- Joined
- Nov 30, 2021
- Messages
- 3,128
- Reaction score
- 9,677
Wait, do you actually trust fact checkers without verifying the information yourself? Seriously? I mean, there have been a number of high profile instances where fact checkers got it wrong and then doubled down.
(fact checker doubles down on Rittenhouse trial where the fact checker actually doubles down on a false point in disagreement with the judge)
"PolitiFact doubled down on Tuesday after being roasted for a poorly aged "fact-check" claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's firearm possession was illegal by adding a long-winded explanation declaring the much-criticized piece remains unchanged.
Judge Bruce Schroeder, who is overseeing the Rittenhouse murder trial, made headlines on Monday over his decision to throw out the sixth charge against the 18-year-old for having a dangerous weapon as a minor. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the deadly shootings. "
PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal | Fox News
And, of course, Facebook literally defended itself in court saying that it couldn't be sued for defamation because its fact checks are just opinion.
"“Facebook just blew the ‘fact check’ claim right out of the water in court. In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
“Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation … So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’"
In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion • Children's Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Shit like this is eye opening as well:
"
One notable example is an article written on September 12, 2020 about a Chinese virologist who claimed she had evidence COVID-19 was man-made. The article was fact checked as ‘false’ a few days later. It explored the story of Dr. Li-Meng Yan, included a discussion of her credentials and the claims she was making. The article did not say anything she said was absolute truth.
The article also stated that,
“The Chinese national health commission still denies the COVID-19 outbreak started in the lab in Wuhan, saying there is no evidence the new coronavirus was created in a laboratory.”
Nothing was factually inaccurate in our article but still took 8 months (May 2021) for Politifact to retract its fact check label."
...
"Finally, an article written recently looking at previously classified Pfizer documents that the FDA were forced to release, was flagged on Facebook. These documents reveal the pharmaceutical company knew of deaths and adverse reactions related to the vaccine within the first two months of 2021.
Specifically the article looked at the potential of known deaths associated with the Pfizer vaccine and what it meant that Pfizer and the FDA knew about these and did not inform the public.
What is concerning about this fact check specifically is that as soon as we reached out to the fact checkers the label was retracted almost instantly. This is because there are now automated fact checks that are scanning for keywords on articles posted on Facebook and instantly putting a false label on them.
In these cases, a physical person is not reading the article, a computer is deciding based on the words used if it is misinformation or not. "
3 Times Fact Checkers Had to Retract False Labels On Our Articles (thepulse.one)
Fact checks have been repeatedly shown to take tenuous, politically oriented stances, weigh in on things without expertise, or whether the relevant information to make claims about fact on an issue simply aren't available. Sometimes they even double down on things when they've been shown to be wrong. But, you still rely on them as some sort of authoritative source?
We're kind of at a point where, when someone just relies on fact checkers as authoritative sources without an actual argument for the veracity of the fact check, it shits all over their own credibility. In situations like this they're basically politically-oriented "gotchas" if they aren't delved into. The default position on fact checks shouldn't be "yeah, that means it is settled" and should rather be "I need to look into that." Unfortunately, they get weaponized by lazy, bad-faith actors in political debates - and that might actually be the point.
Last edited:
