Replies

A post written on another thread may have some information for those who aren't aware of the 'Fact Checkers' cited as reliable by the media and sometimes on FR.

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Scientists STUNNED by First Proofs of Contaminated DNA Getting Absorbed into Human Cells –“Sunak Better Watch Out” says Dr Bhakdi, ransomnote wrote:
To those who prefer that we trust Deep State fake fact checkers - please investigate such fact checkers before admonishing others, or using them to 'debunk' the few medical voices running the gauntlet, being fired, having continous lawsuits, receiving death threats etc. I'm not saying every contrary voice is the 'truth'; I'm just saying too often the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.

I went to the Health Feedback webpage and found it lacking the usual menu of organizational information. I checked their funding/partners tab which dropped me on their parent website, ScienceFeedback.org. That's where you can tell this is Deep State MSM propaganda 'fact checking' which is being used to censore and silence people.
Just as an aside - those behind the Covid 'Vaccines' are never going to admit to anything. Pfizer's documentation which they tried to hide for 75 years has been obtained a teams of medical people going through the documentation have hard proof we were lied to extensively. Hvae you heard any admission that Pfizer's documentation reflects poorly on 'the science' used to force toxic 'vaccines' on people? No. They'll never admit it.
So looking at the parent company, ScienceFeedback.org, I found some big tech fake fact checkers used to falsely portray dissenting voices as fabricated misinformation 'conspiracy theorists'.
First up is Google. When have they EVER advocated for the truth?
IFCN / Google News Initiative
In 2020, Science Feedback was awarded seed funding from the Google News Initiative to build a database of fact-checked content, allowing to identify sources that repeatedly spread misinformation. See Open Feedback
ransomnote: Then we have the European equivalent for 'controlling' messaging.
European Media and Information Fund
In 2022, Science Feedback received a grant from the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF) to explore ways to assess the credibility of news sources at scale.
ransomnote: Then we have Mark Zuckerberg's Meta, and his fake fact checkers who work to control 'the narrative' and censor legitimate content.
Meta Third Party Fact Checking program
Since 2019, Science Feedback has been partnering with Meta to verify the credibility of viral content on Facebook and Instagram as part of the third-party fact-checking initiative. Learn more.
ransomnote: Lots wrong with TikTok, but what we're seeing is HOW big Tech controls what is perceived as fact.
TikTok Safety Partners
Since 2020, Science Feedback has been partnering with TikTok as part of the Safety Partners’ program to help review and assess viral videos that potentially contain false, misleading or harmful information. We review videos mostly on health issues in the following languages: English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian. Learn more about the program.
ransomnote: In particular, I recognized The Poynter Group, having investigated them before. If you dig around the website you find their 'sister organizations' include Politifact, which I think most will recognize as a political misinformation hub.
The advice to investigate source materials is good. The same must be done for 'fact checkers' because these are being used to support the Faucist/CDC 'narrative' and whenever possible, cancel or damage truth-tellers.