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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
I happily posted this article on Facebook after 2 days in Facebook jail.
Here’s a fact: climate change had a major influence on the tornadoes hitting Us states this weekend…
Given that there aren’t usually tornadoes in the colder weather, the US is seeing record December heat in some parts, for once join the dots.
Your trouble is, you keep seeing dots when there aren’t any. Maybe time to get your vision checked.
Wrong as usual. Tornadoes can and do happen at all times of the year in the United States. It has absolutely nothing to do with “climate change” and everything to do with short term weather patterns.
Of course Biden couldn’t wait to trumpet another lie, saying it’s “one of the largest tornado outbreaks in US history”. All the compliant MSM is pedaling this same line. A look at US tornado outbreak history shows there’s been lots of far bigger and deadlier outbreaks than this one, even singular tornadoes that were more devastating.
I still don’t understand why you haven’t been banned yet for your non-stop lies, misinformation and trolling. It’s one thing to constructively participate with an opposing viewpoint. Your drive-by trolling in nearly every thread is something else entirely.
As usual, griff speaks without knowledge and without any intelligence.
Prior to this outbreak of tornadoes, there was a strong cold front, ahead of that cold front strong southerly breezes had been bringing gulf warmth and moisture northward for several days. There is nothing unusual about this and it has nothing to do with global warming.
There is nothing at all unusual about December tornadoes.
Fact: Griff is both a liar and an idiot.
and those are his good points
how do you know … have you seen any others?
Griff, those areas of the USA were dubbed “Tornado Alley” decades ago by those who had to take shelter and rebuild there with depressing frequency.
Also, if I recall correctly, I read that areas of “Tornado Alley” were recommended to be regulated as “no build” zones. Again, decades ago. Don’t think it actually passed into laws though.
Much the same situation as should have applied to building in historic flood zones. Consequently, bad outcomes all around the world, e.g – UK, Europe, Australia, Canada, USA.
“Climate change” is the go-to bullshit that bureaucrats and politicians have embraced to avoid accountability for their responsibilities.
If you can’t see through this perfidy, I reckon you should refrain from voting.
There are places where tornadoes are a more likely than others, however tornadoes can and do strike anywhere.
Griff
It takes seconds to determine that while Tornados are less common in december they happen every year, couple dozen a year on average meaning some years there are more.
Its not hard to glean this info. If you wish to see it, which i guess is the rub
So all those other violent storms in December that I’ve witnessed over the past 35 years in the U.S. midwest and midsouth were climate change and not weather. The only real difference is the emergence of troll commentators on the scene.
Fact — the location of those tornadoes has the type of climate where they can occur year around. The climate has not changed or the tornadoes would not have happened. It is colder weather that generates them.
mo ron alert
back to school for you my boi
Stossel should immediately pursue an injunction against Facebook from claiming that ANY of its “fact checks” are actually fact checks and bar them from using the word “fact” in its policing and admit that they are publishers suppressing peoples opinions, and suppressing facts they disagree with.
here is where you find the list of Activist pretending to be scientist and giving opinions. They call anything that does not fully embrace AGW as Misinformation. Even when the source is the IPCC report that has a harder time hiding their bias as the numbers just wont cooperate.
https://climatefeedback.org/community/
Some people, including at least one viscount and at least one psychology graduate and ably backed up by at least one former meteorologist, believe in the warming effects of the GHE.
But it’s just opinion. No need to fact check.
Gosh. No. Really. Who’d have thought it. Etc.
I’m entitled to express my opinion in exactly the same way as your entitled to express my opinion as well.