World Economic Forum Calls For Merging Of Human And AI Intel To Censor ‘Hate Speech’ & ‘Misinformation’

Despite the fact that no one asked, the World Economic Forum is now advocating for the merger of human and artificial intelligence systems to censor “hate speech” and “misinformation” online before it is even allowed to be posted.

report published to the official WEF website ominously warns about the peril of “the dark world of online harms.”

But the globalist body, run by comic book Bond villain Klaus Schwab, has a solution.

They want to merge the ‘best’ aspects of human censorship and AI machine learning algorithms to ensure that people’s feelings don’t get hurt and counter-regime opinions are blacklisted.

“By uniquely combining the power of innovative technology, off-platform intelligence collection and the prowess of subject-matter experts who understand how threat actors operate, scaled detection of online abuse can reach near-perfect precision,” states the article.

After engaging in a whole host of mumbo jumbo, the article concludes by proposing “a new framework: rather than relying on AI to detect at scale and humans to review edge cases, an intelligence-based approach is crucial.”

“By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms. Supplementing this smarter automated detection with human expertise to review edge cases and identify false positives and negatives and then feeding those findings back into training sets will allow us to create AI with human intelligence baked in,” the article rambles.

In other words, your free speech will probably get censored before you’re even able to post it on social media sites. Some are calling it “preemptive censorship.”

Or as the WEF puts it, “Trust and safety teams can stop threats rising online before they reach users.”

No doubt that a central part of such “misinformation” will be strident denunciation of the WEF itself, given that the organization is notorious for blocking its critics on Twitter.

Many would ask why the World Economic Forum, amidst a cost of living crisis, upcoming energy rationing and a global recession, is concerning itself with any of this.

Why don’t they just stick to the economy?

“It’s never a sure bet if this Davos-based elite’s mouthpiece comes up with its outlandish “solutions” and “proposals” as a way to reinforce existing, or introduce new narratives; or just to appear busy and earn its keep from those bankrolling it,” writes Didi Rankovic.

“No – it’s not the runaway inflation, energy costs, and even food security in many parts of the world. For how dedicated to globalization the organization is, it’s strangely tone-deaf to what is actually happening around the globe.”

Reference: Summit.news

The Great Reset Aims To End Freedom Of The Press, Speech, And Expression

Governments, corporations, and elites have always been fearful of the power of a free press, because it is capable of exposing their lies, destroying their carefully crafted images, and undermining their authority.

the great reset aims to end freedom of the press, speech, and expression

In recent years, alternative journalism has been growing and more people are relying on social media platforms as sources of news and information.

In response, the corporate state, digital conglomerates, and the mainstream media have been increasingly supportive of the silencing and censoring of alternative media outlets and voices that challenge the official narrative on most issues.

At the recent World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, “Australian eSafety commissioner” Julie Inman Grant stated that “freedom of speech is not the same thing as a free for all,” and that “we are going to need a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online—from freedom of speech … to be free from online violence.”

Meanwhile, the Canadian government is seeking to restrict independent media and the freedom of expression via the implementation of Bill C-11, which would allow it to regulate all online audiovisual platforms on the internet, including content on Spotify, Tik Tok, YouTube, and podcast clients.

Similarly, the UK is seeking to introduce an Online Safety Bill, the US “paused” the establishment of a Disinformation Governance Board following backlash, and the European Union approved its own Digital Services Act, all of which aim to limit the freedom of speech. Attempts by elites and politicians to silence dissenters and critical thinkers is not something new.

In fact, history is full of examples of “the persecution of men of science, the burning of scientific books, and the systematic eradication of the intelligentsia of the subjected people.”1

However, these current efforts to curtail freedom of speech and press by supposedly liberal governments are still somewhat ironic, given that even “the most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonization of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a ‘devil’s advocate.’

The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honors, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed.”2

The corporate state, digital conglomerates, and the mainstream media want to ensure that they have the exclusive authority to dictate people’s opinions, wants, and choices through their sophisticated propaganda techniques. To do so, they have even resorted to transforming falsehoods into truth.

In fact, the word truth has already had its original meaning altered, as those who speak the truth on certain subjects are now regularly accused of spreading hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation.

Presently, truth is no “longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort, and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organised effort require it.”3

However, modifying the definition of truth comes with the potential for great peril, as truth-seeking often contributes to human progress in that it leads to discoveries that ultimately benefit society at large. It should be noted that truth is by no means the only word whose meaning has been changed recently in order for it to serve as an instrument of propaganda; others include freedom, justice, law, right, equality, diversity, woman, pandemic, jjab, etc..

This is highly concerning, because such attempts at the “perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals” of the ruling class are expressed is a consistent feature of totalitarian regimes.4

As a number of liberal-democratic governments increasingly move toward totalitarianism, they want people to forget that there is “the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.”5

According to them, “public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.”6

In fact, they believe that all views and opinions that might cast doubt or create hesitation need to be restricted in all disciplines and on all platforms. This is because “the disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed” when “the vindication of the official views becomes the sole object” of the ruling class.7

In other words, the control of information is practiced and the uniformity of views is enforced in all fields under totalitarian rule.

The suppression of freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought means that current and future generations will be “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”8

They are also at risk of becoming ignorant of the fact that the only way in which a person can know “the whole of a subject” is by “hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.”9

That is to say, current and future generations will be unaware that “the steady habit of correcting and completing” one’s own “opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it.”10

At present, it is likely that the masses do not regard freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought as being particularly important, because “the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another.”11

Nevertheless, no one should have the power and authority to “select those to whom” freedom of thought, enlightenment and expression is to be “reserved.”12

In fact, John Stuart Mill went so far as to claim that “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”13

He further added that silencing the expression of an opinion is essentially an act of “robbing the human race,” which applies to both current and future generations.14

Even though the suppressors can deny the truth to people at a particular point in time, “history shows that every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.”15

If current efforts to suppress freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought succeed, then the search for truth will eventually be abandoned and totalitarian authorities will decide what “doctrines ought to be taught and published.”16 There will be no limits to who can be silenced, as the control of opinions will be extended to all people in all fields.

Accordingly, contemporary authoritarian policy makers need to be reminded about the crucial importance of freedom of speech, expression, and thought, which the US Supreme Court recognized in the 1957 case Sweezy v. New Hampshire when it ruled that:

“to impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made…. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die…. Our form of government is built on the premise that every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association.

“This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Exercise of these basic freedoms in America has traditionally been through the media of political associations…. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.”

  • 1. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (New York: Routledge 2006), p. 168.
  • 2. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001), p. 22.
  • 3. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 167.
  • 4. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 161.
  • 5. Mill, On Liberty, p. 21.
  • 6. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 164.
  • 7. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 165.
  • 8.  Mill, On Liberty, p. 19.
  • 9. Mill, On Liberty, p. 22.
  • 10. Mill, On Liberty, p. 22.
  • 11. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168.
  • 12. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168.
  • 13. Mill, On Liberty, p. 18.
  • 14. Mill, On Liberty, p. 19.
  • 15. Mill, On Liberty, p. 20.
  • 16. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 165.

 How to Decode The “Two Faces” of Donald Trump

With this epic battle for the world still raging, the RHC — in spite of all the cancellations and hate mail — is not about to betray the dauntless man who saved us all from the unimaginable Hell-on-Earth apocalypse which the sainted Killary Clinton(who would now be 1-year into a second term) would have unleashed upon humanity. The game that Chess Master Trump is playing against the Deep State amounts to a ruse so clever that it’s even got many of his followers (er, “ex” followers) tricked.

Write him off as a con man or even a traitor if you insist; but before doing so, do consider some undeniable precedents of Trump being “two-faced” — for the sake of strategy. The pattern is unmistakable by now. In each of the following cases, Trump, in order to silence the ferocious media cannons firing at him, said something which deeply upset many of us — while continuing to quietly work against the Deep State Globalists and getting his way in the end.

On the Clintons

Trump’s True Position: Lock her up!
The Media Attack: “Trump’s threats to arrest the Clintons smack of “Fascism!”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: After winning the election, he stated, on 60 Minutes: “The Clintons are good people. I don’t want to hurt them.”
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump’s not even in office yet and he has already broken his promise to have Hillary arrested!”
The End Result: Prosecutor John Durham — who was appointed by Trump! — is indeed investigating the dirty dealings of the Clinton Mafia. Patience on this one, boys and girls. The timing has got to be perfect for such a move as the arrest of such high-ranking players as the Clintons — who may actually already have been arrested and replaced by those “Deep Fakes” that the New York Times and Killary herself had warned about.

On Climate Change

Trump’s True Position: The Climate Con is a hoax.
The Media Attack: “Trump is a climate denier! The world is in crisis.”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: While still President-Elect, he invited climate con artists Leonardo DiCaprio & Al Gore to Trump Tower to “open mindedly” hear what they had to say about the “crisis.”
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Stupid Trump is being controlled by libtarded Ivanka! He is a Global Warmist now!”
End Result: Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Scam, ramped up domestic energy production and defunded / fired a whole bunch of warmist scientists.

On North Korea

Trump’s True Position: The dangerous Korean Cold War must end.
The Media Attack: “Trump is being soft on the evil dictator Kim Jong Un”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He called Kim “Rocket Man” and threatened to attack North Korea with “fire and fury.” Kim (also in on the game) responded by calling Trump a “frightened dog.”
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump is a neo-con warmonger!”
The End Result: Trump’s people had been in secret back-channel communication with Kim’s people all along. The Korean Cold War — which always had the potential of bringing the US and China into war with each other — is over.

On Afghanistan

Trump’s True Position: Pull all US troops out of Afghanistan
The Media Attack: “Trump is negotiating with the terrorist Taliban!”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He publicly ended the talks with the Taliban and threatened to bomb them – as he privately maintained back-channel negotiations.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Traitor Trump is going to keep us in Afghanistan!”
The End Result: The final US withdrawal (as planned by Trump) occurred under “Biden” in a way that made it seem as though “Biden” botched it!

On NATO

Trump’s True Position: Work with Putin to kill NATO and avoid World War III
The Media Attack: “Trump is leaving Europe vulnerable to Russian attack!”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He boasted about how he strengthened NATO.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump is a pro-NATO Globalist!”
The End Result: NATO cannot counter Russia’s justified actions in Ukraine because Trump (not “Biden”) is the true Commander-in-Chief. The war-making alliance is dying right before our eyes.

On Syria

Trump’s True Position: End the CIA-Mossad proxy war against Syria
The Media Attack: “Trump is being soft on the evil Bashir al Assad”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He called Assad “an animal” and — after telling Assad’s Russian ally in advance — launched a harmless missile attack on an empty field.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump is an Israeli-owned warmonger!”
The End Result: After Trump defunded the CIA program propping up “the moderate rebels” (ISIS), Russia and Iran finished off the CIA-Mossad mercenaries on the ground. The Assad government was saved.

On Iran

Trump’s True Position: Maintain peace in the region
The Neo-Con Media Attack: “Trump is being too soft on Iran.”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He threatened to attack Iran.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump is an Israeli-owned warmonger!”
The End Result: Iran, now free of Obama’s “Iran Nuclear Deal,” is free to pursue nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel. Along with Russia, Iran is now an influential power in the region.

On Gun Control

Trump’s True Position: Pro 2nd Amendment — 100%
The Media Attack: After the 2018 hoax shooting at Parkland High School in Florida, a deafening roar for “gun control” went forth from Fake News and prominent politicians of both parties.
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He publicly agreed that something had to be done.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump is about to betray us on the 2nd Amendment!”
The End Result:  After allowing the temporary furor over Parkland to fizzle out, Trump did nothing. Since Parkland, there has also been a noticeable decrease in these hoax shootings.

On Russia / Ukraine

Trump’s True Position: End the dangerous CIA-Mossad proxy war against pro-Russian east Ukraine and cripple NATO before it ignites a World War.
The Media Attack: “Trump is Putin’s bitch!”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He said a few nasty things about Putin and made a public show about the weapons he was selling to Ukraine.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Trump wants a war with Russia!”
The End Result: The military aid to Ukraine was delayed and came with the condition that they not use the new equipment! The Ukrainian warmongers were demoralized and the tension eased. The Ukraine “civil war” ended (update: February, 2022: Putin is cleaning up Ukraine while Trump pretends to condemn his actions).

On Israel

Trump’s True Position: Peace in the broader Middle East and a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The Media Attack: In this case, there was no attack because Trump skillfully preempted the Israel First elements.
How Trump Silenced the Attack: Trump blocked any Jewish attack by pretending to kiss Satanyaoo’s ass and making the meaningless gesture of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
The Sunshine Patriots: “Oh no! Trump is a Zionist puppet! Muh Jared Kushner!”
The End Result: Satanyahoo is out of power (as are Israel’s top blackmail agents, Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislane Maxwell) and the whole Middle East is quieter than it has ever been in 70 years. The US is out and Russia and Iran are now the regional powers. Said Trump recently of Satanyahoo: F*ck him!

Stupid 19 & The Vaccine

Trump’s True Position: Give the chicken-shit normies their magical vaccine in order to thwart the planned multi-year Scamdemic; block the Great Reset that was to come out of the deadly multi-year lock down; and launch the great counter punch of 2022.
The Media Attack: “Trump is being negligent! His supporters refuse to take the vaccine and he’s not saying anything to encourage them.”
How Trump Silenced the Attack: He recently made his strongest public statements yet in favor of voluntary vaccination (knowing full well that it wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind on either side of the issue).
The Sunshine Patriots: “Trump is evil! Mike King is a shill!” (rolling eyes)
The End Result:  (As we foresee it) In the eyes of the bewildered masses of Normiedom, Trump comes out of this manufactured controversy looking like “the adult in the room” — as the “Biden” administration and the Demonrats continue to implode. The international hysteria over Stupid-19 will end this Spring, soon after Trump’s “Truth Social” media giant (an absolutely critical element to all of this) comes online. Investigations into election fraud, human trafficking, the Russia hoax etc are continuing. The “Storm” will begin to hit (in the public eye) no later than this summer — intensifying in stages and finally culminating with a historic electoral rout — which even the media is already projecting — by America First Republicans in November.

Be patient, boys and girls. Understand that we are fighting an irregular war, with regular casualties, against an “invisible enemy” (more Trumpian code). Stop taking Trump literally.

World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal Roasts Facebook Over ‘Inaccurate, Incompetent & Irresponsible’ Fact Check

The Machiavellian quote (sic) that “if you’re going to come at the king, you best not miss,” may be about to bite Mark Zuckerberg and his army of fact-checking mercenaries.

While Zuckerberg may feel omnipotent atop his opaque algo-world but the so-called ‘fact-checkers’ – so expert at shutting down any narrative-conflicting-information (on behalf of, and often at the behest of, the Biden administration) – may have met their match by claiming that one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journals delivered “false information” that “could mislead people.”

britihs medical journal mark zuckerberg

Bombshell That Went Virtually Unreported in the Corporate Media: Facebook Court Filing ADMITS ‘Fact Checks’ Are Just A Matter Of Opinion.

As we detailed in early NovemberThe British Medical Journal (BMJ) – a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association – published a whistle-blower report calling into question data integrity and regulatory oversight issues surrounding Pfizer’s pivotal phase III Covid-19 vaccine trial.

Brook Jackson, a now-fired regional director at Ventavia Research Group, revealed to The BMJ that vaccine trials at several sites in Texas last year had major problems – including falsified data, broke fundamental rules, and were ‘slow’ to report adverse reactions.

When she notified superiors of the issues she found, they fired her.

“A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” – The BMJ

Very soon after, as the worrisome story went viral, BMJ soon would get a taste of what Facebook, Google, and others are doing to independent media platforms. As TrialSiteNews.com reportseven though BMJ is one of the most prominent medical journals and the information was rigorously peer-reviewed, strange things started occurring.

For example, readers would try to post some of the information on social media such as Facebook to share with their networks. But “some reported being unable to share it [the information].” Moreover, those individuals that were simply sharing this content, peer-reviewed from The BMJ, were warned by Facebook that, “Independent fact-checkers concluded, “This information could mislead people.”

biden's bodyguards facebook and twitter

Moreover, they were told, “Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share ‘false information’ might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed.”

In addition, some group administrators received notices from Facebook that the information was “partly false.”

Readers were sent to a “fact check” performed by Lead Stories, a third-party fact-checker.

And so, as possibly the top experts in the world when it comes to medical research information, BMJ has now been forced to fact-check the ‘fact-checkers’.

In a no-holds-barred ‘open letter to Mark Zuckerberg’, the editors exposed that ‘fact-check’ as “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible.”

Having received no response from Facebook or from Lead Stories, after requesting the removal of the “fact checking” label, the BMJ’s editors raise a “wider concern”:

We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime…

Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.

Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades.

What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.

Additionally, ‘goopthink’ offered more anti-censorship fire and brimstone in an eloquent comment at ycombinator:

In addition to the points raised by BMJ and in the comments below, there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish.

For example, are their fact checkers conducting their own scientific experiments validating claims and outcomes of a scientific paper? Are fact checkers reaching out to sources from a news article and verifying quoted information? When “breaking news” or “scoops” are reported presenting totally new information about the world, how can that be verified against other information that – by virtue of something being new – cannot be verified by other preexisting sources?

If the fact checking process is limited to verification based on other information that is currently available, and if the fact checking process cannot distinguish between factual information and the opinions people hold as a result of that information, the outcome will be an inevitable echo chamber that reinforces currently dominant views or whatever preexisting biases are present.

… and that is exactly what the establishment wants.

Bombshell That Went Virtually Unreported in the Corporate Media: Facebook Court Filing ADMITS ‘Fact Checks’ Are Just A Matter Of Opinion.

Full letter from The BMJ below (emphasis ours):

Open Letter From The BMJ To Mark Zuckerberg

Dear Mark Zuckerberg,

We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.

In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.

The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.

But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”

Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.

We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

  • It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
  • It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
  • The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”
  • It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
  • It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”

We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.

We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.

There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence. Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.

We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.

Best wishes,

Fiona Godlee, editor in chief

Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief

The BMJ

Competing interests:

As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.

It appears the ‘fact-checkers’ have some facts of their own to check… or otherwise admit they are simply there – as Fauci and Collins collusion was exposed this week – to maintain the propaganda peace for whoever is pulling the strings.