‘Fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion

[Tash]

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

[1715700431]

1715700431

[1715700431]

1715700431

[1715700431]

1715700431

[1715700431]

1715700431

[1715700431]

1715700431

[BADecker]

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

[franky1]

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

[Cnut237]

~

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.

[BernyJB]

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

[BADecker]

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


Stunning: Facebook Court Filing Admits 'Fact Checks' Are Just A Matter Of 'Protected

Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.

Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat explains:

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook's complaint is,

Meta's attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook/Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their "fact checks" are not factual at all and should be labeled as "our opinion" or some such language avoiding the word "fact."

As an amateur, it seems to me that if Facebook inserts its opinions into posts or blocks them because of its opinion, then that does make it a publisher with legal responsibility for what appears on its website.

Technically speaking Facebook farms out its "fact checking" to outside organizations, usually left wing groups. In the case of Stossel's video that was defamed, the outside website called "Climate Feedback," which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.

Watts summarizes well the PR implications:

Such "fact checks" are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.

...

[Ultegra134]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[franky1]

But unless you do tons of legwork, and check graves yourself, you are only looking at hearsay.

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

[Cnut237]

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.

[lottery248]

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.

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 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.

[Cnut237]

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 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. 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.

[lottery248]

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 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. 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.

[cmg777]

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.

[Tash]

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)

[BernyJB]

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.

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? 

[Tash]

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

[cmg777]

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

[Tash]

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/

[Gyfts]

So if opinions are labeled as facts, then we are dealing with fraud, its not "fact checked"

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.