charactors or a 30 second video are not enought to explain anything important, he pointed, but are creating a divided society that is easy to manipuate.   2) The rise of fake news, which he says the owners of social media companies have chosen not to stop, because it’s good for business, and helps advance their political agenda.   3) becoming tools to replace votes with likes. We were told that these platforms would help to level the playing field, but they have made it even more unfair, Sánchez said.   Sanchez puts the blame for the deterioration of social media sites on “political forces”, and on the owners of big social media sites themselves, who he calls a small group of technobillionaires who are no longer satisfied with holding economic power. Now they want political power in a way that undermines democratic political systems, highighting comments by Peter Thiel, the billionaire former CEO of PayPal.   “Peter Thiel… openly admitted in an interview that techno billionaires want to overthrow democracy because “they have stopped believing that freedom and democracy are compatible”.” And the freedom they have in mind, Sanchez added, is for those who think that because they are rich they are above the law".   Sanchez argued that social media is a common resource for humanity, like the oceans, and they should be managed accordingly.   Sanchez is proposing an end to anonymity online, proper control of social media algorithms, and making the platforms’ owners legally responsible for what is published on them.   Pedro Sanchez said he will propose three measures to all EU leaders at their next council meeting in Brussels.   1) putting an end to anonymity in social media.   Sánchez pointed out that people cannot drive a car without a licence plate, send a package without showing an ID, or buy a hunting weapon without giving their name. And yet we are allowing people to roam freely on social media without linking their accounts to a real identity. This, Sánchez says, paves way for misinformation, hate speech, cyber-harrasment, the use of bots, and allows people to act without being held accountable   He suggests forcing social media companies to link each account to a “European digital identity wallet”. That would allow people to use nicknames, which could be linked to real people if a crime took place.   Accountability is an “essential complement” to freedom of speech. “This is the only way to ensure that minors do not access inappropriate content, that people who commit cimes are banned from social networks or prosecuted, and that the millions of fake accounts that exist and influence the public conversation are removed.   2) Sanchez’s second proposal is to “force open the black box of social media algorithms, once and for all”. He says the values of the European Union are not for sale, and that safeguards such as content moderation and factchecking are both legal and moral requirements.   Sanchez said Europe must fully enforce its digital service act, to make clear that its provisions are non-negotiable. He also warns Europe’s competence in reviewing algorithms needs to be strengthened, and put “our brightest minds to work on this, just as the enemies of democracy are doing”.   3) The third proposal: hold owners personally accountable for non-compliance with laws and norms on their platforms.   These owners are the among the richest and most powerful people in the world, and should be held accountable “if their algorithms poison our society”.   http://www.politico.eu/article/spain-pedro-sanchez-big-tech-billionaires-democracy-social-media/   Jan. 2025   Mark Zuckerberg can preach all he wants about censorship and free speech, but it’s easy to see through his words. This was done to appease Trump, writes Tom Jones. (Poynter)   If Facebook is a place where someone can strike a match of misinformation then its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, just handed gasoline to anyone who wants to spread that misinformation.   Tuesday is a day that will go down in social media infamy. Meta, the company that oversees Facebook, Instagram and Threads, announced that it is essentially ending its fact-checking program designed to stop the spread of misinformation that can range from harmful to outright deadly.   Instead of relying on news organizations and other trained parties to fact-check posts, Meta is turning the job over to users in the form of community notes. In other words, users of Meta’s social media platforms will be in charge of policing themselves.   And the timing of this news couldn’t be more obvious as Donald Trump is set to take office in less than two weeks. This says it all: Meta broke the news exclusively on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” the favorite morning show of Trump and his MAGA followers.   The New York Times’ Theodore Schleifer and Mike Isaac wrote, “Ever since Mr. Trump’s victory in November, few big companies have worked as overtly to curry favor with the president-elect. In a series of announcements during the presidential transition period, Meta has sharply shifted its strategy in response to what Mr. Zuckerberg called a ‘cultural tipping point’ marked by the election. … Meta’s move on Tuesday morning elated conservative allies of Mr. Trump, many of whom have disliked Meta’s practice of adding disclaimers or warnings to questionable or false posts. Mr. Trump has long railed against Mr. Zuckerberg, claiming the fact-checking feature treated posts by conservative users unfairly.”   CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Conservatives immediately cheered Meta’s changes while others, including misinformation experts, warned Meta’s platforms would become even more of a cesspool. False and hateful content will likely become even more commonplace on the social networks.”   Nicole Gill, executive director of Accountable Tech, called the news “a gift to Donald Trump and extremists around the world.”   Of course, Zuckerberg can’t come right out and say he’s genuflecting at the altar of Trump, so he explained the decision this way: “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship. The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.”   Zuckerberg’s fallback has always been about freedom of speech and stopping censorship. He also said “fact-checkers have been too politically biased.”   But Poynter president Neil Brown said Meta has always set its own tools and rules, while Poynter’s PolitiFact and Meta’s other fact-checking partners offered independent reviews and showed their sources.   Brown said, “To blame fact-checkers is a disappointing cop-out and it perpetuates a misunderstanding of its own program. Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards. It’s time to quit invoking inflammatory and false language in describing the role of journalists and fact-checking.”   Even Zuckerberg admitted the new policy could create problems with content moderation, saying, “The reality is this is a tradeoff. It means that we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”   But which is worse? Some innocent posts occasionally and accidentally removed or more “bad stuff” not being caught?   Angie Drobnic Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, said in a statement, “This decision will hurt social media users who are looking for accurate, reliable information to make decisions about their everyday lives and interactions with friends and family. Fact-checking journalism has never censored or removed posts; it’s added information and context to controversial claims, and it’s debunked hoax content and conspiracy theories.”   Now that added information and context and debunking will be turned over to those who aren’t trained to do so, or who won’t do the unbiased, deep reporting that places like PolitiFact does.   Drobnic Holan said, “The fact-checkers used by Meta follow a Code of Principles requiring nonpartisanship and transparency. It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters. Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work — that attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”   Tuesday’s news was just another example of Meta’s obvious attempt to cozy up to Trump, just as X owner Elon Musk has. In fact, Meta is taking the same approach to moderating content as X. Meta chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan said in a blog post, “We’ve seen this approach work on X — where they empower their community to decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context.”   But has it worked? Trump and those on the right would say yes. Few others would. The Washington Post’s Naomi Nix, Will Oremus and Aaron Gregg wrote, “The announcement is the latest in a flurry of changes at Meta that are likely to be embraced by a second Trump administration. Last week, the company named Joel Kaplan, a Republican with deep experience in Washington, as its chief global affairs officer, replacing former British politician Nick Clegg. And on Monday, it named Dana White, a longtime Trump ally and president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, to its board of directors.”   And Stelter noted, “The company is also getting rid of content restrictions on certain topics, such as immigration and gender identity, and rolling back limits on how much politics-related content users see in their feeds.”   Aaron Sharockman, executive director of PolitiFact and Poynter’s vice president for sales and strategic partnerships, said in a statement that Zuckerberg’s move has nothing to do with free speech or censorship, adding “Mark Zuckerberg’s decision could not be less subtle.”   Sharockman wrote, “Let me be clear: the decision to remove or penalize a post or account is made by Meta and Facebook, not fact-checkers. They created the rules.”   Sharockman reminded audiences that PolitiFact and other U.S.-based journalists merely provided additional speech and context to posts that contained misinformation. Then it was up to Meta and Facebook to decide what to do next, including any penalties, such as removing posts or banning accounts.   Sharockman wrote, “It was Facebook and Meta that created a system that allowed ordinary citizens to see their posts demoted but exempted politicians and political leaders who said the very same things. In case it needs to be said, PolitiFact and U.S.-based journalists played no role in the decision to remove Donald Trump from Facebook.”   Zuckerberg can preach all he wants about censorship and free speech and all that. But it’s pretty easy to see through his words.   Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at the advocacy group Free Press, told The New York Times’ Danielle Kaye, “While Zuckerberg characterized the platform giant’s new approach as a defense of free speech, its real intentions are twofold: Ditch the technology company’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of its users, and align the company more closely with an incoming president who’s a known enemy of accountability.”   Nicole Gill, a founder and the executive director of the digital watchdog organization Accountable Tech, said Mr. Zuckerberg was “reopening the floodgates to the exact same surge of hate, disinformation and conspiracy theories that caused Jan. 6 — and that continue to spur real-world violence.”   Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement: “Asking users to fact-check themselves is tantamount to Meta saying the truth doesn’t matter. Misinformation will flow more freely with this policy change, as we cannot assume that corrections will be made when false information proliferates. The American people deserve accurate information about our elections, health risks, the environment, and much more. We condemn this irresponsible move and the harm it will likely contribute to our discourse.”   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/08/facebook-end-factchecking-nobel-peace-prize-winner-maria-ressa http://www.theguardian.com/technology/meta http://www.rappler.com/voices/rappler-blogs/four-steps-dealing-problems-caused-by-big-tech/ http://contrarian.substack.com/p/another-meta-whistleblower-when-will http://www.poynter.org/commentary/2025/mark-zuckerberg-donald-trump-fact-checkers/ http://www.poynter.org/ifcn/2025/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-from-the-worlds-fact-checkers-nine-years-later http://www.niemanlab.org/2025/01/zuck-chucks-fact-checkers-to-cosplay-as-elon-musk/ http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1158886 http://www.cjr.org/world/indias-fact-checkers-react-to-metas-policy-change.php http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/our-work/carr-commentary/notes-new-frontier-power http://www.justsecurity.org/109030/academic-misinformation-researchers-under-attack/ http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerberg-meta-trump-fact-checking-free-speech-1235227351/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10012025/misinformation-spreads-like-wildfire-as-los-angeles-burns/ http://blog.ucsusa.org/juliet-christian-smith/six-facts-about-water-and-wildfire-in-the-west/ http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/infuriating-link-between-wildfires-and-fossil-fuel-companies http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ten-signs-global-warming http://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-hate-speech-content-moderation/   http://www.citizen.org/news/metas-move-to-end-fact-checking-is-wrong-and-dangerous/ http://www.article19.org/resources/meta-prioritise-human-rights-not-politics http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/01/united-states-rohingya-survivor-asks-us-regulator-to-investigate-metas-potential-role-in-myanmar-atrocities/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/over-170-latin-american-csos-condemn-mark-zuckerbergs-statement-on-fact-checking-policies-urge-meta-to-take-responsibility-on-combating-hate-speech-disinformation/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/reckless-gamble-metas-decision-on-disinformation-endangers-its-4-billion-users/ http://www.techpolicy.press/mark-zuckerberg-and-the-internet-for-billionaires/ http://counterhate.com/research/more-transparency-and-less-spin/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/01/closure-metas-us-fact-checking-programme-major-setback-fight-disinformation/ http://www.claimscon.org/nodenyingit/ http://www.claimscon.org/cancelhate/   http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/musk-zuckerberg-trump-brazil-bolsonaro-disinformation/ http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/far-right-elon-musk-grooming-gangs-britain-keir-starmer-tommy-robinson-great-replacement http://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/12/Tv/video/amanpour-swisher-katwala http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/18/sadiq-khan-far-right-billionaire-bullies http://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241219-musk-s-possible-meddling-in-uk-politics-stirs-concern http://www.dw.com/en/european-leaders-decry-elon-musks-meddling/a-71227690 http://www.dw.com/en/german-politicians-criticize-musk-backing-for-far-right-afd/a-71117414 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/08/spain-pm-pedro-sanchez-denounces-elon-musk-at-franco-anniversary-event http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/06/the-guardian-view-on-elon-musks-disinformation-escalating-hate-and-threatening-democracy   http://odi.org/en/press/odi-suspends-activity-on-x/ http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250117-sheep-for-hire-trump-musk-and-zuckerberg-s-dangerous-plan-for-europe http://english.elpais.com/technology/2024-11-25/from-bannon-to-musk-the-decade-that-made-misinformation-the-new-normal.html http://counterhate.com/research/musk-misleading-election-claims-viewed-1-2bn-times-on-x-with-no-fact-checks/ http://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5156184/elon-musk-trump-election-x-twitter   http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/videos/20250114211951426/ http://www.un.org/en/observances/countering-hate-speech http://news.un.org/en/audio-product/uniting-against-hate http://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/call-input-online-hate-speech http://mediawell.ssrc.org/articles/theyre-coming-to-take-over-our-country-researching-global-circuits-of-racist-misinformation http://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/why-we-fight-for-fractured-truths-how-misinformation-fuels-political-violence-in-democracies/ http://socialmediavictims.org/press-releases/smvlc-file-world-mental-health-day-lawsuit-allege-addictive-social-media-products-global-scale http://counterhate.com/blog/online-harms-a-parents-fight-for-social-media-regulation http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/un-expert-alarmed-new-emerging-exploitative-practices-online-child-sexual http://www.weprotect.org/global-threat-assessment-23/ http://5rightsfoundation.com/about-us/childrens-rights/
	View more stories