Bitcoin Forum

So if opinions are labeled as facts, then we are dealing with fraud, its not "fact checked"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/09/bombshell-in-court-filing-facebook-admits-fact-checks-are-nothing-more-than-opinion/

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/stunning_facebook_court_filing_emadmitsem_fact_checks_are_just_a_matter_of_opinion.html

https://i.ibb.co/v3wTqBH/Untitled1.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

The only fit-for-offioce government official is a sedated one.     8)

if tash is quoting things found on facebook.. tash has already mis-understood the reality of the situation

if its on facebook. treat it all as opinion. you are then suppose to do research away from social media to then find the facts. that verify or dismiss the opinion

something tash never does, so tash never shows verifiable facts

You may as well say "facts are nothing more than opinion", as that's how you tend to regard it when people post links to data, even if it's lots of data from multiple independent sources that all present the same picture. But I think your position - and that of most people on the anti-vax side - is faith-based rather than fact-based anyway... in which case, why are you even concerned about facts? You would never regard them as something that could challenge your beliefs.

Hmmm... I guess Tash has got a reputation already. ;D
Gonna have to start knowing you guys better...

Fact checks are hearsay until adjudicated in a court of law.


Stunning: Facebook Court Filing Admits 'Fact Checks' Are Just A Matter Of 'Protected (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/316963-2021-12-11-stunning-facebook-court-filing-admits-fact-checks-are-just-a.htm)




8)

Unlike you, and all your conspiracy theorist friends, fact checkers provide sources for their claims, something that conspiracy theorists don't do. Presenting a YouTube video, or a Facebook post doesn't count a reputable source. Moreover, you can  check the sources legitimacy yourself, since everything is listed there, publicly to check for yourself.

Exactly the point. Fact checkers can draw charts and graphs, and populate them with all kinds of data.

Perhaps you have been to a few of the county recording offices, and found that some of the records seem true. But unless you do tons of legwork, and check graves yourself, you are only looking at hearsay.

For example. According to his popularity in the eyes of the people, Trump won the election, easily. The way he lost was the States' election authorities legalizing what would normally be illegal activity. This gave Biden the 'win' even though the whole thing was done against what normally would be repugnant to the operation of law... and certainly against good faith.

There are loads of fact checkers who have come up with far more accurate facts than places like CNN have.

8)

yea do the legwork. like contact the sources.
..
.. but badecker hates legwork. he is given a link to a record. the link includes the processes used, and the contact details of who done it. and badecker just cries 'too sciency to read' and claims it must be false.
someone else gives him a 'average joe' basic summary. badecker cries 'it not sciency'

both times badecker avoids the legwork.

badecker, tash and pretty much most anti-vax are as someone pointed out, faith not fact based

Yep, I've said that many times. This is why there is no point in us presenting facts, data, evidence so that they can take a more informed opinion. I will keep trying, but I know that they never accept any evidence that contradicts their pre-established, evidence-free, faith-based conclusions.

The thing that perplexes me is that they don't see this, they seem to think that their position is based on facts, which is why they desperately seek out whatever "facts" they can find from whatever discredited source or YouTube wacko that fit their conclusion, and disregard the vast mountain of evidence that goes against what they have already decided is the correct conclusion. Seeking out highly selective "evidence" is intellectually inauthentic; instead, why not just be honest with yourself about what you're doing?

If you want to have a faith-based position, then fine, just admit it.

to be fair, we shouldn't trust only one source just because it's fact-checked. for the best practice, gather the same news reports from multiple sources, regardless of fact-checking or the reliability of its source. if the fact-check only contains primary sources (or sources coming from allies but nothing from opposites just because they aren't reliable, especially regarding conspiracies), they too could be a conspiracy.

assuming there are two fact-checkers who have a contrasting conclusion, both get reliable sources, who are we going to trust?

for example, this article (http://indepthnh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/COVID-Report-from-Rep.-Weyler-3.pdf) about covid vax deaths i have linked before also contains numerous sources on their claims. no matter how misrepresented to you, under your logic, this too should be considered a fact-check.

They won't listen to you. Often, the Covid data I link to is from ourworldindata, which has a huge number of independent sources from all around the world (https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing#source-information-country-by-country). But they don't accept this, because... well, because they don't want to. I've yet to see a valid reason for their objection to it.

the biggest problem isn't about fact-checking, but there are authorities censoring any counter-fact-checking practices, which is already happening, such as YouTube banning vaccine misinformation. in fact, this kind of practice isn't telling those information wrong but what information they fear people talking about.

I wonder if they'll fact check this:

Chris Cuomo’s CNN producer charged with luring girls for ‘sexual’ training

https://nypost.com/2021/12/11/chris-cuomo-cnn-producer-john-griffin-charged-with-luring-girls/


I bet the "Fact Checker" (Fact Censor is more accurate) would give it this headline instead:

"John Griffin home schools young girls" True

"Chris Cuomo’s CNN producer charged with luring girls for ‘sexual’ training" FALSE because I said so and I'm with the establishment fact checking (Censoring) system.

So I disagree that its "opinion" but rather a paid actor(s) that try to diffuse somewhat truthful information so that way their elite masters do not get exposed for the corrupt, evil people that they are and actually see the light of justice. I guess fact checks can be read by the masses as an opinion.

NBC’s Brian Williams  America Being Burned Down “With Us Inside”
https://youtu.be/_Gn_alAgOCo

193400x30=5,802,000 (Was not 190k 30 years ago)
https://i.ibb.co/1KPR8PB/Unt3.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

There's always a point, and if 1000 people ignore your facts but one reads them and happens to think about checking them by themselves, that point has been made.
I will never stop being on the side of hard facts. If you decide to keep going, welcome! It's a long battle, but it's worth it.
The one thing that mystifies me though, is that, in the one country that allows fact checking (the US), conspiracy theorists (and all kinds of ignoramuses) are everywhere, while in other countries (like mine) where people "commit suicide" by shooting themselves in the back of the head, nobody even talks about it. Curious, isn't it?  ::)

If you need riot police for protecting the burning down of evidence, the fact checking it's all done
https://twitter.com/Edward__Bernays/status/1450927920562819074?s=20

Facebook Admits In Court Filing Their Third-Party 'Fact Checks' Are Just Statements of Opinion

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62737


Instagram Censors FBI Crime Stats Graph As 'Hate Speech'

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61523


Twitter Expands List of Factually True Statements They'll Ban You For Stating

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62736

Can somebody fact check
Daniel Andrews, Australian Labor Party Politician has been charged with treason and served

Daniel Andrews criminal charges revealed by Jim Rech at Melbourne protest
https://youtu.be/wKNIp9gv8o4  alternative  https://www.gloria.tv/post/Kz69nCAduFDc3FFsQfNe8pq7W
https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/11/30/australia-premier-daniel-andrews-has-been-summoned-to-court/

https://truthpeep.com/australia-premier-daniel-andrews-has-been-summoned-to-court-video/02/12/2021/

https://i.ibb.co/qJScXRP/Unt4.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
https://i.ibb.co/28BDR2y/Un.jpg (https://ibb.co/vs87f5H)

So who fact checks the fact checkers?

Even more fact checkers? And then who would fact check them?

The solution, perhaps just an endless loop of fact checkers, because the purpose they serve is just to editorialize the facts, interject their own opinions, then portray their opinions as the truth.

I remember the early fact checks on coronavirus, downplaying the virus significantly, essentially telling everyone that it isn't anything to worry about. Argument could be made that in January they were correct in "fact checking" the risks of coronavirus. Still shortsighted though.

Their fact checks regarding politics are even more of a sham, not even trying to be objective.

I don't think this is an authentic argument. You are saying that we can't trust any source on anything. This is exactly the same as BADecker's argument against science; you can't even believe the laws of physics, unless you can derive them yourself. Is gravity real? How do we know, just because the scientists tell us so? Gravity could just as easily be God pushing things down, right?

It's impossible to be genuinely convinced that we can't trust anyone on anything, and yet live in the modern world. If you get toothache, where do you go? The dentist? Why? You don't know for a fact that he/she is good at dentistry... who believes their so-called qualifications and so-called testimony from so-called previous patients... why not go to a mechanic instead? Got a leaky water pipe? Who do you call, plumber or vet?

Why would you compare a dentist's qualifications  to some random thing that the media says is or is not going in the world? If you want to make such a comparison you use first or third party sources that you perceive to trust. Your perception is different from others. Therefore, you will have certain bias or non-bias that you would have against said dentist or media. So really its all relative. I feel another good comparison is to say the fact-checkers are like ADs or salespeople trying to sell your mind on select information. The question is will you click on or buy the information or will you look elsewhere for your product or service but for the fact checkers or the media YOU are the product.

Yes, it is true, any person or institution can evade responsibility by saying that this is an opinion and no one can hold anyone accountable for his opinion, no one can verify the facts because all the sources that will be brought will be opinions and not necessarily truth, who can know the truth Fully? Even in religious and political matters, everyone clings to his religious or political opinion as a fact, but in reality can everyone be right at the same time despite the differences in opinions?

Zuckerberg happy to know what you done a hour ago and correct a posting for you, but heck no.....
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UpGttcsf62A

I guess if we go on full philosophical mode, we could even start arguing about the meaning of the term "right". What is "right"? If two people hold a gun pointing at each other and both are 100% certainly going to pull the trigger, it is true that one will most likely not survive if the other person hits the head. it is a "fact" that it is "true" that the other person will "most likely" die from the headshot. Is it now "right" to pull the trigger first? What if the slower person has a code to a room where ten hostages are captured? Is it then "right" to pull the trigger first in order to establish the "fact" that your own survival will most likely fully depend on the death of the other person?

In regards to facts and opinions, it is also easy to drift away and hide behind the claim that this or that is just another opinion exactly because it helps evading responsibility. It happens a lot these days and seems to be a valid strategy to navigate through critical situations.

I think it is pretty common for "fact-checkers" to frame the statement they are trying to validate in a particular way in order to present a particular conclusion.

Sometimes, "fact-checkers" simply use flawed logic, or ignore the facts. I might cite the PoltiFact fact-check (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/) on the legality of Kyle Rittenhouse carrying a gun as a miner in the state of WI. The relevant statutes clearly say this is legal, however, they rate claims saying Rittenhouse was acting within the law as "false".

Failed attempt at equating me to another forum conspiratard. A cheap comparison. The fact checkers at the early stages of the pandemic, for example, interjected their own useless opinions and conflated them what the facts actually were.

And when complex situations are not presented as a binary, but rather as a gradient with nuance, the fact checks don't have any problems using politics on deciding which side of the fence they are.

I'm not saying every fact checker implements their own bias on things. Facebook just has a unique skill at being extraordinarily bad at fact checking.


What does Facebook fact checks have anything to do with this?

If these "facts" are only "opinions" then why are they removing the "opinions" of the opposite side? That's called censorship. It has nothing to do with the truth. Who are they to decide what is true and what is not anyway? That's right I am looking at you Jack Dorsey. This motherfucker left the CEO seat at twitter btw. He must have realized he is on so many people's hatebook.


You are arguing with a democrat bot. Why are you wasting your time?

Facebook doesn't actually fact-check anything themselves. They employ a number of "independent" fact-checkers who fact-check various claims on their platform.

The problem with Facebook's implementation of "fact-checks" is that the basis to take action on a post based on a fact-check is often much broader than the fact-check itself. So a fact-check may be saying that a particular statement is "false" while the statement made by the Facebook user does not match the statement the fact-checker made, and there is sufficient nuance such that, even if the fact-check were to be taken as accurate, the statement the user made may be true.

They kicked him out because he wasn't radical enough and found someone who's even nuttier to replace him. Jack Dorsey was either forced out or abandoned a sinking ship on his own.

Editors of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) write open letter to Mark Zuckerberg
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

Zuck you suck
https://www.patriotsfortrump.us/post/bombshell-report-irs-confirms-election-cash-dump-was-sourced-from-zuckerberg-grantee?fbclid=IwAR1DO8epYDegn0NOo0Mlyt84hMwxBGdflcPJ-1824wLvIzVCoNT48dWM35o

No with turning comments and likes off, you are not "Connecting people"
https://i.ibb.co/7y6h2Gp/Untitled1.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

It's a question of evidence. Advertisers and salespeople are experts at deception and misdirection, of course, that's a key component of the job. This is entirely separate from fact-checking. Fact-checking is evidence-based. If you visit a 'fact checking' website, and it says 'we've fact-checked this statement, and it's false'... but they don't provide any evidence to support this assertion, then this is not fact-checking. Fact-checking involves gathering data to determine whether or not a claim is true. A 'fact-checker' that provides no data, and that provides no links to its sources, is not a fact-checker.




I don't vote Democrat. You should do some fact-checking.

I am not suggesting that everyone who works for Facebook is utterly impartial and does not let personal opinion affect their judgement. But many of the threads in P&S start with someone posting some debunked crap from a shared FB post. Over and over again I provide the data to refute their baseless copy-paste nonsense, but they are usually unable or unwilling to engage for some reason.  ::)

You can try to politicise it if you want, but here's some fact-checking: Trump came out with over 30,000 false or misleading claims (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/) during his single term in office. Any mechanism that attempts to staunch the flow of sewage is a good thing. It may be imperfect, but it's an improvement. Self-policing of a global social media platform is a separate and much broader issue. But FB has some self-interest here, the stuff they will most want to block is stuff that will get them into legal trouble, i.e. spreading lies.

Ah, finally... I told you so ;)


Even worse than this fact-checking website is they use the content to silence people: banning, shadow banning, demonetize. All of that based only on f*ckin opinion.