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.
John Stossel going to have a field day on his social media with this one.
He's a great journalist. An actual journalist with a conservative lean but always open to getting the truth and actual facts. JohnStossel.com. Give him a look, really good stuff that fits very well with most people's political leanings here. Specifically reasonable people who appreciate the facts and the truth.
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,
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.”
As an amateur, it seems to me that if Facebook inserts its opinions into posts or blocks them because of its opinion, then that does make it a publisher with legal responsibility for what appears on its website.
Technically speaking Facebook farms out its “fact-checking” to outside organizations, usually left-wing groups. In the case of Stossel’s video that was defamed, the outside website called “Climate Feedback,” which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.
Watts summarizes well the PR implications:
Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
In light of Facebook’s admission, it’s time for the Washington Post to offer a correction to this piece by Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood, published less than a month ago, titled “Fact checks actually work, even on Facebook. But not enough people see them.”
So-called "fact-checking" is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions 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.
New York Times vs Sullivan must be overturned so defamation is actionable in civil court like it was previous to that decision. We also need to look into criminalizing political fraud. "How do you decide what's true?" Juries do it all the time or there wouldn't be laws against perjury or economic fraud or lying to government agents.
Facebook, Twitter, etc is suitable only for Mass Formation adherents, not free thinkers. Unfortunately, they function as powerful propaganda machines capable of swaying elections and public policy opinion. The weak-minded are extremely susceptible to suggestion. Social media is fully aware of this, and takes advantage of it.
FB started out as a data mining operation people volunteered for and has turned into a control tool of communism.
Zuckerburg absolutely had many "irons in the fire" of the stolen election.
Democrats are known for changing the meaning of common words. Man/Woman no longer means what science says it means. So, they changed the meaning of science. Now, "Science" is their religion of anti-science completely devoid of logic and the scientific method. Why not change the meaning of fact too. News has become opinion, so it only makes sense that facts should be opinion too. ...or, "my truth" as they like to say.
The courts will not solve this. Congress will not solve this. Jackbooted thugs are in power at every level of the governments and corporations. History and facts are decided upon by those in power who can dictate their "truth" to the masses.
If you want to read a truly egregious bit of "Fact Checking", try this: Fact check: Nurse who fainted after COVID-19 vaccine did not die Spoiler - nobody has proved she is still alive and I personally don't think she is.
See our other articles on phony Fact Checking.
