On Language Again: 'The Proof is in The Pudding'

Just happened to half tune-in to an interview with AZ Bisexual Democratic Senator Kirsten Sinema - who likes to straddle both sides of Congressional politics - using nearly every buzzword in the current book of push-button hot points, when out jumped an old phrase "The Proof is In The Pudding" - when's the last time you had some of that treat or snack?

> HERE IS Proof there is more than what's in the Pudding:

In the AM on ArsTechica today

Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t 

The anticlimate-science blogosphere’s trophy cabinet is bare.

Scott K. Johnson – 8/6/2021, 3:30 AM

Modern climate science is old enough for many of its early predictions to be checked against evidence—the overall global warming trend; specific patterns like nighttime warming exceeding daytime warming; or the cooling of the stratosphere. Even with all that new evidence, the estimated amount of warming you get for a given amount of greenhouse gas emissions hasn’t really changed since 1979.

The flip side to this is also true. Those who have opposed climate science’s conclusions—they’re a broad menagerie, including scientists in different fields, politics-obsessed bloggers, and think-tank employees—have also been squawking long enough for predictions to be tested. Despite their alternate-reality insistence that climate science never predicted anything, these contrarians don't spend much time showing off their own predictions’ track record.

The reason for that is that the track record is very, very bad. Like the cringeworthy poetry you wrote in high school, they probably hope that everyone will just forget about it.

What goes up must come down . . .

READ MORE > https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/

_____________________________________________________________________________

> HERE"S Proof there is more than what's in the Pudding:

In the PM today on ArsTechnica today

Facebook blocks research into political ads, falsely blames FTC privacy order

FTC says Facebook privacy settlement doesn't require blocking researchers.

Jon Brodkin – 8/6/2021, 12:00 PM

Insert copy >

When Facebook disabled the accounts of New York University researchers who were investigating misinformation and political ads on the platform, the social-media giant claimed it did so to comply with a consent decree that it previously agreed to with the Federal Trade Commission. "We took these actions to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people's privacy in line with our privacy program under the FTC Order," Facebook wrote in its explanation of the account suspensions. Facebook said it "disabled the accounts, apps, Pages and platform access associated with NYU's Ad Observatory Project and its operators."

But Facebook's claim that the FTC order forced it to suspend the researchers is false, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Acting Director Samuel Levine wrote in a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday. The FTC order did require Facebook to create a privacy program, but there was no requirement that would have forced Facebook to shut down the NYU research project. Despite that, Facebook's statement that it suspended the accounts "in line with our privacy program under the FTC Order" conveys the false message that Facebook had no choice in the matter.

Levine's three-paragraph letter to Zuckerberg said:

I write concerning Facebook's recent insinuation that its actions against an academic research project conducted by NYU's Ad Observatory were required by the company's consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission. As the company has since acknowledged, this is inaccurate. The FTC is committed to protecting the privacy of people, and efforts to shield targeted advertising practices from scrutiny run counter to that mission.

While I appreciate that Facebook has now corrected the record, I am disappointed by how your company has conducted itself in this matter. Only last week, Facebook's General Counsel, Jennifer Newstead, committed the company to "timely, transparent communication to BCP staff about significant developments." Yet the FTC received no notice that Facebook would be publicly invoking our consent decree to justify terminating academic research earlier this week.

Had you honored your commitment to contact us in advance, we would have pointed out that the consent decree does not bar Facebook from creating exceptions for good-faith research in the public interest. Indeed, the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices, especially around surveillance-based advertising. While it is not our role to resolve individual disputes between Facebook and third parties, we hope that the company is not invoking privacy—much less the FTC consent order—as a pretext to advance other aims."   . .

Researchers deny Facebook claims

When suspending the NYU researchers, Facebook said the Ad Observer browser extension "was programmed to evade our detection systems and scrape data such as usernames, ads, links to user profiles and 'Why am I seeing this ad?' information, some of which is not publicly viewable on Facebook. The extension also collected data about Facebook users who did not install it or consent to the collection."

The researchers deny this, with Edelman telling NPR, "We really don't collect anything that isn't an ad, that isn't public, and we're pretty careful about how we do it."

The Ad Observer website says the browser extension does not collect any personally identifying information. "It copies the ads you see on Facebook and YouTube, so anyone can see them in our public database," the site says. "If you want, you can enter basic demographic information about yourself in the tool to help improve our understanding of why advertisers targeted you."

This is important because . . ."

READ MORE > Jon Brodkin -  Ars Technica | 8/6/2021, 12:00 PM