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.
No longer important. We are now well into the stage where doublethink is rife.
A year ago this would have been denied by the establishment. Now they are happy to say ‘So what?’, and just ignore you.
Since when is Facebook “liberal media?”
If Omicron remains mild and super infectious, then what does that say about the hundreds of billions spent on vaccinations and on the torrents of useless yap in the media? Remember people are going to the hospital in drug withdrawal, with HIV infections, stokes, end stage COPD, seizures and testing positive for COVID. If they test positive for COVID and they are admitted for any reason, that admission diagnosis is COVID even if the COVID is mild. The cash flow game is still on and the COVID hospitalization numbers and death numbers game is still on… with little valid analysis or access to high quality data.
This is The New World Disorder where Facebook fact checkers lie more than those they fact check.
Among many other things.
IMO it’s ultimately all good news as the lunatic and maniacal left exposes their true selves in every policy arena for the human race (and voters) to see exactly what they are.
This story is being reported on Breitbart news now.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/13/facebook-admits-in-court-that-fact-checks-are-just-opinion/
These ‘Fact Checkers’ have been claiming all along to be doing just that, checking facts. Now the argue in court that they were just expressing their opinions? No!
The court needs to hold their feet to the fire and allow this lawsuit to move forward!
Robert Bridge at RT has this :
In Facebook’s ‘virtual universe’ opinion substitutes for fact
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/543210-facebook-fact-checkers-opinion/
Is it gone viral, no pun intended?
I expect Facebook to restore all the posts where they deleted them because of “opinion”. I’ll not hold my breath.
In positive news ice Road truckers is now a 24 seven standalone channel
my dog and I keep it on while we sleep and lay in bed.
Will Facebook be shutting down ice Road truckers because it’s not in line with TheFacts or TheScience?
Do I trust people who claim to supposedly represent “science”?
No, I’m from Missouri… you got to show me.
More often than not their “science” is nothing but authority wrapped in hubris & arrogance.
With the specter of force menacing over their shoulder at you; so you comply.
That simply is not how science works.
This is a common legal tactic, not an admission about fact checks. Lawyers for news outlets facing defamation suits regularly claim the matter is opinion because it’s basically a get of jail free card for defamation.
Seems like there are unlimited types of assumptions.
fcgngv hbvjhbkhjb hbkjbkjb
So FB fact check is the new
“Fox News is officially FCC registered as entertainment not news” or
“Fox News is officially prohibited from broadcasting in Europe because it’s soooo fake believe I me got that from serious non fake news sources”.
I love that last one (Fox News is available on most French ISP/TV services, and certainly over Europe).
Like we didn’t already know. This is why I have never used Facebook, or similar.
It is the snake itself (one of several expressions) on the internet, of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
And while on an arcane tangent, “… For the love of money is the root of all evil …”.
No, I’m not Christian, but they did notice a few things about how anti-“social media” works.
I resented that during early Dec I developed a very serious spinal problem and spent time in hospital, and my James Cook University Hospital nurses and doctors (who are wonderful btw) wanted me to get a Facebook acct just so I could contact them, and read relevant medical advice, etc.
I of course declined to do that but that’s how insidious .orgs like facebook are from my perspective, in undermining our otherwise terrific system’s services and delivery.
These vital health and public service institutions need a much more neutral public network for patient communications and linking processes and ID control also.
So, if their facts checks are not factual isn’t calling it a fact check false advertising?
Twitter and/or Facebook blocked the NYPost’s article on Hunter Biden’s laptop, I forget the reason why. Their reason is most likely partisan protection BS, as such, seems to me that Trump and anybody who voted for him have good standing to sue these SM companies for blocking a damaging story on Biden that if allowed to be shown, would probably have resulted in Biden losing. They should be sued anyway for partisan interference in an election.