Credit: Business Finance News
Well, that’s a relief 😐 But a spot of thought policing might not be too far way it seems, should Facebook attempt to judge what is or isn’t a ‘fact’ in the climate debate, as it hints it might like to do while referring to ‘denial’.
Facebook’s head of sustainability says although the company believes strongly in renewable energy, it will not be changing its algorithm to force its pro-green principles on users, reports PEI.
The company is committed to investing in renewable power but has a pragmatic approach in how it squares its principles with its daily operations.
Speaking to Power Engineering International on the fringes of the New York Times Energy for Tomorrow conference in Paris, Bill Weihl, Facebook’s Director of Sustainability said that while the company doesn’t directly work with on-site renewables, it’s position is to pay for green power to offset the energy it uses.
—
During a later Q&A session, Weihl did acknowledge a possibility that Facebook might change its modus operandi in a way that could benefit proponents of sustainability.
Facebook allows its users to report on inappropriate postings and Weihl appeared to open the door slightly that content such as climate change denial might be deemed inappropriate at some point. [bold added]
“Climate is extremely important; it’s the issue of the day. Being able to flag factually incorrect content could be useful and a feature that people could find valuable. It could change people’s behaviour and it’s something worth thinking about and seeing some experiments on.”
Full report: Facebook won’t force its belief in renewable energy on users | PEI
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
First it’s #WrongThink then it will be #ThoughtCrime that will be all the excuse needed to enforce with violence
They could go down the LA Times route…
L.A. Times cuts off climate-change deniers [October 2013]
‘For years, scientists have been explaining that our proclivity to burn fossil fuels is causing temperatures to spike and weather to become more extreme, ice caps to melt and the tropics to overheat.’ [etc.]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/la-times-cuts-off-climate-change-deniers/
‘Explaining’ or ‘claiming’? What about scientists who don’t agree and ‘explain’ why they don’t?
Let ’em put their faith in renewables. And provide their ‘service’ when only the sun shines & the wind blows.
Their customers will soon decide if they want a 24/7 or intermittent service.
I wonder, would Facebook consider it ‘factually incorrect’ to point out why Google engineers saw the light and decided the renewable-energy thang just wouldn’t fly?
From a green horse’s mouth:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy
Of course climate change ‘denialists’ had been saying the same thing for a long time before Google spent a lot of money to discover that the ‘denialists’ were in fact both truthful and correct.
It makes sense for Facebook and other Silicon Valley firms to be big into green energy. They manufacture few products. Of the little manufactured, the work is typically done over seas in Asia.
From a planning stand point, the tech companies can gain two advantages with their position, good will from the people. That is the hope. And they can point toward manufacturing companies as being polluters that should be taxed more. They in return should be taxed less.
Joel: it wouldn’t make sense for Facebook to go ‘off-grid’ as their business would collapse if data centres were weather dependent.
Therefore they are relying on some other form of power generation to bail them out when it’s dark and/or not windy. If a punitive tax system is adopted, some companies may leave that region or not go there in the first place.
Looks like it’s time for a few younger, smaller, funner competitors now!
Bill Weihl, Facebook’s Director of Sustainability…
What exactly is a ‘Director of Sustainability’?
Does this mean all companies not having such an office/executive must only be there for an unsustainable short term?
Monolithic conglomerates like Book face, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Gates ect, have bothered me for years.
Without exception they have not only bought into the global warming scam, but actively sponsor the propagandists at the odious NGO’s.
I was wondering if some wise person on here could post a list of everyday service providers with clean hands.
For instance, I noticed the only web based outfit to approve/sponsor President Trump (God bless him) was the owner of PayPal.
It is difficult to avoid most of the above on a daily basis, but if possible I would like to hurt them in their pockets, by using alternatives.
Captain Boycott is famed in County Mayo in Ireland where the eponymous title was invented, let’s extend it to silicon valley.
I wonder how they actually get 24 hour wind guaranteed: ““In Ireland we have done 100 per cent wind power via a long term PPA, in Iowa we’ve gone for a 100 per cent new wind utility building to serve our operations and in Texas also 100 per cent wind.”