21–30 of 53 posts
So these "factcheckers" are literally the media aka the propaganda machine. I wonder if that's the future we want, a future only politically correct opinions are accepted, otherwise you're called a liar and you lose social points. It doesn't sound like democracy, but who knows.
You may be conflating "false information" with "politically incorrect statements".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean “no”. It’s literally the media? The people who publish lies have now nominated themselves “fact checkers”. That’s ironic.
100%. Note that what what these groups call “facts” is what we have historically have been calling opinion. They don’t try to fact check things like the color of grass, numbers of moons that Saturn has, or the molecular formula of water. Facebook literally refers to fact-checker statements as “opinions” in their legal terminology.
I believe this, but do you have a link? I'd love to show my family this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be conflating "false information" with "politically incorrect statements".
I'm not an American, but these "fact checks" are not really based on actual facts, but mostly on "correct" opinions. For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/january-6... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/04/bidens-cl...
Facts are, from a epistemological point of view, things as they are. We do not have access to facts about the physical world, science does not produce such facts. Empirical science is a process that asymptotically approximates facts by eliminating false propositions.
So these "factcheckers" are literally the media aka the propaganda machine. I wonder if that's the future we want, a future only politically correct opinions are accepted, otherwise you're called a liar and you lose social points. It doesn't sound like democracy, but who knows.
You may be conflating "false information" with "politically incorrect statements".
In Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al, Facebook says its “fact checks” are opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Google’s lawyers characterize theirs in the same way. I don’t give someone’s opinion more weight because they call themselves a fact checker. The “truth” (i.e. “facts”) is often complicated and subjective, especially in politics. The lack of compassion for other peoples’ perspectives that underlies t…
No one is using legal arguments when they spread things like vaccine denial.
Those are things that fact checkers are used to Combat.
>The signatories, who include factchecking groups in India, Nigeria, the Philippines and Colombia, include examples of false content about the reign of the former Filipino president Ferdinand Marcos – whose son is running for office – and the amplification of hate speech against vulnerable groups in Brazil.
>The signatories are from more than 40 countries with a range of funding backgrounds. They include: Full Fact, a UK charity, Washington Post Fact Checker, funded by the eponymous newspaper, Spain’s Maldita, a factchecking foundation; and India Today, a unit within the privately owned TV Today Network.
The effort of getting misinformation tackled in the global south is incredibly hard.
Especially with the prevalence of things like WhatsApp which don’t have a public facing stream to be examined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an American, but these "fact checks" are not really based on actual facts, but mostly on "correct" opinions. For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/january-6... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/04/bidens-cl...
The whole notion of facts is problematic. Facts are, from a epistemological point of view, things as they are. We do not have access to facts about the physical world, science does not produce such facts. Empirical science is a process that asymptotically approximates facts by eliminating false propositions.