FIE ping!
They are trying to claim the label of something being “misleading” or “false” etc with a related fact-check link is not itself an assertion of fact....give me a break.
Farcebook, Fakecheck! Now we understand! Lifson is a very good reporter/writer.
John Stoessel has been around in media for a long time.
I think he used to have specials on ABC, sometimes after Ted Koppel finally finished talking.
Apparently, John is still in the fight for personal freedom.
They’ve lost face. Time to commit hari kari.
Samwise to Frodo: “There’s no truth in him (Gollum) Mr. Frodo, only lies.”
That deleted posts on FacePlant are based upon ‘opinion’ is no real surprise to anyone on the right. And it doesn’t matter if the ‘opinion’ originated at FacePlant or a sub-contractor; that is immaterial.
IMHO the position taken by promoting the ‘opinion’ label is an attempt to move the discussion away from the absolute fact that the driving force in deciding what to censor is nothing but pure leftist ideology.
The section 230 language protecting the ‘platform only’ status of FacePlant, Twits, etc should be removed and let the lawsuits and the legal system work out what these platforms should allow. Unfortunately the only real winners in that scenario will be the legal profession.
#FFB
#FMarkZuckerberg
Of course they’re opinions. As are all the other media “fact checks.”
The problem is the “fact check” label being used without at least honestly advising people that these “fact checks” are still actually only opinions.
The only real “fact checks” that might rightly be called such would be for the most simple, straightforward, and incontrovertible situations. For example, a political speech in which a politician misidentifies another politician. “When John Smith was senator 10 years ago...” when John Smith wasn’t. And like Biden and that train story.
But for complex issues and controversies, the MSM “fact checks” are the style used by the Soviet Union and the CCP.
More like power grabs, too.
Did they in this case?
Oh my. Facebook is planting misinformation under the guise of fact checking. We already knew that. It’s typical leftist thinking that they’re always right about everything, and their opinions are the facts. Probably some kid in mom’s basement.
Their defense would be more believable if the labels were “opinion checks.” Calling them “fact checks” seems to be a very strong suggestion that they’re being asserted as fact, not opinion.
The problem is not that FB makes bold assertions that are utterly false, but that we’ve raised generations of children incapable of critical thinking.
Seems the communists are changing the definition of the word definition
The one good thing about Facebook is that it showed us just how many idiots there really are out there.
"Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice—which, as a public figure, he must.”This is the gospel according to the unanimous 1964 Warren Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision. Which stands or falls on the veracity of its claim that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”Recall, dear reader, the controversy which produced the Bill of Rights. The Federalists advocating the adoption of the Constitution had quite enough on their plates without assaying to modify anyone’s rights other than was explicitly stipulated in the Constitution. The Antifederalists objected to the absence of a bill of rights in the unamended constitution, but the Federalists’ concern about enumerating rights was thatHowever, the Federalists concluded that their argument for the unamended proposed constitution without a bill of rights was all too likely to fail of adoption in Virginia in particular - which would have been fatal to nationwide adherence to it. They therefore conceded the point by promising prompt adoption of a bill of rights by amendment - and the Bill of Rights as we know it is the result. But the Ninth and Tenth Amendments
- Since rights were a matter of common law, a comprehensive listing of rights did not - could not - exist in any one place. Thus, any attempt to enumerate them all exactly and specifically and without creating more controversy already was being promoted would be a fool’s errand. And,
- Any enumeration of rights would tend to be used, not as a floor under the rights of the people and the States but as a ceiling over them.
do not specify any individual rights but they are the answer to the second of the concerns listed above.and
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment 10
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In the century and a half prior to 1964, the First Amendment was never understood to compromise the right - as understood at the adoption of the BOR - “public figures” or anyone else to sue for libel. As Antonin Scalia put it privately, the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
Sullivan is simply legislation by judicial fiat. SCOTUS, given any opportunity, should either override it outright, or somehow eviscerate the "actual malice” hurdle imposed by Sullivan. Certainly the “public figure” standard for requiring proof of actual malice is utterly unconscionable. It - Sullivan generally - assumes that the “public figure” can take care of himself in the PR arena. “The media” as we know and despise it exercises monopolistic control of “the narrative” and is the sole beneficiary, almost the creation, of Sullivan.