News Round-Up: Musk's X Goes to Court with 'Misinformation' Activists, US Army Asks Discharged Covid Jab Refusers Back to Service and Hollywood Millions Going to Eco-Zealots
News Round-Up: Musk's X Goes to Court with 'Misinformation' Activists, US Army Asks Discharged Covid Jab Refusers Back to Service and Hollywood Millions Going to Eco-Zealots
Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention:
Elon Musk's X sued the "misinformation" activists who started a campaign against the platform.
The climate group, backed by Hollywood stars, sends millions to activists who vandalise famous paintings, and block roads.
Study: people who stuck by Covid lockdown rules most strictly have the worst mental health today.
Oxford in the UK to ban gas hobs and boilers in the name of climate.
US Army asks soldiers discharged for refusing the Covid jab to return.
Elon Musk's X sued the "misinformation" activists who started a campaign against the platform
Media Matters for America, an organisation that bills itself as a 'progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. Media', last week published a series of stories about social media platform X, accusing its owner Elon Musk of anti-Semitism and describing the platform as spreading racist and national-socialist content alongside paid messages from large-scale advertisers. The articles made various 'photo accusations', i.e. screenshots of 'Nazi' or 'racist' positions, followed by advertisements from some well-known big companies. For example, it was pointed out that one user appeared to justify Nazi Germany. There was also a reference to a post that was clearly a joke, ironising the spiritual awakening with a photo of Adolf Hitler and other Nazis. Posts that simply appear to oppose immigration were also categorised as racist or in favour of white supremacy, for example.
In response to the Media Matters articles, X stated that the platform stands up for freedom of expression. "X works to protect the public’s right to free speech. But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable. We believe that everyone has the right to make up their own minds about what to read, watch, or listen to – because that’s the power of freedom of speech," the company explained on its blog.
The blog post also drew attention to how Media Matters achieved such a result in the first place –adverts from large-scale companies appearing alongside content they had declared unsuitable. In order to achieve this result, the activists themselves created an account and they then set to display posts they deemed 'inappropriate'. To get an advertisement from a big company to appear on the screen alongside the posts they selected, they had to repeatedly refresh the timeline on that account. While the companies' ads featured in the Media Matters article were displayed 5.5 billion times that day, the posts that Media Matters considered problematic actually only had ads displayed 50 times. X points out that in the case of one brand advertised, the ad was shown only twice next to the 'problematic' post and was seen on the platform by two people, one of whom was the author of the Media Matters article. In the case of the other, the ad was seen three times next to a specific post, and again at least one of the three times was seen by the author of the article.
According to X, Media Matters launched a malicious campaign against them, leading a large number of businesses to stop buying advertising on the platform. This caused X significant financial losses. Among others, major companies such as Apple, NBCUniversal, and IBM stopped buying advertising as a result of the campaign.
X filed a lawsuit against Media Matters on Monday. The platform is seeking, in addition to actual and consequential damages, the removal of the articles from all platforms under Media Matters' control.
The climate group, backed by Hollywood stars, sends millions to activists who vandalise famous paintings, block roads
The Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), based in Beverly Hills, California, raised $6.1 million (€5.6 million) in 2022, up 165% from $2.3 million (€2.1 million) in 2021, Fox News reports. Most of the money for this fund, which was set up in 2019, comes from Hollywood stars and producers.
Such a large increase in funding has also offered CEF the opportunity to increase their own project funding to $5 million (€4.6 million). $4 million (€3.68 million) was sent to the UK, where the largest chunk of the money went to Just Stop Oil, which bills itself as a climate activist movement. It is an association famous for attacking and attempting to damage the works of art classics and blocking traffic. In addition to the constant disruption to the daily activities of ordinary people, the stoppages are also a major hindrance to the movement of emergency vehicles such as ambulances, preventing life-saving aid from reaching people.
The CEF also supports similar groups in the United States. "Climate Emergency Fund is proud to support some of the boldest, bravest climate activists in the world who are not just fighting but are winning," Margaret Klein Salamon, CEF's executive director, told Fox News Digital. "Throughout history, organized, passionate, and dedicated people have awakened the public's conscience to injustice and achieved change that was once considered impossible," she added.
Study: people who stuck by Covid lockdown rules most strictly have the worst mental health today
According to a study by researchers at Bangor University in Wales, UK, the Covid restrictions were most damaging to the mental health of people who followed the rules most closely, reports The Guardian.
The researchers found that in the UK, the so-called 'lockdown policy' imposed and recommended by Boris Johnson's government was followed by people with 'communal' personalities, who are more caring, sensitive and aware of the needs of others. The rules were less adhered to by more independent individuals who wanted to have better control of their own lives.
Dr. Marley Willegers and colleagues who conducted the study concluded that the more the people followed the Covid rules, the worse their wellbeing was after the rules were lifted, meaning they were now more likely to experience stress, anxiety, and depression.
The research involved 1,729 people whose behaviour was first studied between March and September 2020, during the so-called 'lockdown' policy. The same people's levels of stress, anxiety, and depression were studied between February and May this year.
During the Covid crisis, national governments carried out message campaigns aimed at guiding the public towards following the Covid rules (assembly restrictions, social distancing, bans on public events, etc.), primarily through fear. However, several high-ranking officials were caught breaking these rules, such as Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Health Minister Matt Hancock in the UK.
Oxford in the UK to ban gas hobs and boilers in the name of climate
Oxford City Council plans to ban both gas hobs and boilers in all new houses from 2025, reports The Telegraph. The new rules are part of a wider plan to achieve net zero in the city by 2040 to tackle the "existential threat of climate change".
The national target for phasing out the use of fossil fuels in new buildings is 2036, but Oxford's Labour-led city council wants to bring the ban much closer.
However, based on the argument that climate change is caused by anthropogenic CO2, and the aim is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels for human needs, banning the use of gas in the home is unlikely to reduce overall gas consumption in the UK, i.e. limit the CO2 emissions in any way. In other words, replacing gas appliances with electric cookers and electrically powered heat pumps will not in practice reduce gas consumption. In a recent news round-up, we reported that Jon Butterworth, head of National Gas, the company that operates the UK's gas network, estimates that the growing share of wind and solar power in electricity generation will not reduce dependence on gas, but actually increase it in the coming decades. "In 2022, the wind didn’t blow enough or at all for 262 days. And in those 262 days, we would have had rolling blackouts, or a full blackout across the UK if it wasn’t for gas," he explained. Butterworth believes Britain will still need gas in 2040 to maintain a steady electricity supply. "I actually think we’ll be moving more gas but we’ll be moving gas to power stations to make electricity rather than to homes," he said.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledged in September that the country would not force out existing gas-heating solutions. "We'll never force anyone to rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump," he assured.
US Army asks soldiers discharged for refusing the Covid jab to return
The US Army, which is facing recruitment difficulties, has sent a letter to former servicemen and women who had been discharged from service for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine, informing them that they can now return, reports The Epoch Times.
"Individuals who desire to apply to return to service should contact their local ... recruiter," Brig. Gen. Hope Rampy, U.S. Army director of personnel management, wrote in a letter sent to former Army personnel. The letter informed soldiers who had previously been discharged as essentially ineligible, about a change in conditions and the removal of the Covid-19 vaccination requirement that would allow them to return.
Injections with Covid-19 vaccines were mandatory in the US military from August 2021 until January this year. On the force of that mandate, 1,903 soldiers who refused vaccination were discharged on the grounds that unvaccinated soldiers posed a threat to the army. In reality, we know that Covid-19 does not pose a significant threat to people outside the risk groups. We also know that vaccines developed against it do not protect against infection and transmission. In addition, even claims that they provide significant protection against severe disease progression are questionable. At the same time, the same vaccines have been shown to have the potential for very serious side effects.
However, as far as the US military is concerned, it is facing serious recruitment difficulties. In the last financial year ending in September, it fell short of its recruitment targets by 10,000 soldiers.
According to a comment from the Army Press Service, a letter was sent to previously discharged service members following Veterans Day weekend to provide instructions on how to “request a correction of their military records” if they wished to do so. The army spokesman said that the letter does not explicitly ask former Army members dismissed for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine to return to service.