Stunning: Facebook court filing admits 'fact checks' are just a matter of opinion In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a "fact check" Facebook used to label a video by him as "misleading," Meta's attorneys assert that the "fact check" was an "opinion," not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.... 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 is called "Climate Feedback," which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit. Watts summarizes well the P.R. implications: Such "fact checks" are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress [sic] free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science. ______________________________ I'd check the fine print on some of the "fact checkers" frequently cited around here.
Opinion - belief, judgment, what someone thinks about a particular thing. Fact - something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence 2 : a true piece ... Bullshit - Factchecking, lol Censorship - Abusive Behavior -
Mediabiasfactcheck (used by several posters here) disclaimer The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.