> Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources.

> Politifact takes a consensus of people who are experts in the topic, and its answers are subject both to peer review and to corrections from outside sources. And who decides which experts get to join the consensus, and which outside sources that proffer corrections should be listened to? You're dreaming if you think that a single-point-of-failure institution like this can ever be immune to the equivalent of regulatory capture. > I'm damned sure that neither facts nor rational arguments are going to win them over, because they have been conned by a pathological liar. And as I pointed out above, he's a liar who has been supported by a lying alt-right media. Yeah, see, that's the thing. We started at "We need a neutral, unbiased source of fact-checking!" and have reached the conclusion of "Because that'll help stick it to the people I hate!" In which case, one wonders how much "neutral, unbiased" was ever in the cards in the first place.