Posted on 12/10/2021 7:02:52 AM PST by hamburger hill
As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.
Facebook just blew the “fact check” claim right out of the water in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
What bothers me are the numbers of people that didn’t realize this when they appeared.
If the “free press” is doing their job then they’re not necessary. It was only once large numbers began to distrust them that they were created.
Why anyone would think that they would be anything other than another layer of the same type of media is beyond me....just because they have “fact” in the name? Seriously?
Of course they’re nothing but opinions....just include the ‘facts’ you want, omit those you don’t like, and come to a predetermined conclusion - give a simple label “true/false/etc.” and people don’t even read the text.
More like Marxist opinions are now more important than facts.
They are now officially “Opinion Checks” rather than fact checks.
FB is saying someone else has called it false
/\
A distinction without a difference.
Wassup?
Allen still sleeping ?
( /-)
.
“Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion”
I am beyond disgusted with how FascistBook is not held accountable for its CLEAR editorial policy - they should be able to be sued, like any other publisher with an editorial function. It is ***NOT*** an impartial aggregator of materials posted by others, which is what’s required for FascistBook to be immune from suits for what appears on its site.
Hardly. Saying someone else has deemed it false is an undeniable fact and not defamation.
FR rule number 799: Anything labeled "Bombshell" probably isn't.
Yup—crying wolf is not a good strategy—because someday the wolf really will appear...and everybody will ignore it.
No, they are claiming that the "fact checks" were never meant taken as assertions of objective fact, but are something like the opinion section of a newspaper, and thus not subject to charges of libel.
Now obviously this is complete nonsense. If something labeled "fact check" is not meant to be taken as an assertion of an objective fact subject to slander or libel charges then what the heck is?
Always wondered if they FCed democrat post. We know there would definetly be fake/lies there.
Hardly. Saying someone else has deemed it false is an undeniable fact and not defamation.
/\
Wow that’s some PhD level weaseling right there boy .
/-)
May I call you allen-2 ?
You really don't know much about our legal system, do you?
It’s is not surprising that in every single instance you end up coming down on the side of the swamp. Piss off you troll.
Wow that’s some PhD level weaseling right there boy.
You really don’t know much about our legal system, do you?
/\
FB is saying someone else has called it false
No, they are claiming that the “fact checks” were never meant taken as assertions of objective fact, but are something like the opinion section of a newspaper, and thus not subject to charges of libel.
Now obviously this is complete nonsense. If something labeled “fact check” is not meant to be taken as an assertion of an objective fact subject to slander or libel charges then what the heck is?
/\
No snark for the bear that done whupped your weasel ?
/-)
I know weaseling when I see it.
May I call you allen-2 ?
If you say no , I wont .
.
Isn’t it strange how if you offer an opinion as fact under oath in court, how that opinion may change?
When FB has partnered with these 3rd party groups and acts on thier behalf by accepting these opinions as fact then FB employees manually flag such articles posted by FB members and applies labels such as “false news” “partly false” or manually blocks the links to news articles like articles about hunter bidens laptop...they are acting in an editorial capacity by deciding what content is allowed then taking actions to suppress said content...Facebook bots require manual input from programmers to specify what content to flag or block.
These are not the actions of 3rd parties.
That being said...its private property...they can block or label what they chose...
My issue is more about truth in advertising...FB Bill’s itself as the public square and encourages the free exchange of ideals and opinions...
But it practice that is clearly false.
Fascistbook put the label on it.
It is now their label because they applied it even if it was written by some other branch of FascistsInc.
Your attempt to confuse the issue and protect your fellow fascists is noted as is your failure.
Good point.
My issue is more about truth in advertising...
Think the issue goes further than truth in advertising. Facebook should be subject to libel claims for their fact checks just like a newspaper is. They may be able to argue in particular cases there is no malice or that there is no damage or that their fact check was true, but its nonsense for them to argue that their fact check is not subject to libel because its presented as a subjective opinion. If this were allowed for "fact checks" its difficult to see when it would not apply to anything printed at all.
Reason #577,448,390 to avoid Fake Book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.