That certainly seems to be the gist of Facebook’s very brief explanation yesterday: “a fact-checking label was wrongly applied”.

Click Here To Read More!!

But in the absence of a more detailed statement, it’s still worth exploring what the company would say if it ever did decide to try to make a genuine effort at accountability. If that were to happen, I suspect it would go something like this: “the world is going through a pandemic and it is therefore exceptionally important that internationally recognised health organisations such as the WHO do not have their credibility undermined.”

Of course, that is just my conjecture — though, in light of Big Tech’s behaviour over the past year, it certainly seems conceivable. However, the problem with such an explanation is two-fold.

First there is the presumption that an international body like the WHO is not only not corrupted by the Communist Party of China, but that such a scenario is impossible. To see how naive this view is, we need only look at that other international organisation so often viewed as beyond reproach: the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

To an outsider, the UNHRC (like the WHO) may well sound like a venerable organisation. But look a little closer and it becomes clear that the entity is a farce. Only last month it allowed the North Korean representatives at the Council to spend their time expressing concerns about the human rights record of Australia. The truth is that these organisations are far less virtuous than one might think — and if we’re not allowed to criticise them, then what can we criticise?

Zoe Saldana, 42, makes the rare move of posting a pinup lingerie photo as she shows off a perfect tummy after welcoming three kids

PUBLISHED: 16:36 EST, 12 October 2020
UPDATED: 19:10 EST, 12 October 2020
Click Here To Read More!!

Mother-of-three Zoe Saldana has a stunning figure.

And on Monday the 42-year-old star of the blockbuster films Avatar and Guardians Of The Galaxy reminded her 7.3M Instagram followers of that.

The siren from New Jersey modeled a pink lingerie set that exposed her tattoos as she leaned back on a rail outside a home that has a view of the beach.

Saldana had a flat tummy and sculpted legs as she rested back on her arms while positioning one leg akimbo.

The siren had her long hair worn down as she let fans look at her ombre color.

And Zoe also had on ruby red lipstick which went well with her pink outfit as she shared a coy smile. The Star Trek actress kept her look simple as she did not have on any jewelry.

She was posing for a good cause.

‘I wear pink in honor of all women I know and love who have battled breast cancer,’ said Zoe.

‘It’s breast cancer awareness month and I’m joining my friends @kitundergarments company for #kitstokickcancer!

‘They have partnered with @wcrfcure and will be donating 5% of sales for the entire month of October. In addition, they will donate $1 to @wcrfcure for everyone who posts a photo in their undergarments. Be sure to tag them and use #kitstokickcancer.’

Facebook’s incompetent censorship

Click Here To Read More!!

Its hypocritical attempts to clamp down on ‘misinformation’ are ultimately self-defeating

What do you do when your sources of information get corrupted? That is one of today’s great questions, as UnHerd discovered this week. On Wednesday, Facebook censored an article on these pages which was critical of the World Health Organisation, labelling it as “misinformation”. It was not UnHerd’s first run-in with the online censors, but it is perhaps the most baffling.

In the article in question, Ian Birrell suggested that there are very many reasons to be suspicious of the WHO’s recent report into the origins of the coronavirus. Its investigations were brief, its research was flimsy and the composition of its team was questionable. But most glaring of all was surely its attempt to exclude from consideration anything which might be inconvenient for the Chinese Communist Party. It concluded, for example, that there was no evidence that the virus had come either from the Wuhan wet market, or from the government-run laboratory in the area.

Birrell remarked on all of this and much more in his piece. All of it is public information — and in any healthy society it would be part of the public debate. I suspect that this eventually dawned on Facebook, which last night apologised and reinstated the piece. But why did it decide that the article constituted “misinformation” in the first place?

It’s worth noting, of course, that Facebook does have form in regards to censorship involving the Chinese Communist Party, and it does seem a remarkable coincidence that the one UnHerd article to receive such a content warning was deeply critical of the world’s most powerful totalitarian state. Moreover, a pattern of Big Tech censorship has emerged in recent years where dissident voices are smothered until the embarrassment caused becomes too much of a PR own goal for a platform, at which point it is announced to be a simple mistake. Someone pressed the wrong key. Perhaps.