I think you guys should do a segment on what's been happening with IFLS recently. Over especially the last few months they have become almost nothing but pure, unfiltered, clickbait focused on generating as many clicks as possible for maximum ad revenue no matter how speculative the article or information.
For example, they were at the forefront of pushing that "mini-ice age is coming!" thing from a couple of weeks ago. Then the other day they finally released a "mini-ice age was a massive failure of communication."
Absolutely ZERO acknowledgement of their participation in said miscommunication. I, and others, pointed out in the Facebook comments to the "miscommunication" article their complicity and what happens? Well today I find that I have been blocked from commenting on any IFLS article. All I can do is share them to my feed.
My exact comment (and I may be giving away my identity to anyone who saw it in the feed here) was "A miscommunication that you gleefully participated in."
Nothing vulgar, threatening, obscence. Just a criticism albeit a snarky one.
Needless to say, I unfollowed and unliked them.
Simply refusing to listen to criticism or engage with it is exactly the OPPOSITE kind of behavior we want from a science communicator.
You guys had Elise on the podcast a few months ago and I think the responsible thing would be for you guys to invite her back to discuss the recent criticisms. If she refuses, and it seems almost certain she will, you should STILL do the segment, making clear you gave her a chance to respond and she refused.
But the SGU implicitly endorsed IFLS in your last interview and the responsible thing would be for the SGU to talk about the recent issues.