‘Fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion

[Cnut237]

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 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?

[1715551199]

1715551199

[cmg777]

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 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.

[yhiaali3]

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?

[Tash]

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

[shogun47]

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?

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

Unlike you, and all your conspiracy theorist friends, fact checkers provide sources for their claims, something that conspiracy theorists don't do.

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 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".

[Gyfts]

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?

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.

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?

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

[mindrust]

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.

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

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

[PrimeNumber7]

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.

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.

[Gyfts]

This motherfucker left the CEO seat at twitter btw. He must have realized he is on so many people's hatebook.

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.

[Tash]

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"

[Cnut237]

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

[mu_enrico]

Ah, finally... I told you so

Don't rely on fact checking websites (and mainstream media). DYOR is still the best practice since the paper usually available on the internet. Don't use research paper as the bible with utmost truth, since many things can influence the research. Funding is one of it. You still have to trust the integrity of the researchers, and the validity and reliability of the instruments. And don't think that when you don't have the degree, you cannot ask questions.

There are two types of "misinformation" (1) Baseless claim obvious false information, and (2) Dissenting/opposing views. It's safe to put (1) into the trash can, but I encourage you to dig (2) for more useful insight.

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.