[Sans-Culotte]

Here’s the problem: Facebook uses “independent fact-checkers” to try to reduce fake news on their site. That’s a noble goal.

No it isn't. It should not be their goal to decide if what someone posts is true or not. If it is not true, another user can refute it.

[alstewartfan]

Stoessel has drunk only HALF a glass of Kool-Aid.

[z3n]

Here’s the problem: Facebook uses “independent fact-checkers” to try to reduce fake news on their site. That’s a noble goal.
~~~
No it isn’t. It should not be their goal to decide if what someone posts is true or not. If it is not true, another user can refute it.
~~~

That’s the trick!
Use “independent” third parties.
Our government and other very powerful interests in this country learned this trick over a century ago. You don’t have to put out government propaganda, when you can get “news” agencies to do it for you! It works great due to the illusion of objectivity.

Facebook is employing the same technique. Dump off the role of enforcing your biases on so-called independent agents. You get to wash your hands of any direct meddling.

[libertylover]

Here’s the problem: Facebook uses “independent fact-checkers” to try to reduce fake news on their site. That’s a noble goal.

Sans-Culotte response: No it isn't. It should not be their goal to decide if what someone posts is true or not. If it is not true, another user can refute it.

You're absolutely right. Let everything pass unless someone makes a threat.

[PatriotarchyQ]

I agree. Facebook should use the FreeRepublic model of open debate where differences are settled by substantive posts refuting a post rather than moderations or bans.