Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Worth watching - Unherd investigation - Inside the 'disinformation' industry. Kathleen Stock specifically mentioned.

163 replies

OvaHere · 16/04/2024 22:10

Freddie Sayers recently attended a government special committee about News where he raised problems Unherd have had with ad revenue and ad agencies.

It turns out Unherd have been placed on an exclusion list by a British company called the Global Disinformation Index. This company is funded in part by money from various global government departments including our FCDO.

After finding this out Unherd appealed and asked the GDI for an explanation. After some weeks they got a response that rejected the appeal and were told it was because they hosted gender critical content and specifically named Kathleen Stock and her objections to the reform of the GRA 2004.

Our team re-reviewed the domain, the rating will not change as it continues to have anti LGBTQI+ narratives... The site authors have also been called out for being anti -trans. Kathleen Stock is acknowledged as a "prominent gender- critical" feminist. She has opposed transgender self identification in regards to proposed reforms in the 2004 UK Gender Recognition Act.

It's not clear if this is the entirety of the GDI response to Unherd however they are clear that they consider Professor Stock's views 'disinformation'. If you watch the video you'll discover the GDI have conveniently broadened the definition of disinformation beyond just that which is false or factually incorrect.

Unsurprisingly they don't apply this to discourse their founders like and agree with.

Inside the 'disinformation' industry

📰 Subscribe to UnHerd today at: http://unherd.com/joinA government-sponsored agency is censoring journalism; UnHerd's Freddie Sayers investigates.Watch it o...

https://youtu.be/ILEMV0xKGh4?si=_WeXGjLCQBhzRNBF

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Kucinghitam · 28/04/2024 16:38

AlisonDonut · 28/04/2024 16:35

You get upset about people 'writing off your posts'.

Imagine if a few people who were unelected were [being paid by the government and] able to just hide your posts without your knowledge or say so, and you had no way of finding out why. I imagine you'd have quite the tantrum and want to know what was going on.

It's one of those irregular verbs, didn't you know?

The34Bus · 28/04/2024 16:40

AdamRyan · 28/04/2024 10:49

No. The point is Amazon have policies: “Our support for the LGBTQ+ community is a core pillar of our commitment to representing and celebrating diversity, equity and inclusion across Amazon" “You will not place our Ads adjacent to any content that promotes
or contains content or activity that is discriminatory.""

They are giving examples of where the adverts have been placed in a context that breaks Amazons policy.

yes, and that requires you to believe that people who have gender affirming surgery having the right to sue is transphobia.

Either it is transphobia for them to have the right to sue and you (GDI) state that as your position or it’s not transphobia at all and GDI are a pack of spoofers.

AdamRyan · 28/04/2024 19:02

Here's the actual text:
“Ten years from now, there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans who were permanently scarred by the radical Left’s agenda before they reached
adulthood,” he said. “If Democrats truly
supported gender-confused children,
they’d support our effort to give them
legal recourse.”

You really can't see why an advertiser might not want themselves associated with that type of content? Or might not want to fund that type of content? Especially if they are positioning themselves as LGBT+ inclusive?

It's pretty emotive and fear mongering language. A lot of people would consider it transphobic.

AlisonDonut · 28/04/2024 19:08

AdamRyan · 28/04/2024 19:02

Here's the actual text:
“Ten years from now, there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans who were permanently scarred by the radical Left’s agenda before they reached
adulthood,” he said. “If Democrats truly
supported gender-confused children,
they’d support our effort to give them
legal recourse.”

You really can't see why an advertiser might not want themselves associated with that type of content? Or might not want to fund that type of content? Especially if they are positioning themselves as LGBT+ inclusive?

It's pretty emotive and fear mongering language. A lot of people would consider it transphobic.

That sounds quite supportive of the people who once thought they were T of the LGBT+ [whatever the plus means].

Why on earth would supporting people be transphobic?

Surely NOT supporting people would be transphobic?

AdamRyan · 28/04/2024 19:16

AlisonDonut · 28/04/2024 19:08

That sounds quite supportive of the people who once thought they were T of the LGBT+ [whatever the plus means].

Why on earth would supporting people be transphobic?

Surely NOT supporting people would be transphobic?

^hundreds of thousands of Americans who were permanently scarred by the radical Left’s agenda....If Democrats truly
supported gender-confused children,
they’d support our effort to give them
legal recourse.”^

  1. offensive if you are left wing
  2. offensive if you are trans and don't feel "permanently scarred"
  3. "Hundreds of thousands" is fear mongering and unnecessary.
  4. offensive to people who vote democrat.

But I think what GDI were doing was pointing out how this conflicted with Amazon's policy.

Like I keep saying, its really up to the advertisers to decide how much credence they give this index. And they will only be using it as one source of data.

Sayers is just having a tantrum. Boo hoo.

HornyHornersPinkyWinky · 28/04/2024 19:49

Why are people still engaging with this person, it's quite clear they are trying to derail...

OldCrone · 28/04/2024 19:55

AdamRyan · 28/04/2024 19:16

^hundreds of thousands of Americans who were permanently scarred by the radical Left’s agenda....If Democrats truly
supported gender-confused children,
they’d support our effort to give them
legal recourse.”^

  1. offensive if you are left wing
  2. offensive if you are trans and don't feel "permanently scarred"
  3. "Hundreds of thousands" is fear mongering and unnecessary.
  4. offensive to people who vote democrat.

But I think what GDI were doing was pointing out how this conflicted with Amazon's policy.

Like I keep saying, its really up to the advertisers to decide how much credence they give this index. And they will only be using it as one source of data.

Sayers is just having a tantrum. Boo hoo.

offensive if you are left wing

Are you denying that it is largely left-wing parties which are supporting this agenda without question?

offensive if you are trans and don't feel "permanently scarred"

But supportive of those who were harmed by this. Should they be ignored?

"Hundreds of thousands" is fear mongering and unnecessary.

But is it accurate?

offensive to people who vote democrat.

Why?

OldCrone · 28/04/2024 19:56

@AdamRyan
I asked you earlier for a link to the GDI's accounts that you said were on their website, because I couldn't find them. Can you post that link please?

SinnerBoy · 09/05/2024 17:21

AdamRyan · 28/04/2024 19:02

It's pretty emotive and fear mongering language. A lot of people would consider it transphobic.

I'd say that most people would disagree. Look at the likes of Bud Lite, who tried to push it, it didn't go well for them.

OvaHere · 09/05/2024 19:19

Good. Thanks for updating the thread.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/05/2024 20:01

Excellent news, thank you.

AlisonDonut · 09/05/2024 20:02

Excellent news.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page