4 ms·

Not in a fact-checker-visible sense it isn't, though. We know who the actors were and what they did and how they wrote about it. The US civil war is one of, i

Not in a fact-checker-visible sense it isn't, though. We know who the actors were and what they did and how they wrote about it. The US civil war is one of, if not the, best-attested conflicts of its century. What is there to fact check? Like I said, I'm curious and suspect the real issue is a little deeper.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I'm not particularly familiar with the matter, but the actions and wirittings are still subject to interpretation. Some examples might be: What was the reason for the confederacy to declare independence. What were General E Lees motivations for joining the war. What was the motivation for most soldiers (who were not slave owners) joining the war. You can find hundreds of books disputing these topics.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Once again, reasons and motivations aren't the subject of "fact checking" in the sense we're discussing. That's interpretive history, not factual stuff. And I'd be shocked beyond belief if Facebook was actually stepping in here, which is why I asked for a cite. I'll be blunt: this didn't happen. They never fact checked a post about a confederate general, and if they did it was over some kind of obviously false thing that wouldn't be controversial. Edit: OK, I found a situation: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/12/facebook-posts/fact-checking-claims-about-robert-e-lees-position-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/12/facebook-p... tl;dr: Facebook put a fact check warning on a piece that claimed in isolation that "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" without mentioning the fact that he led the confederate army in war against the United States or that he personally owned slaves. That seems about right to me.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Thanks for finding the article. I would argue that this is clearly in the realm of interpretive history. The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer. It is a question of what a historical figure thought and felt comes with all the nuance of a real human being. Part of what I object to with the "fact checking" is that it often tries to adjudicate questions that are matter of opinion. Perhaps "oponion" should be the facebook flag. Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery".
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer ... ? Doesn't the burden of factuality go the OTHER way though? It's an objective-sounding statement of what purports to be a fact. But it's belied by other obvious facts about the man's life. It makes him sound like a union abolitionist and not a slave-holding confederate, which is misleading. I suppose you might (barely) get away with similar statements. For example "Lee opposed secession prior to the war, and claimed to oppose slavery later in life." That still leaves out context, but at least hints at its existence. > Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery". No, it does not. But other statements might be: "Lee owned other human beings" is a clearly factual statement. "Lee fought against the United States" is another.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I think there mere fact that the two of us can read the same political article and then debate the interpretation of "opposition" in this context lends credence the idea it is a statement of interpretive history, and not fact. Similarly, it is open to the reader's interpretation. You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. I totally agree that "Lee owned other human beings" and "Lee fought against the United States" are factual statements, and could be fact checked. So could statements that "Prior to the war, Lee wrote that slavery was evil" and "Both Lee and Lincoln would be considered a racist by modern standards, and had very similar opinions on slavery." I agree that facts can lead readers to misinterpretations. Given how hard it is to verify actual facts, I don't think it should be Facebook's job protect readers from facts which are accurate, but could lead to undesirable world views. In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history.
        newacct583 6y ago
        > You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy. You'd never allow this about other stuff you care about. Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right? > In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history. And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact. I don't think it's so heavy a burden for those who want to write a defense of Lee not to engage in the kind of spin in that story, is it?
  - triangleman 6y ago
    This whole things stinks. Why does Facebook need to stick its nose in a viral post about a historical figure? I suppose the possible real-world repercussions of this "fact-checking" are not, like, genocide or anything, but the disposition of various Robert E Lee statues? Or is Facebook really trying to promote Truth as an end in itself? And they enlist Snopes to help them in this Noble endeavor and declare "mostly false" beyond their standards? Really? And you're defending this shit?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      It's not just a "post about a historical figure" though, is it? I mean, if you want to spin a fictionalized yarn about Hammurabi I'm sure they'll allow it. This was a post about a topical issue of public policy. Not Lee the man of 1865, but whether or not to remove a statue of Lee in 2020. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that Facebook's fact check policy is designed to regulate? You aren't allowed to lie (though to be fair this was a lie of omission) to influence a contemporary policy debate, and if you do they'll put a warning on your post that points to a clearer exposition of the truth.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I'm not particularly familiar with the matter, but the actions and wirittings are still subject to interpretation. Some examples might be: What was the reason for the confederacy to declare independence. What were General E Lees motivations for joining the war. What was the motivation for most soldiers (who were not slave owners) joining the war. You can find hundreds of books disputing these topics.

newacct583 6y ago
Once again, reasons and motivations aren't the subject of "fact checking" in the sense we're discussing. That's interpretive history, not factual stuff. And I'd be shocked beyond belief if Facebook was actually stepping in here, which is why I asked for a cite. I'll be blunt: this didn't happen. They never fact checked a post about a confederate general, and if they did it was over some kind of obviously false thing that wouldn't be controversial. Edit: OK, I found a situation: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/12/facebook-posts/fact-checking-claims-about-robert-e-lees-position-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/12/facebook-p... tl;dr: Facebook put a fact check warning on a piece that claimed in isolation that "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" without mentioning the fact that he led the confederate army in war against the United States or that he personally owned slaves. That seems about right to me.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Thanks for finding the article. I would argue that this is clearly in the realm of interpretive history. The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer. It is a question of what a historical figure thought and felt comes with all the nuance of a real human being. Part of what I object to with the "fact checking" is that it often tries to adjudicate questions that are matter of opinion. Perhaps "oponion" should be the facebook flag. Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery".
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer ... ? Doesn't the burden of factuality go the OTHER way though? It's an objective-sounding statement of what purports to be a fact. But it's belied by other obvious facts about the man's life. It makes him sound like a union abolitionist and not a slave-holding confederate, which is misleading. I suppose you might (barely) get away with similar statements. For example "Lee opposed secession prior to the war, and claimed to oppose slavery later in life." That still leaves out context, but at least hints at its existence. > Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery". No, it does not. But other statements might be: "Lee owned other human beings" is a clearly factual statement. "Lee fought against the United States" is another.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I think there mere fact that the two of us can read the same political article and then debate the interpretation of "opposition" in this context lends credence the idea it is a statement of interpretive history, and not fact. Similarly, it is open to the reader's interpretation. You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. I totally agree that "Lee owned other human beings" and "Lee fought against the United States" are factual statements, and could be fact checked. So could statements that "Prior to the war, Lee wrote that slavery was evil" and "Both Lee and Lincoln would be considered a racist by modern standards, and had very similar opinions on slavery." I agree that facts can lead readers to misinterpretations. Given how hard it is to verify actual facts, I don't think it should be Facebook's job protect readers from facts which are accurate, but could lead to undesirable world views. In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        > You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy. You'd never allow this about other stuff you care about. Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right? > In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history. And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact. I don't think it's so heavy a burden for those who want to write a defense of Lee not to engage in the kind of spin in that story, is it?
- triangleman 6y ago
  This whole things stinks. Why does Facebook need to stick its nose in a viral post about a historical figure? I suppose the possible real-world repercussions of this "fact-checking" are not, like, genocide or anything, but the disposition of various Robert E Lee statues? Or is Facebook really trying to promote Truth as an end in itself? And they enlist Snopes to help them in this Noble endeavor and declare "mostly false" beyond their standards? Really? And you're defending this shit?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    It's not just a "post about a historical figure" though, is it? I mean, if you want to spin a fictionalized yarn about Hammurabi I'm sure they'll allow it. This was a post about a topical issue of public policy. Not Lee the man of 1865, but whether or not to remove a statue of Lee in 2020. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that Facebook's fact check policy is designed to regulate? You aren't allowed to lie (though to be fair this was a lie of omission) to influence a contemporary policy debate, and if you do they'll put a warning on your post that points to a clearer exposition of the truth.