So-called "fact-checking" is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that that differ from those of the powerful Silicon Valley oligarchy. Wood, published less than a month ago, titled "Fact checks actually work, even on Facebook. 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.
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 the case of Stossel's video that was defamed, the outside website is called "Climate Feedback," which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit. Technically speaking, Facebook farms out its "fact-checking" to outside organizations, usually left-wing groups. Nor are they treated as mere opinions - they are treated as actual fact checks, as being found to be spreading untruths in a " " " fact " " " check results in your post being banned with, bizarrely, the traffic you would have gotten being directed instead to the third-party fact-checker. Strangely enough, they're not labeled "Opinion Checks." Nor are they caveated as "fact" checks which are opinion based. continues insisting that s.230 does not need to be reformed, and they also continue insisting that the money they're taking from Google and FaceBook has nothing whatsoever to do with this bizarre position they've staked out, and How Dare You.Īnd FaceBook says these " " " fact " " " checks are just opinions. The actions (and speech) of your agent are your actions and speech, legally speaking.įaceBook and the other Tech Monopolies are claiming - and have been claiming - that s.230 makes them immune to virtually all lawsuits of any kind whatsoever, not just as regards speech spoken by third parties, and Conservative, Inc. Now I should point out that FaceBook contracts out its " " " fact " " " checks to third party (leftwing) " " " fact " " " checkers, but this should not matter, legally a contractor is liable for the actions (including the speech) of the agent he hires to act (or speak) for him.
Calling a journalist a liar is about as reputation damaging as you can get.įaceBook also just made up a statement that Stossel never said, and then claimed he'd said a falsehood.įaceBook is pleading several defenses - including section 230 immunity, which they are now claiming gives them not just immunity for the words of others but for their own words as well - but also offers a new and exciting defense:įaceBook is now claiming that their " " " Fact " " " checks are mere statements of opinion and as such cannot be defamatory. John Stossel is suing FaceBook (now, "Meta Platforms") for defamation in claiming that completely-true things he said were false, thus damaging his reputation. You peon peasants have no say about what goes on here. It's just MuhCorporations acting completely on their own without any pressure from the government. So I guess they've reached out to Twitter to ask them to censor a fact on behalf of the government.īut this is all fine. The official word from the CDC, of course, is while a vaccine might reduce transmissibility, vaccinated people can still spread it.īut I guess the CDC doesn't want people to know that, or doesn't want people repeating that, because it undermines their propaganda for vaccines. Users can receive penalties up to a permanent ban. false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people." "We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example. "When tweets include misleading information about Covid-19, we may place a label on those tweets that includes corrective information about that claim," the website notes in a section detailing its rules about Covid-19 misinformation. Twitter will begin imposing penalties on users who claim that vaccinated people can spread Covid-19, according to a change quietly added to the website’s terms of service. This undermines a chief argument for the vaccine mandate - you must get vaccinated or else you'll spread covid - so this fact must now be censored. Like, the fact that vaccinated people can spread covid. Their eyes are always on the real prize: Censoring true information which is damaging to The Regime's propaganda efforts. They don't care about "lies" and "absurd conspiracy theories" - those gain little traction and have small impact. Which is, of course, the goal of any censorship regime. In: Censoring accurate information the regime finds inconvenient Twitter Will Begin Banning People Who State, Correctly, That the Vaccinated Can Spread CovidįaceBook Pleads, In Legal Arguments, That Its " " " Fact " " " Checks Are Purely Opinions