Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report finds that Facebook's algorithm actively recommends climate disinformation to users who show an initial interest in climate-sceptic content, often leading them toward more extreme conspiracy theories. Despite the company's stated commitment to combat misinformation through its 'climate science centre' and flagging systems, the investigation found that a vast majority of recommended content for a sceptical user was disinformation, with only a small percentage of such posts carrying informational flags. The report argues that this environment polarises public opinion and hinders the implementation of climate mitigation policies, recommending that governments implement legislative oversight and algorithmic transparency, similar to the European Union's Digital Services Act.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Facebook's algorithm recommends climate disinformation to users who express interest in climate-sceptic content, creating 'filter bubbles' that affirm existing beliefs to maximise user engagement and profit.
  • In a simulation using a climate-sceptic user profile, 100% of the content graded across the first three recommended climate pages was climate disinformation, falling into either 'distract and delay' or 'denial' categories.
  • The algorithm may radicalise users by directing them from 'distract and delay' narratives toward more extreme climate denial and unrelated conspiracy theories, such as 'chem trails'.
  • Facebook's efforts to mitigate disinformation are insufficient; only 22% of analysed climate disinformation posts had a climate science centre flag, and only 34% of climate denial content was flagged.
  • There is a stark contrast in user experience based on initial interaction: while sceptical users are pushed toward disinformation, users who like the IPCC page are recommended reliable climate science content.
  • Climate disinformation contributes to public polarisation and reduces support for mitigation policies, which hinders the ability of policymakers to take action.

Cite the original document

APA
Global Witness (2022). THE CLIMATE DIVIDE. https://globalwitness.org/documents/109/The_Climate_Divide_-_March_2022.pdf
Chicago
Global Witness. THE CLIMATE DIVIDE. 2022. https://globalwitness.org/documents/109/The_Climate_Divide_-_March_2022.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Global Witness |title=THE CLIMATE DIVIDE |date=March 2022 |url=https://globalwitness.org/documents/109/The_Climate_Divide_-_March_2022.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{globalwitness2022climate, author = {{Global Witness}}, title = {{THE CLIMATE DIVIDE}}, institution = {Global Witness}, year = {2022}, month = mar, url = {https://globalwitness.org/documents/109/The_Climate_Divide_-_March_2022.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated