Facebook Admits That Independent Fact Checking Is Merely Opinion

Greg Albaugh- Citizens Journal

Facebook Censorship

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 Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William Hicks

OH WLL, as long as it’s a matter of opinion, mine is that I don’t do Facebook and never will.

Steve

We’ve known, for close to ten years now, that Facebook is part of the liars club. They’ve proven their hypocritical dishonesty, countless times…just like the corporate MSM (mainstream media), Google, Twitter, the Democratic party, governmental agencies, institutions and NGOs. Those social media platforms listed in the article, have been a hotbed recruiting grounds for the radical left. They are, the real Facists. Without a doubt, they should all lose their Section 230 status. Can’t wait to see the class action, slander lawsuits start piling up against them.

Vernon

Honestly, I think the hypocritical dishonesty of Facebook and the other Big Tech social media platforms is something the right, left, and middle pretty much all agree on. I mean we all think Zuckerberg’s a POS interested only in lining his own pocket, right?

Maybe we all can use this common ground to convince our lawmakers to fix the mess the Tech guys have created for their own gains.

francis gorden

wow, their lawyers claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.
That’s just like Tucker and Hannity using that same defense for Fox “News”

@RealJesse

Agreed. Shut down ALL social media websites. And let’s start with this one.

Come on, Citizens Opinion, you’ve made your case by choosing to curate this specific article to republish. Why not demonstrate your conviction and live by it? Because you’re a bunch of un-American pussies who want to complain but not actually do anything, that’s why.

Prove me wrong. Show your devotion to the cause by taking down your social media website.

G Miller

This is original Citizens Journal content, not a “republish” and it is all true. CJ is right to speak out and document unfair, dishonest treatment by big tech.

As for getting off social media, they have already dropped Twitter. At the momet, they get more readers with Facebook than without, but FB seems to be making that worse. Also, you just posted your comment on CJ’s website, not social media.

Last edited 1 month ago by G Miller
Eric Wallter

This is with ref to your (@RealJesse) post saying “Agreed. Shut down ALL social media websites. And let’s start with this one.”
First question: Who has suggested (and where) the shutting down of all social media websites?
Second question: You allege the instant website to be “an un-American pussy”. Am I to assume then that you are “an American pussy”?

You sound like a Protestant with his nose stuck in Chronicles.

Steve

Once again, showing your IQ. And, your unbridled hatred of anyone, that does not think as you do. Like I said before, you are a BLM/ANTIFA supporting troll. Your side (assessed by your past rants), is as un-American as they come. I suggest you relocate to one of those socialist/communist countries, that share your narrative.

@RealJesse

I mean, can you get any dumber Steve?

Un-American you say? Where in the Constitution is it written that you have a right to social media?

This whole article is taking a dump on social media and you don’t like when I agree. Absolutely brilliant, “Steve”.