Monday, March 27, 2023
47.9 F

    Latest Posts

    Goodbye Constitution Freedom America by Don Jans

    Facebook Admits That Independent Fact Checking Is Merely Opinion

    Greg Albaugh- Citizens Journal

    <span style=font family helvetica arial sans serif>Facebook Censorship<span>

    Many of us who have used Facebook in the last 2 years have become familiar with the term “independent fact checkers”. I personally have had my posts flagged and removed because the fact checkers found a post to be party false. Some notable posts were satire, and they received the tag. Satire is not expected to be 100% factual; that is what makes it satire.

    Facebook has presented itself to its users as the arbiter of truth and guarantor of factually accurate information. Guarding users against “fake news” and “misinformation”.

    Recent admissions by the social media giant have been revealing. a recent article published by Breitbart reported that Facebook has admitted in court that its “fact checks” of information — frequently aimed at conservatives — are nothing more than statements of opinion.

    This admission came from a statement in a defamation lawsuit with John Stossel. In 2020, Stossel made a video that stated that California’s wildfires were mostly caused by poor government management. Facebook censored that as “misleading.” They linked to a Science Feedback post with the following sentence in quotation marks, “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” Stossel adamantly denies ever saying that but, in the format it was presented, it looked like a quote.

    It is important to note that when Facebook fact-checks something, its algorithm makes sure fewer people see that video.

    The Facebook police struck again when Stossel posted his Climate Crisis Video.

    Facebook tagged the video as Party False information. As a result of the second fact check incident his viewership began to decline rapidly.

    He was able to ask the independent fact checker from Science Feedback what was wrong with his climate-crisis video, and the fact checker admitted that “he and his other fact-checkers found no incorrect facts. Instead, they simply did not like my tone.” He went on to explain, “The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being wrong,”

    Below is an excerpt from page two of Facebook’s court filing:


    “Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice— which, as a public figure, he must. For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile.”


    Breitbart reported that Facebook, now calling itself “Meta,” asserts that Stossel needs to “attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta” because of the tech company’s outsourcing of censorship to third-party fact checkers, made up of liberal media organizations and nonprofits. Facebook uses this system to distance itself from responsibility from any fact-checks by arguing that the decisions are made by third parties rather than the company itself.

    John Stossel commented in an article in the NY post  “Amazingly, their lawyers now claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation”.

    Social Media Giant Meta owns Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok. They allow third party fact checkers and influencers to control access to data on these platforms. Basing rules and regulations on these fact checker opinions they somehow have no culpability as evidenced in John Stossel’s defamation case.

    China’s government is controlling the social media narrative by paying social media influencers in the U.S. to promote the Beijing Olympics and distract from diplomatic boycotts over its human rights violations, according to disclosures filed with the Department of Justice. Meanwhile, American citizens and organizations who’s views are seen as contrary to the leftist narrative are censored.

    The Chinese consulate is paying Vippi, a New Jersey based public relations firm, $300,000 to have influencers on Instagram, TikTok and Twitch promote the Beijing Olympics, according to the disclosures. The influencers will also be required to promote U.S.-China cooperation on issues including energy and climate change.

    Citizens Journal has been the target of these independent fact checkers this week. In a story posted this week titled “On the Frontlines: Whistleblower Exposes Failures of Pfizer’s COVID ‘Vaccine’ Trial,” Facebook posted 6 warnings of partly false information and removed the post from our page.


    Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

    - Advertisement -
    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Notify of

    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Latest Posts


    Don't Miss


    To receive the news in your inbox

    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x