Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Twitter

Twitter Bans Climate Change Propaganda Ads as Deniers Target Platforms (washingtonpost.com) 216

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Twitter is banning advertisements that promote climate change denial in an effort to curb the reach of groups seeking to downplay the extent of the environmental crisis. From a report: Under the new policy, advertisements that contradict the "scientific consensus" on climate change will be prohibited along with other types of banned-ads such as campaigns that contain violence, profanity or personal attacks. Twitter will be relying on reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a unit within the United Nations, to inform its decisions about which advertisements break its rules, according to the company. "We believe that climate denialism shouldn't be monetized on Twitter, and that misrepresentative ads shouldn't detract from important conversations about the climate crisis," the company said in a blog post. "We recognize that misleading information about climate change can undermine efforts to protect the planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Bans Climate Change Propaganda Ads as Deniers Target Platforms More

Twitter Bans Climate Change Propaganda Ads as Deniers Target Platforms

Comments Filter:
  • Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo! And what about papers like the recent one that found things may not be as bad as we thought they were? I guess Twitter doesn't want that paper on its platform, because? You guessed it. It's a private company and can do what it wants.

    • You mean the guy who sells both BEVs and carbon credits? Gotta give him props for profiting from both sides of an issue. The man is a true Ferengi.

      • The carbon credit system was designed so that they could be sold. It would be a hard sell for a publicly traded corporation to refuse to selling their excess carbon credits. If you are going to hate the guy then at least be logical about it.

      • Which rule of acquisition would this fall under?

    • It's a private company and can do what it wants.

      This is true regardless of who owns it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )

      Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong?

      Scientific consensus is far different than social consensus.

      • Re:Elon couldn't come sooner (Score:4, Informative)

        by xwin ( 848234 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:27PM (#62469950)
        Scientific consensus about the climate change means diddly-squat unless society buys into it. Politicians decide where we go on climate change and society elects them. Companies for example like to virtue signal how they are all for the environment. But as soon as pandemic is over, all these companies want their workers to commute back to the offices, environment be damned.
        We know the smoking is bad for a good 60 years or more, but some part of society still smokes. Climate change is even worse than that because there is no immediate observable cause and effect.

        • Re:Elon couldn't come sooner (Score:4, Insightful)

          by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:37PM (#62469990)
          And the ensuing environmental collapse doesn't give a flying fuck what homo-sapiens think.
        • Scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming and resultant climate changes DOES mean something.
          It means that we KNEW the situation.

          If we, collectively and politically, choose not to act effectively to mitigate the very serious problem, the fact that our best way of knowing (the body of science, rated appropriately by internally assessed scientific credibility) KNEW the situation means that we cannot claim we failed to act due to being unaware of the problem.

          It means that inaction, or inadequate a

        • Re:Elon couldn't come sooner (Score:5, Interesting)

          by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @05:23PM (#62470148) Homepage Journal

          Scientific "consensus" isn't a consensus about *truth*. It's a consensus about *burden of proof*, and it is encapsulated by Carl Sagan's aphorism, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

          The scientific consensus on climate change is the best place to start planning public policy from, not because it is *true*, but it is the view of matters that is most supported by evidence. Of course policy has other dimensions: economic, social, customary, and legal. So it's not like "CO2 is a problem so we should ban all fossil fuels." If you could get *everyone* to agree on anthropogenic climate change, that's still not something that would happen.

          Still, I wouldn't be so pessimistic; the people who want *nothing* to be done about anything love to paint change as impossibly difficult and traumatic. Smoking is a great example. When I was a kid, 40% of Americans smoked; it was *everywhere* -- at work, in restaurants, on public transit. Now only 14% of people smoke, and they largely do it in private. It's gotten so that when somebody who's a heavy smoker walks past you you notice.

          No, public education on the science of smoking did not stop *everyone* from smoking, it only resulted in a 65% reduction in smoking and a disappearance of smoking from most public spaces. That's actually a big accomplishment. And it hasn't really been that painful; people adapted; even smokers.

        • Scientific consensus on health means diddly-squat unless society buys into it. You should eat a dozen donuts a day for good health! There's no basis in biology, chemistry, or physics for what society buys into! Of course getting society to buy in is necessary to *change* outcomes, but not to change facts. Placing ads with misinformation benefits nobody.

      • Re:Elon couldn't come sooner (Score:4, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:50PM (#62470026) Journal

        When someone talks about "scientific consensus", they are not talking about science.
        When someone talks about scientific evidence, they are talking about science.

        As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." And climate science is much simpler than general relativity.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Scientific consensus happens when the vast majority of scientists agree on the scientific evidence.
          The consensus among scientists that stars are powered by fusion comes from all the evidence of fusion happening in the interiour of stars, even though no one has gone to the centre of a star and observed fusion happening. There is also still a lack of consensus in the type of fusion that dominates our Sun's fusion process.
          If someone wants to argue that a different process powers stars, they are going to need e

          • Really? It's not just hydrogen fusion? I ask because the sun is made mostly of hydrogen.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              Mostly hydrogen is the key. The carbon acts more like a catalyst in the sense of not being consumed in the cycle. Description here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] where it says it is more common in stars 1.3 times the Suns mass. Somewhere I was reading a good argument that the CNO cycle is more important in the Sun then commonly accepted. Not being an expert, I still find it interesting and an example of how what is commonly accepted might be wrong

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        Funny that I was actually referring to scientific consensus. Your 99.9% is completely inaccurate, because many scientists don't want to be cancelled by contradicting the norm. I guesstimated that number at 5%, although I bet it's higher.

        • It's a lot higher than 5% in the general population, especially in misinformed countries such as the USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
          But it's much less than 5% in the scientific community.

          Scientists contradicting the norm don't get cancelled. On the contrary, they're being given shitload of money from the oil and gas industry. Even the industry itself agree with the scientific consensus*, but by giving money to these "scientists" they bought themselves a couple more decades. Buying politicians (again, especial

      • Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong?

        Scientific consensus is far different than social consensus.

        No, it is not, it is somewhat similar. Scientists are people and they can have the same financial, political, philosophical, religious, etc biases are everyone else. Look at the history of the "big bang theory", the cosmological theory of the origin of the universe. This theory was opposed by the leading scientists of the day for literally religious reasons. The theory, in their opinion, too closely matched the biblical story of genesis, and with the physicist who proposed the theory being a member of the c

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong?

          Scientific consensus is far different than social consensus.

          No, it is not, it is somewhat similar.

          If you can upset the scientific consensus by discovering a new theory which better matches observations then you stand a good chance of a Nobel prize or something similar, maybe patents, spin-outs, promotions, etc. If you challenge the consensus socially then, even if right, your reward can be marginalisation, imprisonment more than it is Nobel prizes. Sure, occasionally you might get to be President of your country after decades of imprisonment, but it's rather less common. There are only a few instances i

        • Scientific consensus is far different than social consensus.

          No, it is not, it is somewhat similar.

          No it isn't.

          Any amount of scientific consensus can be changed by evidence.

          • That's not the debate here. The question is whether its appropriate to spend large sums of money to discredit credible evidence because an organization finds it inconvenient. Twitter has decided it's not. Nobody's ability to gather contradictory evidence is being hindered.

          • Sort of... But only sort of.

            Could Newton's laws (at human scale) be overturned? Not really no, because there is a vast amount of evidence for them. The most you would get is a correction in certain regimes, not a complete replacement (well that's what happened with relativity in essence). The old evidence isn't going to suddenly vanish.

            And even if you think they could in theory completely overturn it, would you bet money on that happening?

        • Nobody is banning things that challenge the scientific consensus. Twitter is banning advertisements that make claims not backed by evidence. You can challenge the scientific consensus by doing experiments and gathering data. You can't challenge it by having the most money to spread misinformation. The two are worlds apart.

    • Re:Elon couldn't come sooner (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @03:51PM (#62469824)
      I think twitter should be very reticent to delete posts but declining paid ads strikes me a bit different. If you're taking money to promote an idea, you're not just serving as a medium for communications, you're a paid spokesman for that message.

      • True point. Advertisers are guaranteed to have an agenda.

      • I think twitter should be very reticent to delete posts but declining paid ads strikes me a bit different. If you're taking money to promote an idea, you're not just serving as a medium for communications, you're a paid spokesman for that message.

        I was admittedly uneasy about this ban... but that's actually an interesting point.

        I wouldn't go so far as to say as to call the host a "paid spokesman" (or even spokesperson), after all I'm sure no shortage of Democratic politicians have bought ad time on Fox News. But I think hosting an ad does imply a certain level of endorsement that the advertiser is a credible entity you should pay attention to, and it's fair that Twitter doesn't want to give that endorsement to climate change deniers.

        • I think twitter should be very reticent to delete posts but declining paid ads strikes me a bit different. If you're taking money to promote an idea, you're not just serving as a medium for communications, you're a paid spokesman for that message.

          I was admittedly uneasy about this ban... but that's actually an interesting point.

          I wouldn't go so far as to say as to call the host a "paid spokesman" (or even spokesperson), after all I'm sure no shortage of Democratic politicians have bought ad time on Fox News. But I think hosting an ad does imply a certain level of endorsement that the advertiser is a credible entity you should pay attention to, and it's fair that Twitter doesn't want to give that endorsement to climate change deniers.

          That example is a bit too apples and oranges. Fox is broadcast and there are rules they have to follow for political ads, like equal time to both parties. Political ads are also regulated and must have disclaimers, political advertisement paid for and approved by so and so. Then a network will sometimes add their own disclaimer, like such and such network doesn't necessarily endorse or share the views in the following paid programming. They don't have to run ads for political issues. Which is why you m

        • Democrats by ads on Fox and Republicans buy ads on CNN. But not all of the ads are accepted. Those that the airing network considers to be blatant lies are often rejected.

    • Geocentric vs heliocentric models for the Earth come to mind. It wasn't just religion but primarily the SCIENCE of the day causing persecution for Galileo, echoing Copernicus's discovery that the Earth revolves around the sun instead of vice-versa.

      And if you want to jump forward to much more recent times and "Green" related science? Let's talk about that oxygenated (ethanol mixed) gasoline the scientists claimed was better for the environment. Oops....

      https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]

      Or how about this?

      ht [cnn.com]

      • Look at margarine vs butter. Or transfats which was suppose to be healthier than regular fats.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by lsllll ( 830002 )
          I'm on keto and losing weight right now, but I can't stop thinking about how the Food Pyramid from the 80s fucked me up for year. Not only me, but millions of other Americans have suffered and are still suffering from obesity. I've learned over time not to trust anything any more. That's why every time there's consensus among the scientific community, I always head first to read the opposing views. Kinda the same thing that I do with user reviews of products. I want to know what the 1, 2, and 3 say abo

          • I'm on keto and losing weight right now, but I can't stop thinking about how the Food Pyramid from the 80s fucked me up for year. ... That's why every time there's consensus among the scientific community, I always head first to read the opposing views.

            There was no scientific consensus on the '80s food pyramid. It was bought and paid for by large food companies.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by lsllll ( 830002 )
              Yeah, because large food companies make the most money off bread, rice and pasta and the least amount from fats?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                Here in Canada, when the food pyramid was updated a few years back, industry (and the political opposition) acted like it was the end of the world to encourage drinking water instead of milk, etc. Huge political pressure to have a profitable food pyramid which likely would have won out if those companies were allowed to bribe the politicians like they are in America.

      • If someone wants to post opinions about climate change that contradict the CURRENT theory? They should get their say.

        Sure, so long as they provide evidence .

    • Re:Elon couldn't come sooner (Score:5, Informative)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:09PM (#62469880)

      Galileo didn't get in trouble for saying the earth was not flat, most scientists and the general population knew that the world was round. However he was supportive of heliocentricism which many in the church dismissed. The real problem was the paper he wrote defending heliocentrism that appeared to alsobe insulting to the Pope. Prior to this the Jesuits were on Galileo's side.

      But you can still promote the idiotic denial of climate change on Twitter, you just can't do this with an *advertisement*.

    • Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo! And what about papers like the recent one that found things may not be as bad as we thought they were? I guess Twitter doesn't want that paper on its platform, because? You guessed it. It's a private company and can do what it wants.

      Back then, the catholic church was dogma and superstition, whereas Galileo was the scientific method.
      Today, anthropomorphic climate change is proven by scientific methods, whereas conservative circles are pushing dogma and superstition.

      It is right to defend society from the assholes that seek to impose their dogma and superstition upon us.

    • Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo! And what about papers like the recent one that found things may not be as bad as we thought they were? I guess Twitter doesn't want that paper on its platform, because? You guessed it. It's a private company and can do what it wants.

      Consensus among the scientific community is different...of course you know this but you would prefer to push your own agenda.
      If 95% of the scientist involved in climate science agree, then yes, the other 5% are wrong until an alternative hypothesis is developed and proved. This won't happen.
      Science is iterative and is built upon the foundations of previous work. There may be new findings that change our deeper understanding but it won't change the overall picture.
      Also, citing a 'paper' without any reference

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        If 95% of the scientist involved in climate science agree, then yes, the other 5% are wrong until an alternative hypothesis is developed and proved ...

        No. The 5% are not wrong, they simply have a different opinion. Neither the 95% nor the 5% have proof, they just have their theories that differ in popularity, evidence that falls short of proof. Science need skeptics that double check and/or challenge the consensus. We f'd this up with respect to climate change by letting politicians get involved, by letting the politicians demonize the idea of not going with the consensus.

        Science is iterative and is built upon the foundations of previous work ...

        Yes, largely because there is no penalty for not being part of the consensus. Change

    • Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo!

      Galileo was not jailed. He was placed under house arrest at his Tuscan villa, continued his work, and received a steady stream of visitors, including his students from the university, which is not exactly the same as being in Leavenworth. He was also sentenced by Pope Urban VIII to read seven Psalms from the Bible once a week for three years (specifically, Psalms 6, 31, 37, 50, 101, 129, and 142). Get this: Galileo said that reading those Bible passages

    • Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong?

      Depends on the people Climate sceptics are not randomly spread through the population. When you analyse the distribution by general intelligence and those who use scientific methods the numbers are more like 100% and 0%

      So no, the other 5% aren't just 100% wrong, they are also incredibly stupid. Galileo wasn't stupid. Quite the opposite.

      Interesting how ever your attempt at whataboutism didn't make a counterclaim to climate change, just that "things may not be as bad". You guys are getting comically desperate

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jodka ( 520060 )

      Because when there's +95% consensus...

      That "+95%" number is a hoax. [fraserinstitute.org]

      It's a private company and can do what it wants.

      Sure, corporate blacklisting of unpopular viewpoints is dope today, but back when your side was trying to send people to jail [wikipedia.org] for criticizing Hillary Clinton all we heard from you was that corporations were not people and did not have rights.

    • Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo!

      Are you saying the deniers are all Gallileos?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bongo ( 13261 )

      Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo! And what about papers like the recent one that found things may not be as bad as we thought they were? I guess Twitter doesn't want that paper on its platform, because? You guessed it. It's a private company and can do what it wants.

      Nullius in verba [wikipedia.org] became a motto for that key historical insight.

      What's difficult, really difficult, as it requires everyone to do some soul searching and take a long hard long look in the mirror, is that we know the brain is constantly being influenced according to natural bias mechanisms, not only for our survival, but just so we can make it through the day without having to make huge mental efforts over how to cross a road or how to drive a car, as these are all trained and automatic processes in the bra

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by noodler ( 724788 )

      Why? Because when there's +95% consensus, the other 5% are 100% wrong? Where have I heard that before? Oh, I guess Earth is flat. Jail for you, Galileo!

      That's so out of context i could easily accuse you of anything between severely mentally challenged and outright nefarious.
      The notion of the flat earth was not based on science. In fact, (Greek) science has proven that the earth is round hundreds of years before the catholic church decided people should believe in a flat earth.
      So the flat earth thing was purely a belief, not based on facts and forced on the flock.
      It was a convenient 'truth', much like the belief that humans have no impact on earths climate

  • They all moved to Slashdot, as it seems.

    • They all moved to Slashdot, as it seems.

      I'm willing to take money of denialists, anitvaxers, etc to promote their zany shit. Apply below. Sadly, as you say, the position is already filled.

  • Now I am curious.

    Now imagine if they banned all misinformation. No more politicians! Now more weather forecasters! Great times ahead!
    • No more Santa Clause, no more Easter Bunny, no more tooth fairy, no more religion. Great times ahead indeed!

  • Shouldn't ban, just put a notice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @03:53PM (#62469832) Journal

    Banning just creates resentment and the Streisand Effect. Instead put a bright notice that it's likely misleading material and include a link to a rebuttal or alternative.

    • it draws attention to climate change misinformation. When the misinformation is so obvious drawing attention to it helps.

      • It's not obvious to most people, who don't [want to] know shit about shit.

        Most people have no clue about AGW, not even one single solitary one. That's why the disinformation has been so wildly effective at spreading.

  • Just mark it with a big bold "This ad may be a scam." that's far more effective.

  • Whew (Score:2, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 )

    That's a relief, I was afraid the Arbiters of Truthiness weren't going to be on the job but yep - they're protecting us from all that icky nuance, debate, corrections, revisions, etc.

    You know, because Science doesn't allow questions!

    Wasn't it the first two or three IPCC reports that didn't include water vapor (the most potent warming gas in the atmosphere) AT ALL to much criticism?
    So that criticism would be blocked, then?

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      they're protecting us from all that icky nuance, debate, corrections, revisions, etc.

      There's a lot of things to call two opposing sides talking about climate change, but "nuance" and "debate" are probably the words that describe them the least.

      You know, because Science doesn't allow questions!

      Since when is running adverts on Twitter "science"? Is a paper only peer reviewed after it gets an ad placement? Do you not get published in nature unless you're tweet about it first? Before angry-posting maybe consider that what you're saying is actually of zero relevance to the topic at hand.

      Wasn't it the first two or three IPCC reports that didn't include water vapor (the most potent warming gas in the atmosphere) AT ALL to much criticism?

      I'm pretty sure that back in 1990 when the first IPCC repo

  • stay away from political filtering (Score:3, Insightful)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @05:02PM (#62470070) Homepage Journal
    tech companies as well as news companies should stay clear from any manipulation. It is eventually counter productive for the cause. We live in a democracy where everybody should be mature enough to make informed decisions and forming opinions. I myself am allergic about anything which smells like propaganda, even if I have the same opinion. We need to see all sides and then decide for our selves what is right. If one does not believe in this principle any more, then democracy goes down the drain. It is an arrogant attitude to treat the general public as stupid kids who need to be ``educated" or ``protected" from ``wrong" opinions.

    • Re:stay away from political filtering (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @06:34PM (#62470410)

      It is eventually counter productive for the cause.

      Counterproductive to what cause? Do you suggest Facebook and Twitter would be so much better if the general discourse degenerated to the quality of a typical 4chan post?

      There's nothing counter productive about filtering messages because like it or not there's a fuckton of outright morons in the world

    • Would Truth Social run ads for Green Peace? I think not. The all sides argument is also bullshit. You mostly hear that among the dim witted and holocaust denial crowd.

    • We live in a democracy

      Who told you that? They lied to you.

      We live in a democracy where everybody should be mature enough to make informed decisions and forming opinions.

      What should be, ain't.

      We need to see all sides and then decide for our selves what is right.

      Most people know shit about shit, sorry.

      If one does not believe in this principle any more, then democracy goes down the drain.

      What democracy?

      It is an arrogant attitude to treat the general public as stupid kids who need to be ``educated" or ``protected" from ``wrong" opinions.

      You don't even know that the USA is an oligarchy [represent.us], as is the UK, and frankly most nations on the planet which are not something even worse. Now you want to be the arbiter of who has a valid opinion?

      Education in the USA has been compromised to the point where democracy is not possible, even if we ever had it, which we never did. They set up the nation so that only landed white men, the same people

  • ... find them guilty of apostasy and have them put to death?

  • I've heard rumors that the denialists are funded by Big Oil. Hey, just rumors, I have no proof. That theory goes like this: Oil companies seed rumor sites with denials, then they promote the concept (using $?) with high profile gossips, then the rumors spread organically around the globe.

    That theory could be wrong. Another rumor claims that corporate lobbyists and the like are doing the same thing. Why? Companies that have energy costs already don't want to pay huge sums to reduce their carbon footprint. Th

    • That may be true, but from where does big oil get its power?

      Self-described "progressives" take more flights, fly more miles, and have higher carbon footprints than self-described "conservatives".

      So the notion that climate change is caused by the non-believers, and the notion that big oil exists over the objections of the parties lead by righteous millionaires is folly, and no amount of sticking ones fingers in their ears is going to change that.

      The climate may very well be changing, but there a few people i

  • ...have fossil fuel companies & their lobbyist/PR agencies been caught propagating this FUD & have promised that they'd stop? They're never going to stop. Anyone who buys advertising on major broadcast platforms like Twitter & Facebook needs to be registered & make their financial records available to regulators, which make absolutely clear who has paid for the adverts, to ensure these kinds of abuses don't continue. Should be the same for election campaigning too. Do we really want govts in

  • Fortunately! (Score:3)

    by CoolDiscoRex ( 5227177 ) on Friday April 22, 2022 @07:15PM (#62470470) Homepage

    Fortunately, Twitter will still have ads for airlines, automobiles, and other earth-harming products & services.

    You can harm the earth, you just can't deny that the earth is being harmed.

    Sounds sincere to me.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "We recognize that misleading information about climate change can undermine efforts to protect the planet."

    "We recognize that misleading information about climate change is politically incorrect and can undermine the value of our company."

  • I don't know what weird country this is now, but I want the one back where even deranged leftists hated what I said but would defend to the death my right to say it. Or claimed that they would, anyway.

    Oh wait, that's when their ideas were on the outs, or at least not firmly in control. But now, well, bring on the jackboots (or the banhammer).

  • >"Twitter is banning advertisements that promote climate change denial "

    Twitter is banning anything that THEY BELIEVE is "climate change denial". Which is ANYTHING that goes against their narrative de-jour.

    >"along with other types of banned-ads such as campaigns that contain violence, profanity or personal attacks."

    Which is completely and utterly difference. But I guess, not in their minds.

    >"We recognize that misleading information about climate change can undermine efforts to protect the planet.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close