Fact checkers are NOT statements of facts

From the link below:

"Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading."

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/federal-government-facebook-censor-chd-lawsuit/

There you go. Self proclaimed "fact checkers" are mere opinion pieces. Facebook admitted “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all.

Those so called fact checkers that say mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy are wrong. They are wrong about plenty of things. They are nothing more than opinion pieces. That is what fact checkers admit when they are being sued for suppressing legitimate information.

Correction: *Facebook's* fact-checkers aren't worth a damn. But no one should be getting their news from FB anyway.

There are plenty of legitimate and well-respected fact-checkers, like Politico, PolitiFact, AP News, etc.

@vivify said
Correction: *Facebook's* fact-checkers aren't worth a damn. But no one should be getting their news from FB anyway.

There are plenty of legitimate and well-respected fact-checkers, like Politico, PolitiFact, AP News, etc.

WRONG!

PolitiFact is one of the fact checkers being sued. They got it wrong! The other two are SCIENCE FEEDBACK and POYNTER INSTITUTE.

The AP also got it wrong claiming the the mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. They are. So did Reuters and Forbes.

Since you brought up Politico you should read this excerpt from the link below:

"Facebook does plan on eventually sharing more information with the fact-checking groups it works with, according to Su, though exactly how much and when is undetermined. “I wish I could give you dates, but we are committed to working with our fact-checking partners to continue to refine the tools to be more efficient,” she said.

For now, many fact-checkers are taking Facebook’s claims of success with the proverbial grain of salt.

“This is going to sound super corny, but fact-checkers don’t really take anything at face value,” said Alexios Mantzarlis, the director of Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network. “You need to support with evidence.”

In the United States, Facebook signed up PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, the AP and ABC News to patrol news on the platform. Since March, users have been able to report stories that seem untrue and send them to a queue for the checkers. Facebook’s algorithms also search for stories that seem bogus, adding them to the queue. If two of the fact-checking groups label a story false, then Facebook slaps a “disputed” tag on it."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/facebook-fake-news-social-media-242407

no1 thinks fact checkers are flawless.
News flash. Fact checkers misinform and copy each other. You know, plagiarize. Yep, they do that.

@metal-brain said
WRONG!

PolitiFact is one of the fact checkers being sued.

So what? The lawsuit is being lead by Robert F. Kennedy, a notorious anti-vaxxer and known conspiracy theorist.

And since you cited Politico:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-kennedy-jr-measles-vaccines-226798

RFK Jr. Is Our Brother and Uncle. He’s Tragically Wrong About Vaccines.

Given his history, it's a pretty sure bet he's also wrong about these fact checkers.

@vivify said
So what? The lawsuit is being lead by Robert F. Kennedy, a notorious anti-vaxxer and known conspiracy theorist.

And since you cited Politico:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-kennedy-jr-measles-vaccines-226798

RFK Jr. Is Our Brother and Uncle. He’s Tragically Wrong About Vaccines.

Given his history, it's a pretty sure bet he's also wrong about these fact checkers.

From the link below:

"Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading."

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/federal-government-facebook-censor-chd-lawsuit/

The fact checkers were wrong. That is why facebook made that statement. RFK jr. is not wrong. You are parroting an opinion. A lot of people say that and the same people always fail to prove that assertion.

Slander is not fact checking. Slander is a last resort when they fail to prove him wrong.

@metal-brain said
From the link below:

"Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading."

There's no reason to continue going back and forth here. The homepage of the site you're quoting from is full of anti-vaxxer content; it's an obviously biased and untrustworthy site. Their lawsuit is also being lead by a notorious anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist.

You might as well quote a link from InfoWars while you're at it.

@vivify said
There's no reason to continue going back and forth here. The homepage of the site you're quoting from is full of anti-vaxxer content; it's an obviously biased and untrustworthy site. Their lawsuit is also being lead by a notorious anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist.

You might as well quote a link from InfoWars while you're at it.

Attack the source instead of the content? Typical.

The content is factual. Of course, you know that. That is why you do not want to debate anymore.

Children's health defense is a very factual and accurate source. Nobody can prove any of it wrong. That is why slander is the best anybody can do. That is why they sued facebook and forcing them to back peddle and call fact checkers what they really are, "protected opinions". Everybody else has "unprotected" opinions.

That isn't an excuse though. I can post many sources reporting the same thing, even some that slander him.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/childrens-health-org-sues-facebook-for-censoring-posts-critical-of-covid-vaccine

https://www.newswars.com/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook-for-government-sponsored-censorship-more/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8644695/Anti-vaccine-group-spearheaded-RFK-Jr-suing-Facebook-censorship.html

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2020/09/02/strictly-legal-facebook-sued-fact-checking/5689537002/

https://stateofthenation.co/?p=25706

https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/facebook-sued-over-warning-labels-on-anti-vaccine-posts-11597708559957.html

Yeah, attacking the source will not work for you. I could post many different sources reporting the same thing, even some that are very biased against him.

@vivify said
You might as well quote a link from InfoWars while you're at it.

In fact, here you go:

https://www.infowars.com/posts/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook-for-government-sponsored-censorship-more/

How predictable: a poster well-known for conspiracy theories posts content spread by other notorious conspiracy theorists.

@vivify said
In fact, here you go:

https://www.infowars.com/posts/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook-for-government-sponsored-censorship-more/

How predictable: a poster well-known for conspiracy theories posts content spread by other notorious conspiracy theorists.

That will not work.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/childrens-health-org-sues-facebook-for-censoring-posts-critical-of-covid-vaccine

https://www.newswars.com/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook-for-government-sponsored-censorship-more/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8644695/Anti-vaccine-group-spearheaded-RFK-Jr-suing-Facebook-censorship.html

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2020/09/02/strictly-legal-facebook-sued-fact-checking/5689537002/

https://stateofthenation.co/?p=25706

https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/facebook-sued-over-warning-labels-on-anti-vaccine-posts-11597708559957.html

Yeah, attacking the source will not work for you. I could post many different sources reporting the same thing, even some that are very biased against him.

Take your pick and knock yourself out.

@metal-brain said
Attack the source instead of the content? Typical.

You didn't post any content other than someone's opinion. You posted no objective facts, just allegations and assumptions.

@metal-brain said
That will not work.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/childrens-health-org-sues-facebook-for-censoring-posts-critical-of-covid-vaccine

https://www.newswars.com/childrens-health-defense-sues-facebook-for-government-sponsored-censorship-more/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8644695/Anti-vaccine-group-spearheaded-RFK-Jr-suing-Facebook-censorship.html

htt ...[text shortened]... he same thing, even some that are very biased against him.

Take your pick and knock yourself out.

I don't know what any of those sites are are...except for the Daily Mail, another notoriously right-wing site, who (of course) peddles right-wing conspiracy theories.

The fact that you included that site as "evidence" for your link being legitimate speaks volumes.

@vivify said
You didn't post any content other than someone's opinion. You posted no objective facts, just allegations and assumptions.

Not true. There was much more than opinion in that content.
Here is one that contains a lot of opinion and very little factual content.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-insanely-stupid-lawsuit-against-facebook/

You should like that opinion piece. It says the lawsuit is stupid and slanders RFK jr. all over the place. Is that enough to convince you he is suing facebook?

What information are you disputing? Anything specific?

Legal news.

https://news.justia.com/facebook-sued-by-anti-vaccination-group-for-fact-checking-claims-concerning-vaccines-and-5g-networks/

@metal-brain said
What information are you disputing? Anything specific?

You haven't presented any information to discuss. You posted an article saying some anti-vaxxer is suing Facebook.

Let me ask you two simple questions::

1) What *specifically* is he suing for?
2) What evidence does he have of his allegation?

Answer this, and we'll actually have something to discuss.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm NOT disputing that RFK Jr. is actively suing Facebook; my point is that whatever he's suing for is most likely rubbish.