-5

While researching evidence for an earlier version of this question I found no evidence showing that that Amnesty International considers "Citizen Evidence" to be its affiliate. I posted the following comment:

This question is based on a fraud. Amnesty itself does not have any mention of phosphorus after 2017, as of right now. A google search of Amnesty's site shows only 9 links to "citizenevidence". None of them after April 30,2023. "citizenevidence" tries very hard to brand itself as part of amnesty (links, iconography, etc.) Amnesty mentions them only very briefly (only 9 links ever). This particular report is not endorsed by Amnesty. It's a fraud.

which summed up what I did find and summarized my view of this website as a "fraud" because it appeared to claim affiliation with Amnesty International without authorization.

  • My comment was deleted. And in a later series of comments, it was claimed that one of the moderators did find evidence of such affiliation.
  • I posted a new comment asking for some permanent fixture showing that Amnesty International endorses the view that "Citizen Evidence" is its affiliate or associate.
  • As of right now, all comments have been deleted.

Regardless of the question itself (and whether the comment was appropriate for it), I still believe that if there is evidence showing that "citizen evidence dot org" is endorsed by Amnesty as its affiliate, then we should have that evidence somewhere on this site. I think that's within the scope of the goals of the site (to provide accurate verifiable information about governments and political figures).

Btw, a different source (Human Rights Watch) makes a similar claim and a number of reports have been added to the OP question which reference these 2 sources. So I am not really insisting anymore that the report itself is a fraud, but I do continue to think that its website is suspect. If there is evidence to the contrary, please, post it.

2
  • 1
    Was the first link in your question meant to link to this question?
    – ccprog
    Oct 22, 2023 at 12:27
  • @ccprog yes, thanks. i pasted the wrong link. fixed.
    – wrod
    Oct 22, 2023 at 19:11

1 Answer 1

6

Amnesty's own site has a 2019 announcement:

Amnesty International is launching an updated version of its Citizen Evidence Lab website, bringing together cutting-edge open-source and other digital investigation tools which have revolutionized how evidence of serious human rights violations and other crimes are gathered and preserved. Investigations facilitated by the pioneering Citizen Evidence Lab website have already helped expose human rights violations Cameroon, war crimes in Syria and chemical weapons attacks in Sudan.

That sounds like a fair bit of an endorsement to me.

For me that was the 4th link in google on query "About Amnesty’s Citizen Evidence Lab", after the links to the site itself.


Additional point. At the bottom of the "Citizen Evidence Lab" site there's a "(c) 2023 Crisis Evidence Lab". The latter is also affiliated with Amnesty. I'm not sure why they have these two different "Labs" but there's little doubt on the affiliation.

4
  • re: "Did you check out Amnesty's own site before typing all that?" I did a google search which is linked in the 2nd link of the quoted comment. The link you provided did not show up there. Can you expand the text which describes the link in this answer? Something more than "e.g." Because this is what I was looking for. Something that shows that Amnesty does stand behind CE reporting.
    – wrod
    Oct 23, 2023 at 10:10
  • 4
    For the record, I participated in the original post that motivated this question and found this OP's behavior, including strident accusations, and the specific use of the term fraud, deeply inappropriate. It is one thing to disagree, dowvote, vote to close, vote to delete, etc... It is another to try to censor, something I've also seen (and asked a question about). And it is yet another to accuse someone of intentional bad faith and deception, as is strongly evident from the word fraud. Oct 27, 2023 at 19:18
  • 3
    I suspect one reason I am annoyed is that I was initially taken in by the OPs claims, figuring no one would make them without cause. The end result however was that the person asking the original question, and being accused of fraud, ended up deleting their SE.Politics profile. Oct 27, 2023 at 19:20
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica the original comment is reposted in this meta Q.If you re-read it carefully, I said that the question was based on fraud.Which it certainly appeared to be.Because from all the evidence I was able to gather, it appeared that it used the iconography of Amnesty International without authorization.Using the name of a major international organization without authorization would have in fact been fraud.It turned out that additional evidence could be found.Since I couldn't find it, it stands to reason many others wouldn't be able to either.Which makes this meta Q important
    – wrod
    Oct 31, 2023 at 1:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .