Shame on Guardian for their misleading reporting on glyphosate in cereal

The Guardian, a newspaper like no other. In the storm of fake news and biased reporting they have stood strong. They have been, like the name suggests, a guardian of the readers. But no more, that title has been stripped, in one single article.

The Guardian have tried to survive on minimal ad support and without premium content, going for a donation model instead. But for that they need to get devoted readers. That used to be done by professional journalism, unbiased reporting and by presenting facts, not opinion. Today they diverted from that model.

In an article titled “Weedkiller found in wide range of breakfast foods aimed at children” (yes, their titles are even longer than mine) they get a lot of facts wrong and sprinkle in a lot of opinions where facts should have been. Riding on the still hot wave of the San Fransisco Court Ruling last week, where a jury ordered Monsanto to pay a man almost $300 million in damages after the man had gotten cancer, they forgot to mention that there still is no scientific evidence laid forth that there is any link between intended use of glyphosate and cancer. The court case was a JURY, that is 12 people selected at random from all walks of life, that decided that they THINK that in THEIR OPINION it causes cancer. They disregarded the evidence at hand and ruled DESPITE the evidence, not BECAUSE OF the evidence.

They then proceed to cite the cause of the high levels of glyphosate in cereal. It is not because more glyphosate is used, nor is it because the washing regiment is more lax. It is because the EWG state it is too high. More on that later.

Third strike, and this is the one that put the last straw on the camel’s back for me, they CITED THE DISCREDITED IIARC REPORT ON GLYPHOSATE! I’m not kidding here, The Guardian, who themselves reported on how the IIARC had redacted the report shortly after it was released, use that same report as a source for their claim that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in today’s article.

And finally, despite citing several official and scientific sources stating the levels are perfectly safe for human consumption and that no link to cancer has been found, they intermix it with statements like “Our view is that the government standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency pose real health risks to Americans ­– particularly children”, making it seem like the views hold equal weight. But they don’t. Because the ones saying it is safe comes from people who know what they are talking about, people who study the effects, who have devoted their lives to study the effects, and the people who claim it is harmful are people like Ken Cook, who is a self-proclaimed scientist with no credentials, who has several claims that has been thoroughly debunked several times before.

Cook has a masters in soil science, yet claims he knows everything there is to know about cancer (all types), pesticides, cell phone radiation, chemistry (including, but not exclusive to, 50 types of “toxins” and over 79 000 “products”, whatever that means), genetic modifications, soft drink production and various other fields of made-up science.

He founded EWG, the Environmental Working Group. An official sounding group, sure, but what they do is so far from science it is laughable. It is a lobby group that is on the forefront of the “organic” movement, one of the organisations that actually “sanctions” the non-GMO labels and that made the non-GMO labeling laws a reality in America.

Every year they produce the “Dirty Dozens” list, a list of produce they claim have “too much chemicals” on them, further showing their utter lack of knowledge of even basic chemistry and biology.

And THAT is the group The Guardian picked as their source to believe over the entire scientific community. THAT is the man they chose to pick quotes from to intersperse in their “factual” article.

The article is not listed as an opinion piece, it’s straight up given to us as a news piece. Like it is a report on current events. But it is nothing but an advertisement for EWG and their fear mongering. And EWG doesn’t even operate in the UK! What the actual fuck, Guardian? Are THESE the people you pick to sell your souls to? To give up your journalistic integrity to? THESE jokers? Out of ALL the causes out there, the people who promote leaving the sunscreen at home, the people who say talking on the phone causes tongue cancer, the people who tried to convince the world to stop using lip balm because it contained a made-up ingredient that caused a made-up disorder? THESE people?

And then you expect us to just trust that the next article we read from you will be true?

No, Youtube is not censoring everyone

There has been a lot of talk lately about Youtube’s rather recent change in their monetization rules. Most people (everyone I’ve seen) that made a speech about it has said they are being censored, but that’s simply not true.

Censorship would be if Youtube removed the content, or disallowed it to be on the site in the first place. But that’s not the case. Neither are they saying you’re not allowed to earn money with the content you’re creating. They are simply saying that they won’t pay you for it.

Popular news channel ETC claimed these new rules are threatening independent news sources such as themselves. That’s not true either. The fact that they’ve come to rely on Youtube ads as their sole source of revenue seems rather odd in my eyes. The one thing all online income experts seem to agree on is that you should not rely on a single revenue stream, as rules change often and what is profitable today may change tomorrow.

Aside from that, it is very rare for an independent news source to use advertising, for this exact reason. When you want to fund yourself through advertising, you are agreeing to change your content to fit with that advertising. It could be either by changing keywords to attract more relevant ads, using deceptive titles (like I did here) to get more clicks with so called clickbait, or it could be to change your entire format to fit the rules the advertisers have. Either way, you have strayed away from being truly independent, since you’re by definition dependent on the advertising.

Yes, it is hard to make money online, especially enough money to turn it into a full time job. Advertising has been a good way around that, but in the past few years, online advertising rates have dropped severely. We have seen several ad-based video sites shut down over the past few years, and others are losing users quick because they have to fill their videos with ads just to make ends meat.

One way around having to stuff your content full of ads is to aim your ads to the advertisers that pay the most. This is what Youtube has chosen to do. In doing so, they may lose 60% of the videos that were previously advertised, but instead they may increase their revenue for each advertised video with over 400%, which more than makes up for it.

But there is no censorship going on here. They are not threatening to shut anyone down, they are not threatening to remove any content at all. They are simply doing what all advertiser networks do and regulates the content they chose to advertise on.

Mobile games for kids are unethical

Games for kids are supposed to do one of two things: Keep them occupied or teach them something.

That is not the case when it comes to the mobile marketplace, at least not for Android. Google Play is filled with games marketed to kids that requires either understanding of timers and the patience to put the phone down for the majority of the day or a big wallet. Kids generally have neither of those, which brings me to one conclusion: they are simply made to make money off kids.

Most kids don’t have any concept of money, so when they see that they can skip those long timers and get instant play out of the game for $2.99, they don’t understand that that equals their dinner. Every click in one of those games is a potential cost for the parents.

Sure, you could argue that a parent shouldn’t hand their kids the phone if the credit card is activated, but I would instead argue that the publisher shouldn’t publish a game aimed towards kids that require patience or money.

What does the law say?

In the UK, restrictions exist on ads that ‘might result in harm to children physically, mentally or morally’ and on ads employing methods that ‘take advantage of the natural credulity and sense of loyalty of children’. Nor may advertisements ‘exhort children to purchase or to ask their parents or others to make enquiries or purchases’. (Source)

The law differs between countries, ranging from the Swedish strict laws about never aim advertising to children under the age of 12 to France’s views that advertising is a natural part of preparing the kids for future consumerism. Most countries have some form of laws against requiring money from young children though. There’s also laws that regulate HOW the ads are shown.

For example, Greece has a ban on all advertising to children that promotes violence, such as military toys. They also have a ban on all advertising of children’s toys between 7am and 10pm. In the UK, you are not allowed to advertise something that plays to the children’s gullibility or sense of loyalty, neither are you allowed to require them to pay or ask their parents to pay for something in the advertising material.

Mobile Market is different

A quick browse of the Google Play Marketplace shows that very few publishers adhere to these rules and regulations. Big Blue Bubble publishes the popular kids game My Singing Monsters, a game where you “breed” monsters to make different sounds. Together they form a single, continuous song with each monster being a single instrument. The monsters generate “coins” that you can use to by some things. Diamonds are purchased with real money and is used for the in-game store. The game is clearly aimed towards children and here’s some of the things you can read in the review section:

Be aware this game is too slow to keep your kids busy for long without spending lots of money the costs of everything have doubled recently forcing you to buy diamonds to make anything.

I dont think it’s fair that when u teleport the monsters to Shugabush island u to start over n feed the monsters back to level 15.

Everything takes too long! (8h? Really?? And then ANOTHER 8h for the monster to be ready??? Wtf) And its too hard and too slow to get diamonds. So you either should get more diamonds or sell stuff with coins.

Too much advertising! I keep the game running in the background and every time I go into it I am forced to watch a 30 second ad!

Great concept and well thought out. However, you quickly become annoyed at the level of advertising thrown at you. You will soon spend more time watching trailers for numerous other games, films etc, than you will actually playing “My Singing Monsters”.

Paying does not remove the one thing that annoys me the most: The unskippable video ads. Where other games use the unskippable video ads to give you bonuses, such as coins or diamonds or skipping a timer, this game just throws them at you.

All these reviews are from the UK and shows that the game contains heavy amounts of advertising, require regular progress resets and makes the game virtually unplayable without the use of real money. Does this sound suitable for 6-10 year olds?

Bubadu pulishes the game Doctor Kids, a game aimed at younger kids about medical personnel at a hospital. Today it is free, but it started out as a £2 purchase. The game offers an in-game store, for which you buy “stars” with real money. This is what reviewers say:

Accidental purchase for removing ads and won’t let me cancel it

My daughter is three and all these ads keep coming up she knows nothing better but to click them and it has cost me money quite a few times because she clicked “install” but so you really think that a child understand what the ads are and that they cost money???

My 3 year old liked it at first but he needed a lot of help to play between the pop ups and the difficulty level.

So fun but you have to spend stars to unlock doors

4yr old loves this game It is the only doctor app that allows him to imagine he is a doctor. The checkups are easy enough for him to complete on his own, yet not boring to him. Secretly, I enjoy paying for the look on his face.

Too many ads

Again, we have a game aimed to kids, this time even younger kids and even has kids in the title. Yet it is filled with advertising and paywalls and fails to keep the kids’ attention for long without pulling out the wallet.

I tried both games to see what kind of advertising was offered. It is basically the same as all games, including war games and casinos and bingo. There was no regard for the target group of the “game”. Both the methods used to get people to use the in-game store and the advertising is in direct violation of both EU and domestic laws here in the UK, as well as several other countries.

I understand that very few publishers want to pay the £50 it costs for a licence to publish on Google Play without getting anything in return, but what I don’t understand is why Google allows so many publishers to aim their games to young children. If you don’t want to make an educational game or a game that keeps kids occupied out of the pureness of your heart, maybe you shouldn’t aim your games to young children.

Of course, companies will keep doing this, because quite frankly, it works. Parents download them, kids play them and the companies get paid. As long as that cycle remains unbroken, the Google Play Marketplace will remain broken and on the verge of being illegal.