Web of Trust infested with warmists – action required!

Warmists arrive, and trust goes out the window.

Whilst we’re on blogging matters, my attention was drawn in the comments today to the Web of Trust extension for browsers, which is a crowd-sourced rating system for websites. It ranks sites on Trustworthiness, Vendor Reliability, Privacy and Child Safety, and provides a little indicator in your browser, green for good, amber for beware, and red, avoid.

I was astonished to see that ACM merited a “red” indicator, and was ranked “poor” for the first three criteria and “unsatisfactory” for Child Safety!

How amazing, since as I don’t sell anything, that I can be rated poor for Vendor Reliability! Equally amazing, since I have never revealed anyone’s email address or contact details, that ACM is poor for “privacy” as well. And as you all know, climate realism is harmful to impressionable children so I guess that’s why it’s rated “unsatisfactory” – what we need is more alarmist indoctrination, right?

Trustworthiness is objective. However, I report stories accurately, and I don’t alter or tinker with the extracts from media sources that I cite. You can form your own opinion as to whether you agree or disagree with the opinions expressed, but that does not go to the issue of trustworthiness.

Let me point out that I am all in favour of this kind of system. It allows people who may not be as internet-savvy as others to get a feeling for a site’s reputation before they engage with it, in particular in terms of those four important criteria.

But it is obvious that in the case of ACM, the system has been infested with warmist headbangers rating sceptical sites poorly. I guess we should be pleased at yet another indication of JUST HOW DESPERATE THEY ARE to stop people seeing the other side of the story. But I am sure that it will be discouraging some potential new visitors to the site who rely on WoT for an honest appraisal of the sites they visit and who are, perfectly understandably, concerned about internet safety and security.

So now it is time to hit back at these losers.

I am asking everyone to go HERE and vote up ACM’s ranking on WoT, so that it accurately reflects the character of this site. Once again, I thank you.

Comments

  1. Regular reader, first post.

    For starters, I’ve just gone and rated this site top ranks, gave the mywott.com site bottom, and left a tasty comment.

    [snip – Hi Tim, thanks for the comment, but let’s not sink to their level – Simon]

  2. Makes a mockery of the “Web of Trust” site name, doesn’t it.

    Oh well, another site not to bother with.

  3. Action taken! πŸ˜‰

  4. Web of Trust, eh?

    ” ‘Will you walk into my parlour?’ said the Spider to the Fly.”

  5. On the other hand Simon, you could take it as a compliment πŸ™‚
    It’s the local loonies. They are a bit slow on the uptake.
    Jo Nova, Carbon Sense Coalition (Viv Forbes), Galileo Movement, have all had the same.
    Must be somebody’s job at GetUp or similar.
    A rating to WOT requires some sort of comment, and the adverse ones for ACM (all anonymous of course) are mostly drivel.

  6. comments and ratings are now frozen…

    nice of them to do that *after* they trashed your reputation on line.

  7. The Web of Trust is not so trustworthy. See here and here. Seems they like negative feedback … which forces legitimate sites to spend over $450 per annum on buying their “Web of Trust Seal”. It should be re-named Web of Scam.

    • LOL, makes perfect sense now. Thanks Baldrick. I won’t be wasting any more time on them.

      And a Google search of +”web of trust” +”scam” reveals nearly 1.5 million hits…

  8. Adre Lewis says:

    The voting feature is already turned off. Seems the ‘science is settled’ once again as far as this site is concerned!

  9. Bob Campbell says:

    I just went to WOT and couldn’t see how to rate ACM except by leaving a comment. Comments have been closed!

  10. I used to use the WOT add in and rated some sites. Then I came across something quite disturbing. Someone had rated Conner Court publishing as the worst of the worst. Conner Court published Plimers’s Heaven + Earth and I doubt it ever had child porn. I informed WOT of this and stated my feelings about the issue. I said further that unless they moderate ratings it would become useless because of ratbags with an axe to grind. The response from them was very hostile. My advice to anyone is remove the add in it is not at all reliable and being used as AGW activist tool. Is it possible to get this to a wider audience. Perhaps it could be renamed to World Of Mistrust or WOM!

  11. uhavitbad says:

    It’s now called Global Trust Disruption.

  12. What a stupid system of rating sites! Sorry, but I will not register details with such an ignorant site. Trustworthiness: poor; child safety: unsatisfactory. Oh puhlease. Bugger off WOT. Anyone with a tiny shard of intelligence can see ACM is anything but.

  13. Bryan Harris says:

    So who rates and regulates WOT – they have clearly been infiltrated, and are not at all reliable – a site to avoid

  14. I am sure ratings have been stopped.

  15. Jean Burman says:

    They must be worried because rating comments are now closed. Whoever is behind the ban is not GREEN… they’re YELLOW… because they’re afraid of a backlash from people like us who can’t be easily hoodwinked.

%d bloggers like this: