Not directly. Fact checking just seems like it's an API layer in news. By proxy, you're now trusting the fact checking organizations instead of the publisher/jo

Not directly. Fact checking just seems like it's an API layer in news. By proxy, you're now trusting the fact checking organizations instead of the publisher/journalist themselves. Readers will read your news if they've got that tag on there. So it helps both sides out on the surface. It's very difficult to collude with 120 organizations dedicated to fact checking. The actual problem is when 120 organizations disagree 50/50 about the truth, you're basically left with a consensus problem and you have to decide who's side is more trustworthy, which is a problem we had before with deciding which news organizations were trustworthy. All this is doing is moving the ball from the old guard to the new and rebranding it, because the population loves shiny new things. Or maybe the old guard is just fronting. There also probably won't be published data about when fact checking organizations are wrong, so nothing is stopping a decently financed group from becoming an authority in this new system and then staying around for a good while. There's also no metric for success and thresholds of when badly managed fact checking organizations should be culled from the herd. Will fact checking organizations have the balls to publish facts that put themselves in a terrible light and then self-terminate? What about the reputations of the people in that organization who move on to new organizations? Are they sufficiently punished for abusing the system? That is what is disturbing about this: that anyone can stand up and throw the fact checking badge around. It's not state-level censorship yet (IMO).