Fact Check by facebook based on opinions

[gaiusmarius]

Court documents show FB let its 'fact-checkers' regulate content based on their 'opinions'




In Facebook’s ‘virtual universe’ opinion substitutes for fact

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/543210-facebook-fact-checkers-opinion/

by: Robert Bridge

Facebook likes to present its fact-checkers as impartial arbiters of squeaky-clean truth. The reality, however, shows they are no more bound by the constraints of certainty and infallibility than the users they monitor.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder, chairman and CEO of Meta, which he originally founded as Facebook, adores facts. He adores facts so much that he has employed a veritable army of workers who pour over millions of posts in a moral battle against those who would defile facts. Yet as more people are discovering, not all facts are created equal in the fever swamp known as social media, where Meta is a major monster to contend with.
Just ask veteran journalist John Stossel, whose lawsuit against the platform for defamation has revealed some inconvenient truths that Facebook would rather fact-checkers ignore.

On his now-extinct Facebook page, Stossel posted a short video that made mincemeat of the left’s sacred cow known as ‘Climate Change,’ claiming that California’s outbreak of wildfires was more symptomatic of poor forest management than a melting planet. One can almost hear Greta Thunberg, the teen climate activist shriek, “How dare you!”

What happened next is an all-too familiar scenario for millions of Meta’s social network users, and arguably more so for those whose political views are more in line with Fox News, for example, than CNN and MSNBC. The message came attached with a warning, courtesy of the fact-checking group Science Feedback, which stated: “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.”

Not only do such annoying tags cause the author to lose credibility in the eyes of the audience (and sometimes deservedly so, by the way), but the post will be effectively consigned to the memory hole. In Stossel’s case, the Lords of Factoids committed a cardinal sin, accusing him of uttering something he never did. So instead of bowing to the findings of the pedantic fact-checkers, those Keebler-esque elves who carry out their backroom duties with more secrecy than a papal conclave, Stossel filed charges against Facebook for defamation. What resulted was a modern-day version of David versus Goliath, where the Big Tech’s legal team was forced to concede to something so damning that it should put the practice of fact-checking to bed once and for all. Plot spoiler: It won’t.

In explaining its actions against Stossel, lawyers for Meta stated – I’m guessing in very hushed tones – that the warning labels affixed by Facebook “are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.” Yes, you read that right. Facebook is legally entitled to its opinion when judging the opinion of its customers! In other words, these so-called fact-checkers are merely referring to their own political predilections i.e. opinions when casting judgment upon the opinions of Facebook users. So it’s probably fair to say that the image of Facebook fact-checkers all hunched over and squinting at digital Almanacs and Britannica encyclopedias all day in Zuckerberg’s sweatshops is an illusory one.

Nevertheless, in defense of such a convoluted argument, the lawyers, with no loss of irony, point to Section 230 of the US Communications Act, which provides immunity for social media platforms with respect to third-party content.

Yet Section 230 specifically works to nullify the platform’s need for fact-checkers in the first place because – unlike publishers that are liable for the content that appears on their websites – Facebook was meant to be a clean slate, the tabula rasa, as it were, where users are free to publish whatever they want so long as it does not qualify as hate speech, or language that may result in bodily harm. But as Virginia Slims once remarked, “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

Today, as more than one Congressional hearing could attest to, Facebook and other social media platforms have taken it upon themselves to weed out their backyards, so to speak, of the ‘undesirables.’ People like Michael Shellenberger, the author of ‘Apocalypse Never,’ which provides a convincing argument that “Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction.’” Whether one believes such an argument to be true or not is a moot point; the fact is, it is a claim embraced by a large contingency of academics, and as such should be made readily available to the public. Yet Facebook and its merry band of fact-destroyers, armed, apparently, with nothing more than their “opinions,” moved to censor Shellenberger for the crime of wrong thought.

read the whole article here: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/543210-facebook-fact-checkers-opinion/

good that they were made to admit it, its always been clear to me that their fact checkers are run by bias not facts when it comes to certain pet causes and subjects of the so called fact checkers, which are actually opinion checkers.

 

[CosmicGiggle]

FACT: The world is not a fair place, better get used to it!

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

The implications of this are absolutely huge. We are talking mass murder. And, financial liability high into the billions $$$. It also, qualifies for charges of treason and insurrection.

 

[gaiusmarius]

FACT: The world is not a fair place, better get used to it!

i didnt say the world was a fair place though, it obviously is not. just remember the old saying life aint fair. or life is a bitch. this doesn't excuse social media monopolies for censoring speech based on their opinions, it's way fucked up and not something anyone should defend. if you gonna have a big dick swinging contest and tell people they are wrong, you better get your facts right when doing so. but of course they are a private company that can do what the fuck they want right? well thats fine, but don't ever expect me to accept any fact checkers opinions in future if this is the level playing field they are talking about.

the cheek of it is that they are using the rule, thats supposed to give the people free speech online, to censor free speech. they are saying their paid fack checkers are somehow just users expressing their opinions. what a load of unadulterated horse shit. Zuckerberg is just another wanna be tin pot dictator, he rules face book like any authoritarian regime does their people. why anyone still uses it is beyond my comprehension.

 

[unclefishstick]

you should try getting high and riding bikes...it helps with the whole "not giving a fuck" about this stuff

 

[gaiusmarius]

you should try getting high and riding bikes...it helps with the whole "not giving a fuck" about this stuff

i do both of those, but it's not stopping me give a fuck. but i guess some things are worth giving a fuck about, no?

 

[unclefishstick]

only some things...most of what gets discussed in the speakers corner not so much

 

[Amynamous]

Court documents show FB let its 'fact-checkers' regulate content based on their 'opinions'




In Facebook’s ‘virtual universe’ opinion substitutes for fact



good that they were made to admit it, its always been clear to me that their fact checkers are run by bias not facts when it comes to certain pet causes and subjects of the so called fact checkers, which are actually opinion checkers.

Sounds like you’re suggesting that Facebook is a lot like ICMAG.

 

[Chi13]

Court documents show FB let its 'fact-checkers' regulate content based on their 'opinions'




In Facebook’s ‘virtual universe’ opinion substitutes for fact



good that they were made to admit it, its always been clear to me that their fact checkers are run by bias not facts when it comes to certain pet causes and subjects of the so called fact checkers, which are actually opinion checkers.

It would be nice if you could post a link to the article you pasted so we can fact check.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Sounds like you’re suggesting that Facebook is a lot like ICMAG.

huh? what? when have we mods ever put labels on anyones posts saying they are liars? thats just a bare faced lie, we do not pretend to be all knowing fact checkers ever, never have.

 

[gaiusmarius]

It would be nice if you could post a link to the article you pasted so we can fact check.

sorry but i don't think you quite understand what fact check means, you don't fact check an article by its self, you take the facts that are presented in it and you independently check if they are true using ALTERNATIVE sources to fact check the ORIGINAL.

 

[Chi13]

sorry but i don't think you quite understand what fact check means, you don't fact check an article by its self, you take the facts that are presented in it and you independently check if they are true using ALTERNATIVE sources to fact check the ORIGINAL.

Well I would like to fact check the article that you quoted. To do that I would need to know where it came from and who wrote it. That would be a starting point. It may even reference where the information came from. There's a bit of irony that the only thing I can fact check is the youtube clip, telling me youtube fact checking is dodgy.
Otherwise, it could be about as accurate as someone telling me this at the local pub (or cannabis forum).

 

[Amynamous]

huh? what? when have we mods ever put labels on anyones posts saying they are liars? thats just a bare faced lie, we do not pretend to be all knowing fact checkers ever, never have.

You’re 100% correct, there is NO fact checking on this site.
NONE. ZILCH.
I was referring more to the banning side of things. lol
Some mods have a sense of humor, some don’t.
I don’t want to say anything else, as i might get banned.
I should stop now…
The first rule of ban club is not to talk about ban club.

 

[h.h.]

I’ve had mods accuse me of being a pot head.

 

[gaiusmarius]

I’ve had mods accuse me of being a pot head.

that must have been terrible for you, so sorry.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Well I would like to fact check the article that you quoted. To do that I would need to know where it came from and who wrote it. That would be a starting point. It may even reference where the information came from. There's a bit of irony that the only thing I can fact check is the youtube clip, telling me youtube fact checking is dodgy.
Otherwise, it could be about as accurate as someone telling me this at the local pub (or cannabis forum).

the important fact in this article is that facebook admitted in legal proceedings, that their fact checkers are opinion based. fact check away. its in the Stossel libel case.

 

[Microbeman]

I’ve had mods accuse me of being a pot head.

Thats like the pot calling the....er...like the pot calling...um

 

[gaiusmarius]

only some things...most of what gets discussed in the speakers corner not so much

im not sure i follow the logic, we are talking about quite important things in here. sure we are not gonna solve the worlds problems here, but how can one not care about things like covid? or free speech? or Julian Assange? forced medical experimentation, nuclear power, alternative energy etc. yes of course there is lots of gossip and bs celebrity topics too, like baldwin, etc. plenty to not give a shit about too, thats true.

 

[h.h.]

the important fact in this article is that facebook admitted in legal proceedings, that their fact checkers are opinion based. fact check away. its in the Stossel libel case.

Like this?

To fight the spread of misinformation and provide people with more reliable information, Facebook partners with independent third-party fact-checkers that are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Since we do not believe that a private company like Facebook should be the arbiters of truth, we rely on fact-checkers to identify, review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Their work enables us to take action and reduce the spread of problematic content across our apps.

 

[GMT]

You’re 100% correct, there is NO fact checking on this site.
NONE. ZILCH.
I was referring more to the banning side of things. lol
Some mods have a sense of humor, some don’t.
I don’t want to say anything else, as i might get banned.
I should stop now…
The first rule of ban club is not to talk about ban club.