Topic: ‘Fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion - page 2. (Read 338 times)

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.

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.

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, tash and pretty much most anti-vax are as someone pointed out, faith not fact based

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

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.

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.

...

~