Please Support FR
Click The Pic To Donate.
Ooopsie moment.
We knew that..........................
Seems to be an insidious combination of “He said-She said” and also “Heads I win-Tails You lose”.
The Narrative wins and your facts don’t matter because your facts are opinions just like Facebook’s opinions, so Facebook wins.
This whole fact-check business got its big pushup with that factcheck.org which grew out of some leftist journalists’ games at a paper in Tampa, IIRC. And Snopes? Don’t even try to pretend they aren’t a leftist mouthpiece. Put this way, if a ‘journalist’ is involved with it then it has no connection with fact.
Is anyone surprised by this???? I’m not.
This worked for Maddow. She beat the OAN suit because the court decided the viewers knew it was just her opinion. This sleight of hand is completely disingenuous but I have no faith the court will do the right thing.
“Facts” now must be politically acceptable. It’s the new reality.
Duh... (not you HH- the article)
Ping
FB is not saying the fact check is opinion. They're saying the FB labels on Stossel's piece were opinion.
FB is saying someone else has called it false. Stossel needs to take it up with the fact checker, not FB.
FB & Twitter are "Truthphobic".
“Facts are whatever I say they are,” said every Leftist in history.
See Tagline.
Bombshells? We live in a time now where costly lies can be publicly owned up to, and it doesn’t cause a ripple.
Oh, just like “the news”...
Please Support FR
Click The Pic To Donate.
I wish there was some way to explain to “journalists” in concrete, simple terms what they are expecting when they try to strongarm privately-owned social media platforms into being fair to their point of view. You paying to use the platform and then throwing a hissy fit when you get banned or warned or disciplined, or whatever, is a major feature of the platform: “Conservative tears and ranting for sale!”
Like, one example that I thought of: You get mugged on the subway but you’re too broke (or cheap) to take a taxi to work. You watch the muggers working the subway and you get mad. So you turn into a vigilante of sorts, although not a violent vigilante, but a vigilante who doesn’t break the law.
Your solution: You walk through the subway every so often with a $100 bill sticking out of your back pocket, videoing, in the hope you can catch a mugger on video and demand that the police do something. (And you get angry when the police laugh at you. Really angry! Then they tell you that you’re banned from public transport as a nuisance, so after that you HAVE to take a taxi and that makes you even angrier! So then you sue the transportation district to get all the $$ you spent on the subway back....)
That’s not a really good example, though. Like, today’s journalists would probably react in this manner: “Haha, what? How would getting mugged on the subway help us get Facebook to be FAIR with us?” And John Stossel would be like: “That’s right! Facebook took my money just like those muggers!”
Back to the old drawing board.
What bothers me are the numbers of people that didn’t realize this when they appeared.
If the “free press” is doing their job then they’re not necessary. It was only once large numbers began to distrust them that they were created.
Why anyone would think that they would be anything other than another layer of the same type of media is beyond me....just because they have “fact” in the name? Seriously?
Of course they’re nothing but opinions....just include the ‘facts’ you want, omit those you don’t like, and come to a predetermined conclusion - give a simple label “true/false/etc.” and people don’t even read the text.
They are now officially “Opinion Checks” rather than fact checks.
“Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion”
I am beyond disgusted with how FascistBook is not held accountable for its CLEAR editorial policy - they should be able to be sued, like any other publisher with an editorial function. It is ***NOT*** an impartial aggregator of materials posted by others, which is what’s required for FascistBook to be immune from suits for what appears on its site.