Having been a Facebook regular for quite some time - though, knowing myself to be in hostile territory, it has been years since I posted any original content there - I am certainly aware of the presence of so-called "fact checkers" there. The reason I said so-called is that, at least in my mind, the parties presenting themselves as fact checkers are hardly in the business of checking users' posts for factual accuracy but rather in the business of expressing their opinions on said facts - predominantly a disparaging one, which results in a label - which is a low-level form of censorship as an additional click is required to get past that label - or an outright removal of the post which is a more definitive form of censorship, or even in a temporary or permanent ban of the user's account under some circumstances, if I am not mistaken. For example, my friend and a well-known intellectual and author Michael Rectenwald, was banned from posting for a month for alleged medical misinformation. His "crime"? Sharing his own experience with COVID-19 and successful treatment of it with an Ivermectin-based regimen.
I would not have all that much of an issue with these so-called fact checkers if they merely acted as an assessment service, communicating editorial opinion on the users' posts. However, they would often use various deceptive techniques to try to convince potential readers that a post they do not like is somehow factually wrong even when it is clearly not. For example, you could post something like, "Mike Tyson, the boxing legend, was born on 30 June 1966" and they would put a label on your post saying something like, "Not fully accurate. Mike Tyson was not born in Buenos Aires" - even though you clearly made no claim that Mr Tyson hailed from the Argentinian capitol city. But that would give them a pretext to attach a label to your post and thus pare down the readership of said post. So in my opinion, Facebook fact checkers are not truly chaperons of factual accuracy but rather dispensers of opinion, said opinion more often than not being highly politicized and rather ignorant of factual reality of life.
In light of that, I would like to bring an interesting recent development to your attention. John Stossel, a journalist and commentator whom I would generally describe as an advocate of honesty in reporting with some Libertarian leanings, is suing Facebook for defamation. The video below explains why. In short, a Facebook fact-checker had slapped a "Partly False Information" label on Stossel's video even though it was a discussion where Stossel's was going over various experts' opinions and perspectives on the issue of climate change and its possible ramifications for humanity.
The Climate Censors (video)
John Stossel, 8 June 2021
In Stossel's view the presentation contained nothing that could be reasonably construed as false. He had tried to get Facebook to remove the label. Once those attempts failed, he decided to file a lawsuit.
And now comes the most interesting part. In response to Stossel's lawsuit Meta Platforms, formerly Facebook, filed a counter-filing in which it claims that it's fact checkers' labels and statements are not statements of fact but rather opinions, and that such speech can not be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Personally, I hope the court rejects Meta's claims as this is not how fact checkers present themselves to the public, and by all indications Stossel was indeed defamed. And any day a politically correct globalist shill organisation such as Facebook loses a few bucks is a good day in my book. But my opinions aside - while you are obviously free to disagree with me, it sounds like Facebook/Meta/whatever you should call them and myself are on the same page as far as the nature of their so-called "fact checkers" goes. And that is indeed curious as this may be the only thing that Facebook/Meta/whatever's management and yours truly agree upon.
References
Facebook asserts in a court filing that ‘fact checks’ created by third-party organizations and used to remove content or to suspend users are nothing more than ‘protected opinions’
Michelle Jones, Insider Paper, 10 December 2021
John Stossel Sues Facebook, Climate Feedback, for defamation
Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, 30 September 2021
Facebook Makes Stunning Admission About Their Fact Checkers In Recent Court Filing
Zach Heilman, Red Voice Media, 10 December 2021
Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21
Meta's US Federal Court filing, 22 September 2021
The Climate Censors (video)
John Stossel, 8 June 2021
Social media links
Website
Support
