Facebook Admits Factcheckers Only Give Opinions

[Rightguide]

This is how they use Politifact and other "fact checkers" who use "opinions" they claimed to be facts to remove conservative facts and content FaceBook doesn't like:

December 10, 2021
Stunning: Facebook court filing admits 'fact checks' are just a matter of opinion
By Thomas Lifson

Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the attorneys representing the corporation formerly known as Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc.

In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a "fact check" Facebook used to label a video by him as "misleading," Meta's attorneys assert that the "fact check" was an "opinion," not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.

Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat explains:

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook's complaint is,

https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2021-12/234410_5_.jpg

Meta's attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook/Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their "fact checks" are not factual at all and should be labeled as "our opinion" or some such language avoiding the word "fact."

The rest here:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...fact_checks_are_just_a_matter_of_opinion.html

 

[HisArpy]

Facebook screwed themselves with that filing and I think Stossel is going to win his defamation suit against them.

The 2 fatal flaws in their brief are as follows:

Master/servant relationship - under this doctrine, the master is responsible for what his servants do when performing for the master's benefit. Here, Facebook has said that they hired outside sources to do the work for their (Facebook's) benefit. Just as a general contractor is liable for the workmanship of his subcontractors, Facebook is also liable for the performance, and any flaws in that performance, of its contractors/subcontractors. Calling the performance flaws "opinion" doesn't change anything here.


Section 230 - This section doesn't apply because Stossel isn't suing Facebook for what Facebook put on its website. He's suing because Facebook DEFAMED him via the fact checkers Facebook hired and who made defamatory statements about Stossel. That Facebook put those defamatory statements on their media site is irrelevant except that the site is where Stossel became aware of the defamatory remarks from Facebook's servant. Facebook publishing the defamatory remarks also led to the damages Stossel suffered but that publishing isn't the source of the defamation. Thus Facebook isn't protected under Section 230 for the defamatory statements and any damages will be assessed based on their publishing of the statements and resulting restriction of the media account via censoring and/or flagging/labeling.

Basically, Facebook is being sued for their conduct via their subordinate contractors. Facebook's decisions as a result of their servant's misconduct is where the damages lie, not the offense itself.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

This is how they use Politifact and other "fact checkers" who use "opinions" they claimed to be facts to remove conservative facts and content FaceBook doesn't like:

December 10, 2021
Stunning: Facebook court filing admits 'fact checks' are just a matter of opinion
By Thomas Lifson

Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the attorneys representing the corporation formerly known as Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc.

In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a "fact check" Facebook used to label a video by him as "misleading," Meta's attorneys assert that the "fact check" was an "opinion," not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.

Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat explains:

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook's complaint is,

https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2021-12/234410_5_.jpg

Meta's attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook/Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their "fact checks" are not factual at all and should be labeled as "our opinion" or some such language avoiding the word "fact."

The rest here:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...fact_checks_are_just_a_matter_of_opinion.html

Does this mean that we can't be Facebook friends?

 

[Rightguide]

Does this mean that we can't be Facebook friends?

You and I can't. I canceled my account years ago.

 

[LittleDixie]

It's just brainwashing. No big deal.

 

[HisArpy]

You and I can't. I canceled my account years ago.

There's always Tinder. Not that I'm judging or anything.

 

[Rightguide]

There's always Tinder. Not that I'm judging or anything.

Not for me. I wiped my Twitter account some time ago as well.

 

[pecksniff]

This is not something Facebook can "admit" because it is not a question Facebook is competent to decide.

 

[Rightguide]

This is not something Facebook can "admit" because it is not a question Facebook is competent to decide.

Fuck off with that shit. They farmed it out to opinion mills disguised as "fact-checkers" to avoid culpability and to fool people like you who don't know anything until they tell you.

 

[pecksniff]

Fuck off with that shit. They farmed it out to opinion mills disguised as "fact-checkers" . . .

PolitiFact ain't that.

 

[Rightguide]

PolitiFact ain't that.

Politifarce wouldn't know a fact if one bit them on the ass.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Section 230 should be repealed. I don't like the government giving anybody immunity. If you fuck up, you should be liable.

 

[pecksniff]

Politifarce wouldn't know a fact if one bit them on the ass.

Never seen them get one wrong.

 

[pecksniff]

PolitiFact:

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website set up by the Florida newspaper Tampa Bay Times. The site was the 2009 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.[1] It attempts to document and verify claims made by prominent public figures, but has frequently been accused of muddled thinking[2] and the balance fallacy.[3] In 2018 ownership passed to the Poynter Institute, a non-profit journalism school that was founded by an endowment from publisher Nelson Poynter and that also owns the Tampa Bay Times; PolitiFact is funded by online advertising, grants, and commercial partnerships.[4]

In addition to applying a "Truth-O-Meter" to thousands of statements, ranking them from "true" to "pants on fire," the site maintains a "GOP Pledge-O-Meter",[5], an "Obameter",[6] and now a "Trump-O-Meter".[7] It is essentially an American version of FactsCan.

Rachel Maddow does not like them.[8][9][10][11][12]

Being debunked sucks!

Like all skeptical fact checking sites, PolitiFact is not very popular with those who deal in falsehoods. For example, conservative publication Human Events claims that the fact that conservatives are about three times more likely to lie than liberals is clear evidence of bias, not of conservative deceit.[13]

Also, Jon Cassidy stated that PolitiFact is more critical of conservative statements, and it even labels true statements made by conservatives as false.

One example given was how PolitiFact fact-checked a statement made by Gerard Robinson, a Republican schools commissioner from Florida. He stated annual standardized tests "account for less than 1 percent of the instructional time provided during the year."[14] The actual percentage of class time spent on standardized tests annually is between 0.26 percent and 0.90 percent. PolitiFact found Robinson's statement false, however, on the grounds that his figure only covered the time spent taking the actual test, and not the amount of time spent by teachers on test preparation.[15][16]

Mediabiasfactcheck.com lists PolitiFact as a least-biased media source and gives it a "Very High" rating in factual reporting.[17]

 

[Rightguide]

Never seen them get one wrong.

The fact is Facebook has said the International Fact-Checking Network they employ submits findings that "constitute protected opinion." Politifarce is a member of this organization.

 

[pecksniff]

The fact is Facebook has said the International Fact-Checking Network they employ submits findings that "constitute protected opinion." Politifarce is a member of this organization.

A legal term of art that reflects nothing whatsoever about the reliability of the source.

Face it and accept it: When PolitiFact reports something as a lie, it is a lie.

 

[Rightguide]

A legal term of art that reflects nothing whatsoever about the reliability of the source.

Face it and accept it: When PolitiFact reports something as a lie, it is a lie.

It means they are misnamed. Politifact should be PoliticalOpinion.

 

[pecksniff]

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/2/2b/politifact.png

"Ok, I lit the smoke bomb and rolled it under the bed. Let's see if it--" ::FWOOOSH:: "Politifact says: PANTS ON FIRE!"

 

[Rightguide]

A legal term of art that reflects nothing whatsoever about the reliability of the source.

Face it and accept it: When PolitiFact reports something as a lie, it is a lie.

Here's what you need to face. These alleged fact-checkers are a big tech attempt to squelch free speech, to smear opinions that are opposed to theirs. The left hates free speech that isn't their own. Smart people have known this all along. Now they have been hoisted on their own petard and exposed as frauds.

 

[pecksniff]

Here's what you need to face. These alleged fact-checkers are a big tech attempt to squelch free speech, to smear opinions that are opposed to theirs. The left hates free speech that isn't their own. Smart people have known this all along. Now they have been hoisted on their own petard and exposed as frauds.

Every word of that is a lie and you know it.

 

[Rightguide]

"Ok, I lit the smoke bomb and rolled it under the bed. Let's see if it--" ::FWOOOSH:: "Politifact says: PANTS ON FIRE!"

Does PolitiFarce fact check Democrats?

https://i.imgur.com/Ad2TZB3l.jpg

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Since vetteman is already hitting the whine this morning, I'll gift him...

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/419FVfGJ7gL.jpg

 

[Aglaopheme]

I do not see anyone defending Facebook, and why would/should they.

Facebook =\= politifact, in case anyone was confused.

 

[pecksniff]

Does PolitiFarce fact check Democrats?

Yes. Here's their Hillary Clinton page.