Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions.
People send me stuff.
As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.
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 (download it below) 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. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
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.’
This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact checking.”
Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
It is none of those.
Here is the court filing:
Whoops…..
We all knew all along that fact checks were just like climate science.
And it’s even less than opinions as the term opinion is being associated with an individual thought process.It’s propaganda.
Propaganda where one part of the Mafia pretends to be checked by an independent unit which is in fact just another branch of the Mafia.
Sometimes this branch of the Mafia is disguised as peer review,
sometimes as fact checkers,
sometimes as international court of justice in the Hague,
sometimes as Fbi
but what they really do is protecting the narrative/consensus and the status quo of the narrators.
All the institutions above ,and many more,
know very well who to accuse and who to protect.
Bingo
Didn’t you know? All opinions are entitled to their own facts, contrary to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
And all facts are very unstubborn, malleable things, contrary to John Adams.
And, according to the Mexican bandit chief in the classic film, “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, the pertinent line is, “Facts? We don’ need no damn facts!”
Facts? We don’ need no *stinking* facts.
(Yes I have a Masters in pedantic nitpicking and a Doctorate in nitpicking pedantry)
Even further nitpicking: I believe the paraphrased line should be: “I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ facts!”
“Badges? We ain’t got no badges, we don’t need no badges, I don’t have to show you any stinking badges!” You Tube
Why should I show you my steenkin’ facts when all you want to do is prove me wrong?
Of course, the book and the movie had slightly different quotations. And then there were the Monkees…
Did you survive the field work in Sierra Madre?
No, but I got better.
*stinkin’*
You think Mr Meta cares, or is driven by principle of some kind, or a sense of belonging to a movement – of whatever kind? I suspect that it’s a lot more elemental, more self focussed: with maximisation of profit and wriggling out of expensive trouble being much more pressing concerns. His protected speech defence is simply a convenient escape hatch and nothing more imv.
DEMafia !
So if they suppress your post because they disagree that is not suppressing free speech? That is US constitution time, they failed!
Is Meta a governmental entity? No? Then the Constitution doesn’t apply.
It does if it can be shown they are working with a government agency as to what to suppress. That is a distinct possibility. An agent of the government cannot suppress free speech any more than the government.
Also, knowing that Mr. Meta spent 400M on one side of the last election at the local levels, makes Mr. Meta a governmental entity.
My god … he interferes in democracy more than Russia … or China?
As if sentient beings did not already know they are full of it.
A prime example of why I never bothered with them!
Will FB now emit “Opinion Check(s)”?
No.
“News” today is mostly opinion. “Facts” are questionable. “Science” is consensus. Does “free speech” only count when opinions agree? So is it against the law to censure someone’s opinion? Face it, the media controls facts and opinions today and whoever controls the media controls facts and opinions.
Say media,
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”
― Mark Twain
All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.
Will Rogers
And don’t forget the Entertainment Industry.
How many movie classics have thy remade because they didn’t like the original “message”?
How many Disney movies are made where the Mom and Dad are smarter than the kids?
That is basically the Rachel Maddox defense, that she has so little credibility no one could imagine she was actually making a statement of fact.
Remember also the ignorance defense: Hillary was said to have been so ignorant of how servers and emails and secrecy rules worked that she could not have known that setting up a private server to handle work mail was improper. I suppose this also applies to the IT companies she hired to set it up, run it, and wipe when its existence became known.
FB could plead ignorance – the owners thought that the opinion of Climate Feedback users was fact, but after being sued, they had their lawyer check it out. What the lawyers found was a bunch of lying greenie weasels willing to say anything regardless of the facts, thus it is only now that FB, shocked I tell you, shocked, realises they have been hoodwinked into censoring and/or labelling facts as probable lies.
If the public was comprised only of 9-year-olds, that argument might fly. Thus arises the age-old question, “How misdirectable is the average American juror?”
FB can rejoice, however, in that ethically, Twitter is worse. It doesn’t take an Einstein the know that everything is relative.
Which reminds me of the joke “Do you really want to be judged by 12 people who are too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty?”
If space would allow it, I’d paste in my two page long paper titled “A Friendly Judge?”, which is about how we have no guarantee of getting a fair trial, because every one of the fake judges have their own mental as well as moral short comings. Where is our guarantee that the fake judge is really unbiased? Can they prove to not be biased, when they get paid by the State the same as the prostituting attorneys? There’s no conflict of interest there??
I served on Jury duty and was happy to do so. It was very informative in several ways. The really scary thing is that the list of those that can be called for prospective jury duty comes from the voter roles and seeing some of those that showed up made me understand why this country is in the shape it is in.
I served on a jury once, many years ago.
Last few times I’ve been called, I’ve been dismissed by one or another of the lawyers. I don’t think lawyers like “software engineers” in the jury.
I believe I was rejected by the Defense attorney because he thought I was smarter than he was. Involved a case where the family was suing the trucking company that tail ended their sons car that was stoped, with all lights off, in a snowstorm with icy roads. He asked what I knew about contributory negligence and I told him. I got no more questions and he declined me.
Lawyers who know that their case is weak, plan to appeal to the juries emotions.
Having smart people on the jury makes such a plan difficult at best.
Lawyers don’t like engineers, period. People educated to use facts & logic are difficult to bring around to a questionable narrative
Yes, that would be a real handicap if logic is unhelpful to the argument.
Unfortunately there are no “Stupidity” clause for the voter registry.
Please write down 2 reason you are voting for this candidate today?
Most of these so-called impartial judges want to do is avoid media spotlights and the insane mob to go home write their thesis and go golfing.
And appeals are so time consuming.
Typo, it’s Madcow (or sometimes spelled Maddow), not Maddox
“That is basically the Rachel Maddox defense, that she has so little credibility no one could imagine she was actually making a statement of fact.”
As I recall that’s what Tucker Carlson’s lawyers argued in a slander case…
Fox’s lawyers: The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ ”
She wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”
People need to get off these platforms. They are breeding grounds for the Simons of the world.
Wrong again. Seriously you make an olympic sport out of drivel. I hate and don’t use facebook.
As you have proven over and over again, Derg is completely correct.
In fact, you’ve just proven it again.
No he is wrong, I don’t use facebook. Why don’t you do what you are good at Mark. Make something up, then run away and hide.
Simon, you do like to posit the contrary view, and it’s usually not a good or compelling argument that you make. But it does contrast with the better arguments, and sources, and that does us all a service, so thank you for that much, you do contribute. And sometimes you do get it sort of on the mark.
You are most welcome… I have found in today world, with so many conflicting views, it is always good to throw the truth into the mix.
Lol..once again your truth is Russia colluuuusion…you are a turd burgler
Ahh you and your Russian colluuuusion…
Derg the OTP. Never fails to make my day.
Because you are so predictable in your stupidity?
Still cracks me up when you came on here with your Russian colluuuusion…good one
Haha. It doesn’t make you a two trick pony to say it twice.
Damage limitation is the name of this game…… headlines will be along the lines of “Court dismisses claims against very honest and trustable Facebook”
Then everything just goes away.
Good ‘ere, innit…_
CNN has for the most part ignored the Smollet jury verdict.
On the other hand they are now whining that a jury finding that Smollet fabricated a hate crime will be used by conservatives to imply that hate crimes aren’t as prevalent as CNN has been telling us they are.
If Meta (Facebook) asserts that the “fact checks” are indeed “protected opinion”, do they not constitute commercial fraud by being labeled as “fact checks” and not “opinion”?
Protected opinion? Does Facebook provide safe-spaces for their opinions?
Meta/Facebook hired the ‘fact checkers’
Meta/Facebook chooses who gets a ‘fact check’ disclaimer
Meta/Facebook labels the disclaimer as factual
Meta/Facebook at no time, on any disclaimer, calls it opinion
Meta/Facebook will ban you from the site if you get too many ‘fact checks’ on your account
Meta/Facebook has become a publisher and, is indeed committing fraud by labeling opinions as fact.
The Emperor has his clothes on based on his opinion and his official fact checker opinion minions. So let it be written and ban those who present false representations of no clothes.
If they were selling something by using that false claim, yes it would be commercial fraud. It would probably be more accurate to say misleading advertising. It’s not really false, but it’s not true either! It’s disingenuous, which is akin to fraud.
Here’s the BIG takeaway from all of this though, the legal system is 100% corrupted, ergo it has NO amount of power or authority. It’s a criminal cabal, a crime syndicate. Prove me wrong, by using facts and logic, if you can.
We should be aware…I’m sure FB knows this, (“fact-checking’ sounds, well so official !) that searching on the Google does not guarantee that what is found can be considered “facts”. Facts are confirmed by multiple peers who have posted or registered discovery research. That research has to be reviewed by said ‘peers’ and confirmed.
[fix the misspelling of .com in your email address that is cached in your browser if you want to stop being flagged for moderation- mod]
Not misspelled; my email ends in .net
Paul, I don’t think that was addressed to you. It was a moderators note on Franks post – meaning it was addressed to Frank.
FB’s opinions masquerading as facts may have caused tremendous harm. Case in point:
On the subject of so-called “fact checks”, WUWT readers may be interested to see the letter below from the BBC to a climate sceptic (very well informed geoscientist for the record) in response to his detailed and technically correct complaint about the hopelessly biased “reality check” on what sceptics were writing about COP26 and related “climate science”.
All the major UK media companies now compile “fact checks” that are, of course, nothing of the sort.
To sum up this letter, the BBC is simply saying “we don’t intend to take any notice of your complaint as we know so much better, you silly denier”.
Dear xxx,
Thank you for contacting the BBC and for reading the BBC News website.
We understand you had concerns about the article “COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial” (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59251912).
This article was compiled by our reality check team and looked at online viral claims about climate change, and what the evidence said about those claims.
The claims were made on various platforms across the world, and our team looked at some of the ones that gained the most traction.
That said, your points are noted.
Please be assured that your concerns were sent to senior staff at the BBC News Website via our daily report.
Thank you for contacting us.
Kind regards,
Ciaran Hanna
BBC Complaints Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Your call is important to us Now P**ss off
Noted that they say “reality check team”, not “facts check team”.
I suggest the Reality Check Team go stand on the railroad tracks at 1:59 when the 2:00 Freight Express is due to pass through.
Let’s see if they can just declare that train hasn’t gained enough traction on forums around the world to merit consideration.
The BBC has a disinformation team.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/
They involve such independent and non-biased organisations such as Facebook, Twitter, Reuters and the Washington Post. Not left wing propaganda at all.
Is this the same for Twitter and Youtube???????
Had a ‘doh’ moment? … or a ‘doh’ moment for me, just getting your sarcasm, as I wrote? LOL
META has a legal problem, since their asserted opinions were in fact labeled ‘fact checks’, which they probably published on Facebook as such. Stossel wins despite NYT v Sullivan (public figure) because a ‘fact check’ which they ‘knew or should have known’ was false shows actual malice. Especially when repeated multiple times on different ‘fact checks’, so the ‘oopsy’ defense is also taken out of play.
Spot on Rud.
BINGO!
Fact Check and Opinion Check phrases have different meaning which is why I think their admission is part of their desperate damage control effort in court but only shows they are being foolish the entire time.
Under Socialism which manufactured “facts” freely, a comedian said: “This is not a fact. This has actually happened.” He suffered an unfortunate fatal accident two months later.
I think that the Meta lawyers are short-sighted in trying to wriggle out of this case at the risk of exposing themselves to greater long-term damage. I do hope that they get what they have coming to them!
Agree. Their response fully under cuts their reliance on section 230. Publishers have opinions, platforms don’t.
Rud,
You would expect FB/Meta’s lawyers to know this too. So why would they do it?
Speaking as a Harvard trained lawyer, not all lawyers are ‘smart’, and for sure not all see the big picture. Hacks hired by META to respond to this specific suit were probably not the smartest. Too late now.
Metas lawyers have to satisfy the payers of it’s bills. Convincing a judge or jury is optional
The Milkovich or opinion defence really relies on rank speculation …I think the original case sort of claimed chicken processing was a front for terrorist financing. So it’s that sort of speculation that’s claimed as a fact.
The FB fact checkers are highly speculative too but they don’t want to admit that
Who was it, was it Jonathan Turley(?) that labeled this Free Speach vs. The First Amendment. The more I see if it the more I think he’s right.
My point, same as many conservatives, you can’t have it both ways. If they have the right to “free speach” (that’s the tack they’re taking, censoring anyone is just [Tech Giant] exercising their free speech rights, they have done nothing wrong) then they are not just “platforms” they have become publishers and are no longer protected by Section 230, they remain a platform only if they exercise NO free speach rights. At least that’s the way Section 230 should be applied if you read the plain language of the entire Section and not just take half a sentence out of context. But maybe that ship has already sailed? And if it has, then Congress needs to modify or even remove Section 230.
No. That’s the wrong approach . 1st amendment means Congress can’t make any rules limiting speech at all.
Of course Congress can, and most decidedly have, placed limits on free speech. There are myriad laws against defamation. You cannot threaten violence against individuals. You can’t call a school and tell them you’re going to shoot up classrooms, and most famously, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre (although I can come up with three exceptions).
Facebook has claimed it is only a platform, therefore it is not responsible what anyone says on it (the specific individual posting is, but not Facebook). If they start posting their own opinion, they are jeopardizing that position. They are no longer a neutral, disinterested party, but a publisher pushing its own agenda. That could (should) change their status to ‘publisher’ making them legally liable for everything posted on their site.
By claiming their fact-checking is opinion-based, they risk winning this one, small battle, and losing a huge, expensive war.
Yes . I agree Facebook is on a losing path to say its opinion as if it was true they would be saying its a fact or mostly factual.
The yelling fire thing is actually a persistent myth: https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ – it’s never actually been law.
Not only that, if Climate Feedback’s “fact checks” are “protected opinion”, then so are Stossels, and every other skeptic’s.
Yes. But it’s a privately owned not a public place so they essentially can make what ever rules they like.
Their problems is they are using false authority or bs as a fact check
Meta has more users than any country on earth. Furthermore, one could argue that they have influenced elections and wield more more power then most governments. If they are a public place, then they need to begin respecting the intent of Section 230 as it pertains to publishers. (Which they clearly are.)
Sure . I dont use it and a friend I know follows martial arts and I understand a lot is family and friends stuff.
Doesnt sound like the massive user numbers mean political control.
People even on this site say some crazy stuff, but thats their own comments not the web site owners.
This site does not censor any pov, only bad behavior (e.g., foul language). That gives them the right to be treated as a platform, with no legal liability.
Not quite. Read my post above.
BBC Fact Checking is equally just opinion, a pity they haven’t defamed anyone. Or have they..
Wow. So Facebook “facts” are uninformed opinions of liberals? Whoda thunk it!
Financial Times has done some facts checking
Joe Biden has made a significant diplomatic concession to Moscow
designed to prevent an invasion of Ukraine, signalling he wants to convene meetings between Nato allies and Russia to discuss Vladimir Putin’s grievances with the transatlantic security pact.
Putin said Russia would send a draft security agreement “in the next few days” to the US.
One senior official from a Nato state told the Financial Times that “under no circumstances should the debate on guarantees in the context of European security be allowed to unfold, any talk of compromise with Moscow “must be immediately cut at the root”.
(back to future of 1938)
Churchill (NATO official) vs Chamberlain (Xiden and Western governments). What could possibly go wrong?
This should be well known in Moscow since it was Karl Marx who said: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
At the moment looks more like farce.
But it looks like the farce is turning into a tragedy.
Nothing new there. Ukraine agreed to those very terms 7 -8 years ago at the Minsk Accords and did nothing.
Another round of agreeing to paper proposals that won’t be going far
Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s borders when Kyiv gave up the third largest nuclear arsenal on Earth.
As if Dementia Zhou Brandon doesn’t have enough nicknames, he wants to add Neville the Appeaser to the list of his plagiarized heroes. Peace for our time!
But I’m sure 230 will give them an exemption from lying. It is long passed time the Republicans demanded Big Tech were treated, like the old ATT, as a common carrier that can only block/censor actual criminal activity.
Big Tech operating as legally protected propagandists for the Democrat party must end. It is also time to take away tax deductibility of contributions to public broadcasting, which are clearly Democrat propaganda services.
Different situation. Anyone can start their own social media platform as the internet is the common carrier.
I see Trump is doing exactly that….just he has to be careful he doesn’t use servers owned by someone else and violate their terms of service
There was no evidence that Trump violated anyone’s terms of service.
He was cancelled because he said things the owners disagreed with.
This is good. Facebook has called the “fact checks” protected opinion, not asserted facts.
I think there’s a rule that says that if you say something in one court, you can’t contradict it in another court.
I look forward to this coming back to bite FB in the derierre.
LOL!
So their opinion trumps:
a) other peoples opinion? ..or
b) facts they do not like?
This is going to be juridical roller coaster ride to argue.
No but the document states clearly that Facebook has a first amendment right to publish
their opinions on their own website. And section 230 also gives them the right to moderate content. So this would appear to be a lawsuit that has zero chance of success.
Except what they are posting are *FACT*-checks. *Fact*-checks are not opinions nor are they labeled as opinions.
Tim,
Facebook is smart enough to ensure that its actions are protected by law. So they state that “Facebook provides the third-party fact-checkers with a fact-checking system that permits them to independently rate and review posts identified as potentially containing misinformation.” Which means that Facebook can avoid all liability under section 230 since fact checkers are independent and are just posts like any other. Plus of course they have a first amendment right to chose what to post and where to post things.
If you want to say that the law is badly written and designed to favour large corporations then I am happy to agree with you. But just because you don’t like a particular law it doesn’t mean that the plantiff is going to win.
Fact checks are protected under Section 230. OPINIONS are *not* protected under 230. Fact checks are done by providers. Opinions are done by publishers. Publishers are not protected under 230.
Facebook says: ” to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. ” (bolding and underlining mine, tpg)
If Meta is posting *their” opinion on their site they have assumed the position of being a publisher and, therefore, are *NOT* protected under 230.
Meta is trying to say it is just a little pregnant. That doesn’t work with pregnancy and it doesn’t work with publishing. You can’t be a little bit of a publisher – you are either are or you are not.
Tim,
Facebook is not claiming that the fact checks are opinions. Rather if you read carefully it is claiming that the labels that facebook places on posts are opinions and therefore protected speech. i.e.
“For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
Facebook posting *anything* on its site under its own aegis makes it into a publisher. They have just admitted that in public. That means they simply don’t have protection under Sec. 230.
In a sane world, that would be true Tim. They’ll still claim they do, and until a court or congress says otherwise, they’ll get away with that claim.
They can’t have it both ways, censoring people on their site for wanting to publish false information, and citing “fact-checkers” and then saying only that in their **opinion*, based on what they were told, the information is false.
They are not merely “affixing labels”, they are saying that because the statements are “false” as a matter of FACT, they cannot be published on their site.
also: Facebook can’t call the fact-checking company “independent , when the latter is paid by Facebook to produce a product, which Facebook uses on its site. Facebook took the 3rd-party product and USED it to the detriment of Stossel and all others it censored or banned. If a Facebook employee performed the same function they couldn’t hide behind such a transparent dodge.
Facebook should be made to understand the concept of “agency”.
Fact Checks are an algorithmic propaganda tool. The lie is the implication that what follows is always indeed a fact.
How convenient, facebook has no responsibility over an agency hired by Facebook to present opinions that Facebook is not allowed to post.
It is convenient for facebook. Which is why they spend so much money on lawyers and lobbyists. The more money you have the more of a say you have in the wording of the laws.
Interesting, once again changing the subject.
Maybe, but the fact that Meta filings in this lawsuit may affect future lawsuits and legislative action are another matter altogether. And if their opinions, rather than objective standards based on legal interpretations are used to moderate content, does it pass muster under section 230? Additionally, on its own website, does Meta have an obligation to differentiate its opinion from its moderation of others’ content? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first set out to deceive.
Right. There’s the “duck test”. It walks and talks and quacks like a defamatory statement of fact, you can’t come to the court now and say it’s not a fact (duck), it’s an opinion (chicken).
You have a point, Izaak, as a matter of law. That is clearly what Facebook’s lawyers are trying to say.
But you are missing the forest for the trees. Facebook and other media giants have been proclaiming that their refutations of our (my) posts are based on scientific facts. Facebook has now described their responses as protected opinion. In the court of public opinion, that is quite a concession, even if it’s not a harmful admission in a court of law.
As Izaak usually does. He still thinks Benghazi was started by an internet video.
The big question is, if they moderate content, does that make them liable for any defaming comments they do not moderate? Attorneys addressing this usually advise something like this:
It is very easy to see, that, given how comments are allowed that are for all intents and purposes anonymous, a site could freely and safely defame a party while simultaneously removing any objecting commentary. That would render a victim unable to seek any judicial remedy to punish the defamer, stop the defaming, or even post a defense.
I suspect a reasonable court would rule that the Decency Act cannot be interpreted in such a way as to provide safe harbor for defamation.
Facebook claims not to be a publisher. You are correct that a publisher is allowed to post their own opinions. However a publisher can also be sued for libel.
As usual Izaak, you are trying to play both sides.
Fakebook is WOT….waste of time.
Not on it. Meta either.
This trail is going to lead up to the UN, EPA, WH, EU, and a host of opinion writers posing as fact checkers for defense against the designated opposition. Everyone to the spin barricades.
“Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion.” – article
Wait…. WHAT???????
But aren’t FB the Arbiters of Trooth…. or something like that?
Okay, who moved WUWT to another planet????
Sara, did you not know that these Facebook employees are Trooth Faeries?
I now expect someone in the White House to admit that there is no one in charge any more. 🙂
Sara – same for random motion presently calling itself a government in Westminster.
Where is the next whistleblower to show how they profited by maintaining the fake fact check and denial of service for a fee operation?
Another thing this feeble response explains is why the Trump Media and Technology Company achieved an ‘instant’ ~$4 billion market valuation and the commitment of a fresh $1billion in cash investment. The opportunity to compete profitably against leftist biased Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter is just enormous.
Perhaps TMTG is something us skeptics should consider investing in if they successfully go public. If thousands of us were to buy even a small amount of stock, it would contribute to the success of an alternative source of news unfettered by the reigning paradigms. Who knows, risking a sacrifice we can afford might even make us some money in the long run.
https://www.finder.com/buy-trump-media-and-technology-group-stock
You can invest now via shares of the ‘DWAC’ spac TMTG will use to get public via merger.
That was certainly my thought, too. Competing against Leftist bias could be fun. If it does take off, as people believe it might, there’s a chance to make some money into the bargain.
And / Or, supporters could just willingly pay for quality content.
Curses!! Foiled again!
Said the leftover holiday turkey ….
😉
Fakebook’s “Fact Check” should be relabelled “Opinion Check”.
That is actually the legal problem they have walked into with that submission.
Judge: “Fact or Not-a-Fact? Pick one.”
This is a binary decision. Guilty!
In the CAGW world:
Floods or Drought? Pick one.
Warming or Cooling? Pick one.
Media wants to play all sides. Not possible.
your ‘onor,
we are digital information org. we operate in the digital domain
therefore, our answers are as follows:
Floods ∧ Drought
Warming ∧ Cooling
CliSciFi and the media both can and do play all sides.
Why is the image of Rachel Maddow forming in my mind ?
Perhaps, it because to avoid losing a defamation suit, she got the judge to say you shouldn’t believe a word coming from her mouth had a factual content.
It’s not just the facts that are misleading, some of the graphs published can also be
misleading, especially when they are changed, for no good reason, other than to hide
a cooling trend.
I have just notice that the Polar Portal graphs have been changed as of the 7th December The previous graphs showed much thicker and extensive sea ice than previous years and the colour coding showed large area of red and yellow, indicating
thick ice from 3 to 4 metres thick, The graphs now show predominantly green and blue, indicating thinner ice.
The same colour coding was changed last year, in the Pacific, when the Pacific
showed a sudden cooling.
How can this be justified, as no comparison can be made with previous years.
It’s strange that adjustments are always made, when global temperatures are cooling. Or when historic temperature show it was warmer in the past.
Faebookers, Twitterati, et al publish truth to facts. Seek diversity in sources to reduce errors.
Meta-heads (not Metal) and Twits.
In other news: the sky is blue, space is black, the sun is blinding, and the neighbor’s dog still takes a dump exclusively next to my mailbox.
Sometimes the sky is grey or white, depending on water saturation. And occasionally the neighbor’s dog walks a bit farther out into the green grass, but not often enough, eh.
Stossel was censored by Facebook based on a “fact” check. Surely the court won’t allow such a self serving relabeling to twist out of the suit. They themselves have advised users that they will censor based on fact checks. Stossel should also include Climate Feedback as a defendant in his claim.
Maybe this precedent has status if a ruling against FB occurs for other cases such as Exxon Knew, etc.
See the Stossel video, linked in the “Related” section at the end of the post. The crux of Stossel’s suit is not that Facebook censored him, but that they defamed him by claiming he make specific statements that he did not in fact make and have refused to correct those claims.
The shoddy/biased “fact-checking” is just setting the context for the actual litigation issue.
So they are just opinion pieces sooooooo whoever wrote the opinion piece is now liable for slander / deformation and anything a good lawyer can come up with .
Typical of civil litigation, defendant lawyer will throw everything they can think of into their defense to win the argument and ignore the larger picture.
However, for me, Stossel is another victim of Peer Review is Pal Review. ie Climate Feedback
“Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions.”
Who’d of thought as it’s not obvious.
Makes them publishers too, I’d say
For those who haven’t abandoned FB already…
…make sure you post that image on every fake FB fact check for everybody to see.
So now, by their own admission, they opened up themselves to freedom of speech lawsuits, as they are suppressing it, and others opinions, by facebook jailing “repeat offenders” as well as suppressing actual facts, promoting political agendas that favors certain actors, even during ongoing elections.
You do not have a right to freedom of speech when posting on a private website. The first amendment only restricts what the US government can do not what private individuals can do. Otherwise publishers would be forced to publish any book submitted, newspapers would be forced to publish every letter to the editor etc. Furthermore freedom of speech also applies to facebook since as a US company it has the same first amendment rights as a US citizen and so can write what it likes on its website.
Nonsense. The restrictions on the federal government as laid out in the Bill of Rights are not the origin of your rights. You have a right to free speech inherent in you as a human being. No one can take your rights without due process, whether they are government or otherwise. See the 10th amendment and the Declaration of Independence.
They’re supposed to be acting as a platform, not a publisher. Since they are acting as the latter, they aren’t under the protections of the Communications Decency Act section 230.
Also, it’s pretty obvious to everyone that they, Twitter, Google, are acting as an arm of the gov’t, since they’re protecting only Democrat speech.
Correct, FB, Twitter and Alphabet are operating as State actors rather than as private companies. This is the classical definition of fascism (as opposed to the contorted NewSpeak definition. )
The Stossel suit is not over censorship; it is for defamation. Stossel claims Facebook made and published defamatory statements. Whether Facebook is a publisher or a platform is not relevant to the defamation issue.
Ah, the old “libertarian” gambit adopted by progressives everywhere that private companies can do whatever they want to, unless, of course, the progressives wish to force certain less enlightened private companies to provide goods and services against their wishes under public accommodation laws.
You are a public accommodation when it suits the governmen’ts purpose, and a private company when it suits the government’s purpose.
When an entity of any kind acts as the agent for government they are very much able to violate the first amendment in every way possible you are beclowning yourself
When has Izaak ever not beclowned him/her/itself? It’s pretty much SOP for every post he/she/it makes.
Izaak
That’s why capitalism is so liberating! The whole of the US is a US company. So no-one has any freedom of speech at all except for the small handful of corporation bosses?
Beautiful trick that even George Orwell didn’t think of: push all communication onto “private” platforms. Then freedom of expression completely disappears.
Speaking of Orwell, it appears that Orwell’s estate has determined that it is time to rewrite “1984”, this time from a feminist perspective.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/orwell-estate-approves-retelling-of-1984-from-feminine-perspective
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.[REDACTED]Feminism has no perspective that isn’t synonymous with Marxism.
Hello, Wha…t??? Myfacebook is not interested in truth; but only opinions? And every morning I check myfacebook for the news….now where do I go for my daily news? Corporate media: fox, cnn, msnbc, cnbc, cbs, nbc, disney????
Please advise….
The Matrix has been watching you Peter. Get up from your desk now. They are coming for you Peter.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, “Trust, but verify.”
It seems to that the tax authorities ought to be interested. It shows that FB is censoring content with ‘opinions’ which makes it a publisher instead of a platform.
I’ll choose facts instead….
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (climate4you.com)
Weird, it eyeballs as an approximate 7-year cycle on top of an approximate 70-year cycle (from other data sources).
Yes, and only Grifter trolls would see of these as uncorrelated random points.
I’d be hesitant declaring a 7 year cycle on data that has a 3 year filter applied.
That is why I qualified my statement, Mark. There is, however, a clear cyclical element to the data, no matter how graphed.
So, has Facebook engaged in fraud? Can the sued for fraud? Wire fraud?
No commercial type transaction took place….so no fraud
FACT CHECK: My opinion is more equal than your opinion!
More equitable? Diverse? Inclusive?
How much did they monetize from this French opinion team posing as fact checkers?
Facebook is free to join
That’s not how they got to their capitalization level.
I hope he wins Billions
Said it many times…companies like Tweeter and Facebook are PUBLISHERS, not just platforms. All of their special protections need to be stripped away unless they stop editing, censoring, and opinionating on the content.
(hmm, is “opinionating” even a word? Well, whatever it fits)
I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘opining’.
I think its pretty clear that Farcebook just admitted to misrepresenting their actions. They just admitted the lawsuit is valid
According to Facebook:
“Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; … they constitute protected opinion.”
But if the labels “affixed” by Facebook are based on an article that can be proven demonstrably false (by Stossel or someone else), then the labels are “false”. Facebook’s “opinions” may be protected under the First Amendment, but they are still false. By the same argument, Stossel’s opinions are also protected under the First Amendment, whether or not they are true.
Then, it could be argued that if Facebook’s labels based on Climate Feedback’s “fact checkers”‘ false statements are false, then Facebook’s labels could be considered “defamatory” if they are used to cast doubt on Stossel’s claims, if they can be proven true.
For any issue, there are as many opinions as people who discuss it, but only ONE set of true facts. The discussion then centers on who are the “fact checkers”, and are they repeating real facts or merely parroting their own or someone else’s “opinion” which is protected from scrutiny by gate-keepers or peer-reviewers, where the publishers select the “peers” to screen out facts that contradict the narrative desired by the publishers?
Are “fact checkers” really doing the digging to verify whether something is true or false, or are they paid to repeat someone’s opinions, regardless of the real facts?
In any discussion or ‘debate’ progressives are likely to declare, by way of counter argument; “that’s a matter of opinion”. However that is not an argument. It’s gainsaying. Even though there can be several opinions. Generally only one is correct. That cannot be disqualified simply because others disagree with it.
If those are opinions, then they should be labeled as opinions.
Instead they were written in a manner such that the average reader would assume them to be statements of fact.
You’re right. A “protected opinion” is a form of editorializing. A publisher is entitled to do that., thereby controlling the debate. Therefore, they are bound by the laws of libel.
Minor typo. The statement
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
appears on line 7 & 8 of page 10 (not page 2) of the article’s attached court document.
When will the liars bear the brunt of the financial damage they do? The misallocation of capital is no joke to fight an imaginary problem and to create the illusion of runaway global warming rather than the obvious cynical weather patterns that are shown in ice cores and other proxy data that shows cycles of cooling and heating.
I’ve posted a ling to the WUWT article in Face Book. I will be interested to see how they handle it.
Two days later and two shares no one has seen my original post. However I took a screenshot of the that post and and made a second post with only the jpg image of the screenshot containing the substance. I was careful to not use any words that might be caught by a filter. I started receiving comments within minutes but no one said they had seen the original. So my impression is that Facebook was looking for and supressing posts dealing with the topic.
However, this morning I saw another post repeating the same information so maybe Facebook is letting up?
Now, 2~3 days after my original post + 2 reposts, Facebook has released one of them which it has dated to 1 day previously, presumably the time when the released it. Obviously they have had to think about it.
The rot starts at the top . The top appoint only people who follow their example and thoughts . This has spread throughout our ‘free’ society worldwide .
Some opinions are more equal than others comrade.
So, FakeBook wants it both ways!
Liberals don’t believe rules should apply to them.
Notice that the “fact checkers” Facebook employs to render the opinion that they use to censor content are foreign Nationals. Facebook is a US corporation. Why are they employing French non profits to do their dirty work?
It doesn’t matter who they hire to do the dirty work, the point is the dirty work that’s being done.
The Left has been spewing propaganda and calling it science for so long that they have now forgotten to engage in even the false pretense that science is anything other than their very loudly voiced opinion, amplified by the complicit media and the censoring social media.
We recently saw the same naked arrogance when Anthony “Never Right” Fauci declared himself to be The Science.
Fauci is a human 💩
Definitely has a Napoleon complex.
Schrödinger’s Facts
Yes, I believe Schrodinger stated that the mere checking of a fact can affect its position as either true or false, and therefore, the truth or falsity of an individual fact cannot be known and exists in both states until the box is checked.
Just another data point that the left are evil fascists
Facebook should Close its doors for good
Let’s Go Facebook!!
Facebook reinforces the belief that Big Media openly believe in the Cake and Eat It principle.
In other words
LIES
That is total BS. If it is any kind of opinion it is from the people who want to control dialogue and order their willing slaves what to write.
Which means that every time Facebook labels a link as ‘fact checked’ we can now site their own words that it is mere opinion.
Good.
Keep feeding them the rope.
Progressives regard reality as continually being malleable and plastic. In this case, facts are paid opinion. The label of “fact check” is itself opinion. They impeach themselves, but are shameless.
Not being an accredited lawyer of any kind, can someone explain the outcome? Has Stossel any chance ?
Rud Istvan
December 9, 2021 9:58 am
😉
If you hover over the upper right corner of a post you will see a symbol that resembles two links of a chain. Pressing the symbol will give you a link to that post suitable for pasting.
Narrative: a story.
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Fact: a thing that is known or proven to be true.
Facebook employs at least a couple of smart people. And these smart people based their views or judgements according to the narrative. The story.
The End.
Galileo’s theory of the Earth spinning and revolving around the sun was also “fact-checked” by the Roman Inquisition. Too bad he couldn’t have sued.
Galileo was presenting the sun centered solar system as a proven fact.
At that date in time, it had not yet been proven, it was still a theory.
The problem was always who fact checks the fact checkers.
Its well known that left wingers, leftys, socialists, communists etal lie through the teeth, as they believe that what they are doing is for the good of humanity. So they murdered hundreds of millions in the 20th century without a pang of regret or apology.
Of course those that think for themselves and try to stay informed already knew this.
I have always contended that “Fact Checkers” were an invention of the media when they found the credibility of their “journalists” and thus their ability to sway public opinion, wanning.
I am really enjoying the deafening silence of those same “journalists” and the many talking heads and celebrities that were so adamant that Jussie was telling the truth when that story first broke and even afterward when the CPD had made it clear there was no evidence to back his story.
Exactly Rah. Jussie is a terrible human and worthy of all scorn. The tweets from those on the right have been fantastic. I only wish Jussie would face real Justice.
Seems there is a chance he’ll face some time in jail since his blatant perjury on the stand. Some trial lawyers are now saying the judge will probably take that into consideration when he hands down the sentence. There can be admission without contrition. Ted Kennedy was a prime example of that. But there can be no contrition without admission and that is not going to play well when his judgment day comes.
Even now, the media is trying to spin the story that the real tragedy of this case, is that so called conservatives are going to use this case as evidence that hate crimes are not as prevalent as the media has been claiming.
The fact is; the term “hate crime” is a progressive fiction all by itself. To have a criminal act a person must have a particular state of mind … “criminal intent” or mens rea. An angry mind or hateful thought has no bearing on criminality since there is no way to assess it. Thinking nasty thoughts is not a crime.
“Thinking nasty thoughts is not a crime.”
But it is thoughtcrime (see 1984, which shows a world the left aspires to)
Exactly. Anyone who gives credence to ‘thought-crime’ must believe it’s possible to read minds and all that represents.
In the memorable words of Clint Eastwood, “Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has them”. Leftys have two..
And the foulest stuff spews from the one in the face.
Isn’t the rest of the quote “and some stink more than others”?
Strange, I haven’t seen this story in the Misleadia, must be fake 😉
And yet, I am being disciplined for a post about wind turbines.
If this was posted on Facebook, it would be ‘fact checked’
So what does that mean for the Stossel lawsuit?
FB walked themselves into a spot and are currently shopping for “the right judge”.
Zerohedge
has picked up this story — https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stunning-facebook-court-filing-admits-fact-checks-are-just-matter-opinion
including mention of Anthony Watts and Wattsupwiththat
ZH : “So-called “fact checking” is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that that differ from those of the powerful Silicon Valley oligarchy. And now we have proof attested to in a court filing by one of the richest companies in the world, represented by some of the most elite lawyers in the world.”
Oligarchy takes on a whole new meaning. The Greeks already defined this. Beyond Greta , yet food for thought!
On Planet Earth there is no such thing as a fact checker! A creation of man with zero basis. The same goes for climate expert!
Power, a creation of man with no reason – well known by the Greeks. See Schiller’s Solon versus Lycurgus. Reason and Power have been bitter enemies through all known history.
Too easy to dismiss.
I0W, It’s true if they believe it; but not in court ! Psychotic introspection !!
As if we didnt already know their “fact checking”
was pure BS ?
French opinion at that
This is progress–now if we could get an admission of FB opinion “news” and FB opinion censorship and FB opinion shaming and FB opinion lockouts..
My Facebook posts are non-political. Given the political climate in this country I don’t want to lose friends beause I don’t buy into the left-wing fantasies of systemic racism, climate crisis or Covid fear mongering. For me, Facebook is about sharing with friends and family.
However with Twitter, I don’t post under my own name. I express my honest opinions — opinions that could have employment repercussions given today’s cancel culture. I work in software engineering and it’s one of the many professions where you must pay homage to every progressive cause or keep your mouth shut if you want to keep your job.
Twitter currently has me locked out for daring to express my opinion — since vindicated by the courts — that Kyle Rittenhouse broke no laws in defending himself. The trigger words I used were “Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.” This tweet was cited for “condoning violence” when the real problem is I did not echo the official Twitter censors’ opinions on the subject.
I appealed and was shot down. Since the verdict, I appealed again but I’m still locked out.
Long story short — Big Evil Tech is well, evil. They claim their beliefs and opinions are the same as facts and do not tolerate disagreement. They share information between platforms. Being banned from one typically results being banned on another site, regardless of your actual activity on the other sites. They create algorithms to censor speech and then make preposterous claims that since the a software program made the decision, it must be accurate.
The Wall Street Journal has a series of articles called The Facebook Files which detail the inner workings of Facebook/Meta.
A subscription is required for access. Sorry. However, try the digital resources at your public library to see if you can access online. Or use a trial subscription.
Perhaps Stossel should demand or the court should order they change the name from “Fact-Check” to “Opinion-Check” or (“Excuse-to-Censor-to-Check”?) or face the penalties associated with false advertising?
That is sort of where this goes, they admitted as much. It also puts a warning shot across all MSM claiming fact checking.
Please post this on Facebook, through a proxy, unless you are already censored.
There’s always lies damned lies and statistics to check.
OTOH there is the very model of a modern major Greenerator-
Stanford study demonstrates 100% renewable US grid, with no blackouts | RenewEconomy
Just feed the facts into the computer model and you get the answers with settled science environmental engineering and economics with better mortality to boot. What could be simpler and easier now the slide rule has been superseded by the computer?
“I suspect that these ideas, which might sound radical now, will soon become obvious in hindsight.”
“100% renewable grid”
Let California be the test case for that – do it now!
What are you waiting for!
Demolish all power generation other than solar and wind.
Dont just talk the talk – walk the walk
(You’ll need to to stay warm)
The nature of facebook so-called “fact checks” has hardly been a secret well hidden. The fact that something came out will probably make zero difference, because so many information channels are basically props for whatever narrative is currently supported. People just don’t pay attention.
Facebook and zuckerbucks (META-DEATH) fake fact-checkers have never produced and posted valid degrees-credentials as ‘fact checkers’ from any legitimate institution. Those degrees should include areas in social anthropology, medical, cosmetology, science, health, hygiene, social skills, critical thinking, psychology, engineering, war, mass hallucination, weaponry, witchery, politics, theology, finance, art, disease and scams, law enforcement, computer science, real estate, architecture, law, economy, forensics, acting, population control, racism, heritage, education, child care, socialism, communism, marxism, sewage control, elder care, travel, housing, money, minority groups, et al. Yet they post or demean others with their false ‘knowledge’ and lack of higher or even basic education. Govt reprobates such as false gov and sinister Andrew Cuomo Collaborator (D-NY) Kathy Hochul in numerous US states engage in these falsehoods by implementing abusive medical/health mandates and practicing medicine without a verified license in ANY area of study.
As a well known wag recently explained, the only solution to FaceBook is to declare it a country.
After all, Meta will have 1 or 2 billion population (although rumors of a decline in young metazens), even it’s own digital currency, the Diem. Then a seat at the UN. President Zuckerberg could then give press conferences. A few platoons of Meta Blue Helmets could solve all the worlds problems.
Only then can we discuss press freedom.
The only strategy then would be regime change at Meta, standard procedure.
“Protected opinion” is a very good description of the whole climate alarmist agenda, and other agendas besides. An intellectual holy cow 🐄.
Today’s the last day for submitting essays to the WUWT competition for essays challenging climate alarmism:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/11/submissions-open-the-first-wuwt-climate-change-essay-contest/
Will there be a post to remind us all of this approaching deadline?
It’s good that John Stossel tried, but his legal case was always doomed for many reasons.
The court of public opinion is perhaps still the more important thing at the moment.
Before the 2016 US elections the large social media monoliths claimed not to indulge in political censorship. After the elections, their political affiliates were furious that they made such a bad job of it.
Come 2020, they were openly and brazenly censoring some of the oldest newspapers in the US, Senate Committees, and the US President. There is at least one Supreme Court Justice who is itching for the right case to be brought before them.
They are allowed to censor comments. Its what they say in their conditions of use.
Its the government who cant censor political speech not private persons or companies
They are only allowed to censor comments if they are publishers. Billboards can only remove comments that violate the law.
If they want to be publisher, they have to give up the protections against libel that billboards are given.
When a private corporation is openly partisan for a single political persuasion and acts, de facto to further the political goals of that persuasion, excluding all others, they are no longer entitled to protection under section 230. In other words they are a publisher. They cannot have it both ways.
One large problem with their argument: They are labeled as “fact checks”. Nowhere are they presented as opinions. Everyone knows they are all full of crap (except for those falling victim to confirmation bias). The problem is that those opinions were not being presented as opinions. Unless the lawyers throw a ton of money at the judge (and who would be surprised if they did?), they have no case. Cases have been won with much less.
‘Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that rejected the argument that a separate opinion privilege existed against libel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkovich_v._Lorain_Journal_Co.
Its all very technical but the paper claimed he was a perjurer when the facts didnt support that so they tried the ‘opinion’ angle for media.
Facebook cant win this either on facts nor opinion.