• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Zuckerberg throws out fact checkers, warns of more Drumpf-friendly line

Do you have some examples of this erroneous fact checking?
I would think that Hunter Biden story would suffice. But what I really don't get is why some folks - maybe you - are so desperate for someone else to check what you can and cannot see; for someone else to editoralize content for you. Seems so bizzare.

Gg39rruWkAEvNO8
 
Last edited:
Five times Facebook’s fact-checkers got it wrong

But I think this gets to the heart of the issue:

Chris Morris, the chief executive of Full Fact, a UK fact-checker, said: “We absolutely refute Meta’s charge of bias – we are strictly impartial, fact-check claims from all political stripes with equal rigour and hold those in power to account through our commitment to truth.

“Like Meta, fact-checkers are committed to promoting free speech based on good information without resorting to censorship. But locking fact-checkers out of the conversation won’t help society to turn the tide on rapidly rising misinformation.”
People are making money being "fact checkers" and don't want that gravy train to end.
 
Five times Facebook’s fact-checkers got it wrong

But I think this gets to the heart of the issue:


People are making money being "fact checkers" and don't want that gravy train to end.

Not a single one of your examples is evidence of a far left conspiracy to control the narrative via fact-checking - its all to do with COVID and nothing mentioned even benefits the left left never mind the far left

As I seem to remember, there were a hell of a lot of lies coming from the right-wing about ivermectin and nano-chips in the vaccines around that time so I imagine the fact checkers were under pressure and deserve a pay rise
 
Not a single one of your examples is evidence of a far left conspiracy to control the narrative via fact-checking - its all to do with COVID and nothing mentioned even benefits the left left never mind the far left

As I seem to remember, there were a hell of a lot of lies coming from the right-wing about ivermectin and nano-chips in the vaccines around that time so I imagine the fact checkers were under pressure and deserve a pay rise
The suspension of the Babylon Bee was indeed ideological. But I remain very curious - why would you want someone else to decide what you can and cannot see or to editoralize content for you? Really don't get it. I don't need a minder, thank you.
 
I would think that Hunter Biden story would suffice. But what I really don't get is why some folks - maybe you - are so desperate for someone else to check what you can and cannot see; for someone else to editoralize content for you. Seems so bizzare.

Gg39rruWkAEvNO8

The issue with the Hunter story wasn't about fact checking and the JPEG you've helpfully provided in leu of the actual story seems nothing more than a character assassination.

Your evidence for a left wing conspiracy to control the narrative via fact checking remains at zero
 
The suspension of the Babylon Bee was indeed ideological. But I remain very curious - why would you want someone else to decide what you can and cannot see or to editoralize content for you? Really don't get it. I don't need a minder, thank you.
You made the claim that there's a left wing conspiracy to control the narrative via fact checking - you have no evidence that this is the case
 
I think its to protect people but according to you its for the left wing to "control the narrative" but since you've got no evidence of this why do you believe it?
I would think suspending users who speak heresy to the transgender agenda, or criticize Black Live Matter, would certainly fit narrative control.
 
I would think suspending users who speak heresay to the transgender agenda, or criticize Black Live Matter, would certainly fit narrative control.
Maybe, but again I'm specifically asking for an example of a fact checker getting their facts wrong in a way that benefits the far left. Your "Five times Facebook’s fact-checkers got it wrong" link shows me they got it wrong but it doesn't show me it benefits the far left
 
Yeah, why do we need "fact checkers" at all?
No matter what side of the political discourse you find yourself on, veracity matters. Or should, anyway. Bad info spreads faster than good, and we do have a need to check the receipts.
 
Maybe, but again I'm specifically asking for an example of a fact checker getting their facts wrong in a way that benefits the far left. Your "Five times Facebook’s fact-checkers got it wrong" link shows me they got it wrong but it doesn't show me it benefits the far left
It doesn't benefit the far right. So obviously, in their transactional world, that must mean it benefits the far left.
 
"Fact checkers" are just people. Just another person. These people don't have a monoply on truth and can be as biased as anyone else. And it seems quite apparent that the far-left has gone apoplectic about Meta and Twitter as they're losing narrative control. That's what "fact checkers" are really about.

They have to follow standards.

"International Fact-Checking Network launched in 2015 by the Poynter Institute set a code of ethics for fact-checking organizations. The IFCN reviews fact-checkers for compliance with its code, and issues a certification to publishers who pass the audit. The certification lasts for one year, and fact-checkers must be re-examined annually to retain their certifications. IFCN lists 170 organizations as members as of July 2024. Facebook and Instagram have used the IFCN's certification to vet publishers for fact-checking contracts."

 
Maybe, but again I'm specifically asking for an example of a fact checker getting their facts wrong in a way that benefits the far left. Your "Five times Facebook’s fact-checkers got it wrong" link shows me they got it wrong but it doesn't show me it benefits the far left
I would also like a definition of 'the far left'. Usually, coming from them it means 'all the people who happen to disagree with me about something'.

Also still waiting for them to explain how fact-checking equals censorship.
 
If I was cold-hearted enough to want to profiteer from the current crisis, I'd make a mint selling bales of hay.
Seems to be in high demand among trumpkins, who have taken a liking to building human-like figures out of them, but also seem to have a fondness for grasping at individual straws, such as in this thread.
 
"Fact checkers" are just people. Just another person. These people don't have a monoply on truth and can be as biased as anyone else. And it seems quite apparent that the far-left has gone apoplectic about Meta and Twitter as they're losing narrative control. That's what "fact checkers" are really about.
Are facts also "facts?" Is everything relative to your doctrine?
 
So apparently Zuckerberg is pulling a Musk, in his case by throwing out 'biased' fact-checkers, to be replaced by commentary from FB users.
I quit Facebook because it's become a freak show of a cesspit, where you encounter the most judgemental, bizarre, and terrible people, so I doubt handing fact-checking off to its most vocal users will lead to anything good.



Given FB's reach and influence, this is to say the least alarming.
Hopefully it'll accelerate the platform's demise, if nothing else.
Zuckerberg wanted to do this for years. He hates being accountable to anybody.
 
The suspension of the Babylon Bee was indeed ideological.
Again, that's not fact checking. What do you even think fact checking is? There's a major hint in the name.

You appear to be complaining about moderation. Would you like to adjust your speech to be more accurate or would you prefer to continue yelling at the cloud?
 
see, i think that's the problem. you think people need to decide what's true and what's not, when it simply is or isn't. people need to decide what to do about the lies, but for you to act like you can't figure it out and nothing can be done is part of the lies that keep the charade going.

but anyway, i think the opposite. i think social media sites have a duty to ensure their platforms aren't being abused by liars and scammers to take advantage of everyone else. unless you want the internet to end up an unusable network of ai and scams lying and cheating where you can't even tell who's real and who's a bot. how is that freedom?



well once again you completely misread someone and never learn from it. if it's easier to accuse me of being something i'm not to win an argument in your mind, well keep lying to yourself. and everyone else can lie to you too then

I repeat the question who decides what is a lie and what is not?
or as the Romans said, who will watch the watcher?
 
Agreed. MSM news is not completely delusional; it just has informing the public with quality, unbiased, and thorough journalism ranking fairly low on its priority list.
MSM is a long way from being perfect, but compared to the "ALternative " Media........
 
anyway it’s a total non issue. websites can and should moderate their content however they want, these are social media sites not the government arresting you. it’s a loss of baked in ad revenue. it’s not an infringement on your speech for them not to let you say anything and everything. and if you don’t like it you can pay for your own website and say whatever you want.

but they want that juicy ad revenue and that access to the platform. they say if they don’t get that, then it’s not free speech. if they have to build their own audience and pay for their own bandwidth, it’s not fair. the rules shouldn’t apply to them, you just disagree with their politics. and you fall for it and act like well we can’t do nothing so they should be able to lie as much as they want. like you can’t figure out what a lie is so nobody else can either.

well i don’t buy it.
 
I actually agree. I think.
Pro
We don't yet know why that kid knifed those girls in the summer, the crime that set off riots in the UK, either. We never know why such crimes are committed until and unless the perpetrator chooses to tell us.

There is such a thing as truth. And truth should be evident to all who enquire honestly.
Hate to tell you this, but the truth is not always that easy to get at when you have conflicting evidence..which often you do.
Maybe it is just I am a cynical bastard who expects almost all politicians, regardless of ideology, to lie if they think it wiwll suit their purpsoe.
 
I actually agree. I think.
well i hope so. the argument against mine is that the owner of a website posting a fact check against something a user wrote is an abuse of power and violation of free speech. not banning them, deleting their post, or altering it's content. just writing something that disagrees with what they wrote.
 
well i hope so. the argument against mine is that the owner of a website posting a fact check against something a user wrote is an abuse of power and violation of free speech. not banning them, deleting their post, or altering it's content. just writing something that disagrees with what they wrote.
Allow me to make your statement more concise:

"well i hope so. the argument against mine is that the owner of a website posting a fact check against something a user wrote is an abuse of power and violation of free speech. not banning them, deleting their post, or altering it's content. just writing something that disagrees with what they wrote. double-plus ungood.
 
I repeat the question who decides what is a lie and what is not?
or as the Romans said, who will watch the watcher?

There is such a thing as truth. And truth should be evident to all who enquire
honestly.
And yet it was not evident to the fact checkers in the Hunter Biden laptop case. Why? Pretty obviously because they had a confirmation bias against the laptop really belonging to Joe's son. It's not that they were being dishonest (giving them the benefit of the doubt), it's just that their worldview didn't allow them to accept it. What particularly amused me is that the social media companies kept up the censorship of the NY Post article even as Hunter Biden and the White House refused to categorically deny that it was his property.
 
And yet it was not evident to the fact checkers in the Hunter Biden laptop case. Why? Pretty obviously because they had a confirmation bias against the laptop really belonging to Joe's son. It's not that they were being dishonest (giving them the benefit of the doubt), it's just that their worldview didn't allow them to accept it. What particularly amused me is that the social media companies kept up the censorship of the NY Post article even as Hunter Biden and the White House refused to categorically deny that it was his property.
The Hunter Biden case wasn't about fact checking - you even call it censorship in your own post - and even so, one case isn't a reason to throw away fact checking.
 
Have they explained how fact-checking equals censorship, yet?

1. Far-right buffoon says something.
2. Someone else points out how they happen to be wrong or even deliberately lying, citing sources as they do so.
3. ???
4. CENSORSHIP!!

Solve for '???'.

eta: Bonus question, does this logic work both ways? If I say something wrong and someone on the Drumpf supporter side corrects me, is that censorship, too? Why/why not?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom