BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion

Watts Up With That? ^ | Dec 9, 2021 | Anthony Watts

[upchuck]

Thanks for the ping gundog.

This is the Farcebook Is Evil ping list.

h/t SC DOC

Facebook is a perfect example of socialism:
You get it for free but the quality sucks.
You have no say in how it works.
The guy who runs it gets rich.
There's no real competition.
You have no privacy.
And if you say one thing they don't like
they'll shut you up.

If you'd like to be on or off this list, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.

[upchuck]

Sorry, post 41 should be to post 10, not 1.

[semimojo]

..they are acting in an editorial capacity by deciding what content is allowed then taking actions to suppress said content...

No argument from me.

I'm just pointing out that it's a tough defamation case to make if FB is just reporting what some third-party fact checker concluded.

[semimojo]

It is now their label because they applied it even if it was written by some other branch of FascistsInc.

I guess we'll see if a court thinks that's defamation.

I'm skeptical.

[Trillian]

Well, duh.

[nicollo]

If you read the FakeBook filing, they make core admissions that they are, indeed, a publisher:

"And, Stossel’s defamation claim seeks to treat Meta as the publisher of Climate Feedback’s fact checks by holding Meta liable for the content of Climate Feedback’s fact-checks, as well as the labels they triggered on the Facebook platform

Unless you're using the Baldwin defense that the gun went off by itself, Markie, adding those labels is most certainly an act of "publishing."

The FakeBook attorneys rely on a California case about the absence of closed captioning on CNN videos published on its website. CNN won in the 9th Circus based on the claims that its website is not a "public accommodation" and that as a content provider CNN can freely choose how to exercise its 1st Amendment rights in furtherance of the public interest, i.e. can choose to or not to publish captions on its online video clips.

But this case, as with others FakeBook cites, which all regard news organizations, to me admits that FB is a publisher, which negates any defense that it is a platform for others to publish content and that FB does not (which it does, no matter how "triggered" the fake-fact-check labels are placed, I assume).

I think they're all sliding, like Twitter, into admission that they are publishers, which can be the only justification for its editorializing and suppression of legitimate, protected speech -- even, dare I say it, that the election was stolen.

[StAnDeliver]

I read Stossel's suit. He should have argued at the outset that Meta third-party fact-checkers have a long history of acting in bad faith, and their imprimatur derived from IFCN is worthless:

• Meta hires ("partners with") third-party fact-checkers. The hiring, er, "partnership" process is undisclosed (for now).

• Meta further attempts to launder their third-party "partner" censorship by claiming their fact-checking "partners" are "certified" by the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

• IFCN is only 5 years old, created out of thin air by guess who -- rabid Leftist organization The Poynter Institute.

• In 2019, The Poynter Institute attempted to "blacklist" over 500 regular news-gathering sites like the Washington Examiner, and the Washington Free Beacon.

• Less than a week later, The Poynter Institute was forced to retract their entire listze when it was revealed that their "blacklist" was created by Barrett Golding, a freelance podcast producer for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

• The scumbaggery at the SPLC is well-known here at FR, but it is noteworthy that they consider the Alliance Defending Freedom an "extremist organization." The ADF was the one of the recent 6th Circuit no-mandate victors over Xiden and OSHA.

[Bon of Babble]

When have facts - or clear evidence or hard data - ever mattered to lefties?

They’re just inconveniences to be brushed asked.