Now the Left’s entire “fact check” deception is exposed. My latest in FrontPage:
For years now, Facebook and the other social media giants have been acting as the guardians of acceptable opinion, banning even the president of the United States for stating views they decided had to be forcibly suppressed. But now, facing a serious legal challenge to their massive censorship of dissidents from the Leftist agenda and ongoing infringement of the freedom of speech, Facebook has finally admitted what its foes have contended from the beginning: its “fact checks” are not really factual at all, but are simply opinion. On the basis of that opinion, innumerable truthful voices have been silenced; lovers of freedom can only hope that this startling admission is the beginning of the end of the social media giants’ hegemony.
Reclaim The Net reported Saturday that “John Stossel, a libertarian journalist and author, filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming the platform defamed him through a ‘fact check’ label. Facebook added a ‘misleading’ label on a video he posted.”
This labeling of Stossel had a powerful effect: he was “censored on Facebook and his work was undermined by the ‘fact check’ that he alleged was defaming his character by falsely accusing him of lying.”
Faced with a legal challenge from Stossel, Facebook’s lawyers were cornered into making the damaging admission about its “fact check” labels: “The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.” This is a sleazy tactic, given Facebook’s current power over the public discourse. Reclaim The Net noted that “Facebook wants the ability to allow fact checkers to accuse their users of lying and censor and ban users based on those ‘fact checks,’ but not to have any liability for accusing those users of lying.”
Facebook has done immense damage to a great many more people than just Stossel with these “opinions.” Numerous sites that report on news that the Left doesn’t want you to know have been and/or continue to be shadowbanned or have been removed from Facebook altogether.
Of course, it’s not just Facebook, either. This is by now a tried-and-true tactic of the Left. For years the obscenely wealthy and fantastically corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has operated in the same way, smearing and defaming foes of the Left’s agenda as “extremists” and equating them with neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen. As a target of this myself, I have several times inquired with lawyers about whether I could sue the SPLC for defamation and am always told the same thing: it’s just their opinion, it’s protected speech, you would have to prove actual malice, and so on.
The problem with this is that the SPLC’s “opinion,” like that of Facebook, is taken as sober, objective fact by numerous organizations and institutions, many of which use the SPLC’s spurious and defamatory “hate group list” to determine whom they will do business with and whom they will shun. Amazon, for example, has a special service for 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, but those that have been smeared by the SPLC, even if they have been neither accused nor convicted of any wrongdoing and are still charities recognized by the U.S. Treasury Department, are excluded from participation. And Amazon is by no means the only corporation to operate this way.
Now that Facebook has made this admission, it has thereby cast doubt upon the Left’s entire “fact check” operation. For Leftists, “fact checking” is just another means to discredit and destroy their political opponents, not a means to get to the truth of the matter at all. But Facebook’s admission will, unfortunately, not likely change anything: the evil conglomerate will continue to infringe upon the freedom of speech and police opinions, allowing only those of the far-Left to be disseminated freely.
To solve this problem will require a president who understands the threat to the freedom of speech that Facebook and the other social media giants pose, and who has the will, the power, and the support to act decisively. If the United States is to survive as a free republic, Facebook, Twitter, Google and all the rest will have to be broken up, the way AT&T was long ago. Otherwise, these sinister oligarchies will continue to strangle and silence dissenting voices, until finally there is no one left at all to speak out as they implement their authoritarian agenda in full.
somehistory says
They admitted it because they were being sued…and people are allowed to have personal opinions in law.
As in, In my opinion, i. elmi is a nasty, lying fraud who had to buy votes in order to sit in the House.
SuchindranathAiyerS says
But are they allowed to PUBLISH personal opinions as fact? That is defamation, surely?
somehistory says
They should not be allowed to say their opinions are fact. They should be made to state that these are their opinions. they didn’t do that because they wanted to make people think that whatever they had written was fact.
But, in being sued, the only way they could see avoiding being found guilty of libel, was to say that these were just opinions.
There is law directed at the general public…where it is harder to be sued if one says something that hurts the reputation of another if it is said about a public person…a celeb or politician ;and it is stiffer …easier to be sued…if one writes or says something that will hurt the reputation or business of another average person.
So, it is possible to say, “in my opinion” things that are untrue, but if one believes them to be true, then it is very difficult for another to sue and be given an award.
Fb should be made to cough up some money and be forced to put the *opinion* sign on whatever they write.
Furthermore, they called people’s posts untrue when it went against the gov propaganda…such as the risks of the virus vs risks of the shots, the election fraud, and other things.
They should be made to retract these remarks and re-instate the deleted posts and accounts. Because these too, were their opinions.
ME Infidel says
Is anybody buying the fake Facebook ads where “employees” (actors) are vouching for their company’s integrity? I suspect NOT.
OLD GUY says
Kind of reminds me of propaganda like Islamophobia. Those ads are so unbelievable, they certainly don’t instill the idea of integrity and truth. It’s kind of like a teen convincing mom that those six empty beer cans in the back seat of her car flew in the window while you were driving home last night, and yea you do have a headache this morning.
sidney penny says
“Of course, it’s not just Facebook, either. This is by now a tried-and-true tactic of the Left. For years the obscenely wealthy and fantastically corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) ”
I still remember when someone I was corresponding with quoted SPLC (hate group) to discredit Robert Spencer
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer discuss facts about Islam.SPLC turns that into hate! If that is the case you will never be able to discuss religion.
Gordon Dolan says
‘If that is the case you will never be able to discuss religion.’
Correction- … You will never be able to discuss ISLAM.
gravenimage says
Yep.
Infidel says
The solution to this social media problem will come from foreign governments that start banning these platforms in their countries, like Nigeria did for Twitter. Hopefully, India – one of the biggest target markets – similarly drops the hammer on all of them, and spins its own, like it did for Koo. Once these companies’ global ambitions are squelched, they’ll then be on their knees here as well
Until then, nothing’s gonna happen
gravenimage says
The solution to this social media problem will come from foreign governments that start banning these platforms in their countries, like Nigeria did for Twitter
…………
Infidel, Nigeria banned Twitter because they deleted Tweets from Buhari threatening another Jihadist Biafran war against Christians there.
Not sure I’d tout this as a model to follow.
Infidel says
Whatever their reason, the action that they took got to Twitter. As far as the latter goes, there goes a big market
Nigeria’s issues w/ its muslim persecution of Christians is something that must be dealt w/, but it’s something completely separate from social media companies trying to socially re-engineer the world according to their own whims
gravenimage says
Infidel, I don’t want to see Islam crushing freedom of speech, even if it occasionally inconveniences others trying to crush freedom of speech.
gravenimage says
Facebook Finally Admits It: Its ‘Fact Checks’ Are Just Opinion
…………
This should surprise no one.
Kudos to John Stossel for exposing this vicious claptrap.
eduardo odraude says
Who doesn’t hope to see Facebook, Twitter, Google, Youtube, and other monopolies or near monopolies broken up? Well, maybe about 30% of the population, the more left-leaning part is generally just dandy with those companies’ selective censorship and pretense of objectivity. Or perhaps the companies’ leadership is so moronic, such a bunch of pin-headed techno-dweebs, they think themselves objective and qualified to censor those with whom they disagree. The Founding Fathers were not so arrogant, hence the First Amendment. But of course the leaders of Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Youtube have no need of humility, because they possess the wisdom to decide whose views should be censored. Of course direct incitements to illegal physical violence should be censored, but beyond that, the remedy for bad speech is not the brute force of censorship, but more speech. It’s striking that more than two centuries after the Founding Fathers, there are still tons of people who have not caught up to them yet, who still languish, despite a pretended sophistication, in ancient dreams of Plato about overweening philosopher-kings, or give no thoughts to Plato but simply are insensate dimwits when it comes to even the most primitive understanding of freedom of speech, how it works, what it does, and why it’s necessary for any civilization worthy of the name. So many clever and supposedly educated people don’t understand the most basic things.
gravenimage says
Eduardo, with the greatest respect, I would not assume that the government, which has now adopted an “Islamophobia” bill, is apt to improve matters.
eduardo odraude says
hi gravenimage,
Not sure how you got from my comment that I was saying “the government would improve matters.” The whole point of my comment went against philosopher kings or state authorities. I was extolling the First Amendment, which might be the most severe straitjacket on government ever applied in the whole history of humanity.
eduardo odraude says
But I can see how someone would misunderstand. It was an quick effusive rant not carefully structured for clarity.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Eduardo. It’s just that if anyone is going to break up social media, it is apt to be the government. Be careful what you wish for…
Frances Weingarten says
One can only hope that Facebook will stop lieing to us and become a welcome and honest broker! It’s always been a question to me as to why they would want to lie but it’s actually very clear: they lie to protect themselves, to make themselves look more important and to produce misleading information that makes them look more intelligent, more valued and more looked up to! Either they stop all of this or they very soon won’t have a voice at all!
VICTOR COWEN says
When I deleted myself from f******k over ten years ago ++. Along with all the rest of these ‘social media sites, I described them as criminal organisations.
Well well….is the rest of the world finally catching up? What a surprise?
BTW: Every word I entered on their original sign-up page all those years ago was a complete lie about myself. Just imagine what the rest did too.
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
CONTROL-ALT-DELETE
CONTROL THE NARRATIVE
ALTER PERCEPTIONS
DELETE ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS OR CHALLENGES THE NARRATIVE
Melc says
But lying (taqiya) is a religious duty in Islam. So you never know what is true or false. Of course if you believe Md. Went to heaven on a flying donkey it is OK, but highly unlikely to appeal to a rational mind!!
Walter Sieruk says
That the Facebook executives have difficultly discerning the obvious difference between facts and opinion might reflect how many Westerners are infected by the worthless, sick and unrealistic philosophies which are called “Multiculturalism” and “Cultural Relativity.”
Which are the concepts that all culture are equal because this MC and C.R concept teaches the foolishness that all values derive their meaning within the specific social content. This folly of thinking leads, or misleads, many people to view every position as only “opinion” and that truth is only relevant to the person or society holding that view. In other words, discovering actual truth in impossible.
These philosophies of multiculturalism and cultural relativity are absurd, nonsensical and contradictory.
For example, to say “finding the truth is impossible “Is a statement of contradiction. For in making that statement that is saying, in essence, “I have found the truth which is finding the truth is not possible.” It should be obvious that this “War of Ideas” needs to and should have a solidly based in and on truth and not by a worthless “war of opinions” A person who embraces multiculturalism and cultural relativity would say about a scholarly truth teller about Islam with its different kinds of jihad , as Pamela Geller, that she is only giving her “opinion” on the subject.
Such ignorance is appalling. Just look at history. If Americans had that MC and C.R. view ,as many Americans do today , then during World war II it would had been madness and a fools fight to go into battle against the military forces of Nazism if it was only just “opinion” that Hitler was wrong and evil.
Likewise in this twenty-first century it would be nonsense, for example, for the US troops to fight and maybe even die in Afghanistan if it’s just “opinion” that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are wrong and evil.
Two other examples of the falseness of MC and C.R. with its teaching that everything is only “opinion.”
First is in the elate 1970’s two guys said “There are so many different religions that no one can ever know the truth about religion.” They were really saying that statement so dogmatically that they were self-contradicting. For they were saying that they know the truth about religion that is not one can know the truth about religion.
Second, a shallow man in the 1980’s said when asked the question “Why do you always small talk ? You don’t ever talk about a topic that might have some value, as politics? After all , all thing are related “ That shallow C.R man replied “There are so many different political ideas that finding the true one is unattainable and all thing are not related.” The wisdom-less man was saying that he obtained the truth which is the he can’t obtain the truth and who does can is really truthfully say that all thing are not related in he can’t find the truth. How foolish, an obvious contradiction.
What is needed to counter this nonsense C.R./P.C. is the concept of “Absolutism.” Which a definition of this, with the scope of the topic, is “An absolute standard or principle .” In this “war of idea’s it’s the Bible with its absolute standards and principles to stand firm against Islam is its different types of jihad with its many evils. In conclusion, in this War of Ideas a firm foundation for truth may be found in the Bible and not the weak folly multiculturalism and cultural relativity in which everything is “opinion.”
eduardo odraude says
Have you read Peter Berger’s The Heretical Imperative? Great book in part about the incomplete truth of relativism. Berger doesn’t deny that relativism has a place, but he points out that to turn relativism into an absolute would be a contradiction in terms. Thus relativism is only part of the truth, and absolutes also do have a kind of station in human existence. We intuit absolutes only fallibly, through a glass darkly, but they are there. We never have perfect access to the truth. Yet we know there is truth, even though our grasp of it is limited and faulty. We are often illuminated by our own circumstances but also often blinded by them. A true story, so I’m told: some explorers were traveling in the Arctic. They traveled north for a day or two. But then they found that somehow, despite going north, their position was south of where they had started. How could that possibly be? It turns out they were on some kind of giant iceberg that was floating south as they walked north.
The truth exists, we cannot deny it, because the very denial would still be an assertion about what is true and what is not. But our grasp on truth is always imperfect (which is not a shortcoming if you consider it means that our grasp can be improved and deepened ad infinitum). We are in the cosmos, not outside it, and we are in history, not outside time, so we cannot entirely escape relativism. It befogs our intuition of truth. Thus historians cut great individuals of the past some slack for their participation in the sins of the time — because people are to some extent a reflection of their historical period and because no one, or almost no one, lives a life exemplary for all time.