4 ms·

It sounds like the issue is that fact-checkers are being overridden sometimes when they flag right-wing news sources. I think that if you asked a right-wing per

It sounds like the issue is that fact-checkers are being overridden sometimes when they flag right-wing news sources. I think that if you asked a right-wing person, they would tell you that many of these fact-checker organizations have a distinct left-wing bias. Maybe they (the fact-checkers) aren’t infallible and get it wrong sometimes?

kingkawn 6y ago
If the basic work of fact-checking itself justifies removing right wing content the problem isn't the fact checkers.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  What about the fact checkers who rated the EFF as wrong on the warrantless surveillance issues?
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    I don't care enough to have a horse in this particular comment race, but your comment is an obvious example of whataboutism. Not a solid foundation for any argument, regardless of the content. Something to consider. Plus the op specifically mentioned falability in fact checkers.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      > Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. I'm directly providing a counter example. Most people here are very well equipped to understand the nuance of the warrantless surveillance issue and why the fact checker was quite wrong - part of why it's a meaningful case. Funny enough, your first statement is an example of the bandwagon fallacy. "Well I'm just a neutral party but..."
- jerkstate 6y ago
  Well, since none of the overridden fact checks were described in the article (which seems like a failure of journalism to me) we can’t really know. Anyways Facebook is a private company, they can do whatever they want, right?
zo1 6y ago
Another aspect is that a lot of non-left, or right-leaning viewpoints have been categorized into "naughty idea" territory, despite a lot of reasonable people holding them. E.g. Things such as: Being against mass-migration from 3rd world countries to the west, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare, building a wall, racial profiling, there being no gender pay-gap, protesting spreads the virus, BLM are agitators, etc. All non-inherently "evil" ideas, but we've moved into a territory where they're seen as hateful and as such the mainstream is primed to attack them. That is now manifesting (or stared in?) the internet, and we're seeing the consequences everywhere as a result.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  We actually seem to be creeping past "holding those viewpoints results in cancellation" into "not actively condemning those viewpoints results in cancellation".
  - joexner 6y ago
    If presenting these viewpoints misrepresents the views of your employer, they're fully entitled to cancel you. Judy Woodruff couldn't drop the n-word in anger on national TV and expect to keep her job.
- SalmoShalazar 6y ago
  Sorry, what on Earth are you babbling about? I think the vast majority of decent people if challenged to think about things like "racial profiling, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare" would realize that those ARE inherently evil (and anti-human) ideas. Really disgusting post ringing of racial supremacy.
- angst_ridden 6y ago
  Wanting racially homegeneous societies is an "evil idea" because to create one, you have to remove groups of people from a society based on their race.
  - 6y ago

kingkawn 6y ago

If the basic work of fact-checking itself justifies removing right wing content the problem isn't the fact checkers.

vorpalhex 6y ago
What about the fact checkers who rated the EFF as wrong on the warrantless surveillance issues?
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  I don't care enough to have a horse in this particular comment race, but your comment is an obvious example of whataboutism. Not a solid foundation for any argument, regardless of the content. Something to consider. Plus the op specifically mentioned falability in fact checkers.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    > Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. I'm directly providing a counter example. Most people here are very well equipped to understand the nuance of the warrantless surveillance issue and why the fact checker was quite wrong - part of why it's a meaningful case. Funny enough, your first statement is an example of the bandwagon fallacy. "Well I'm just a neutral party but..."
jerkstate 6y ago
Well, since none of the overridden fact checks were described in the article (which seems like a failure of journalism to me) we can’t really know. Anyways Facebook is a private company, they can do whatever they want, right?

zo1 6y ago

Another aspect is that a lot of non-left, or right-leaning viewpoints have been categorized into "naughty idea" territory, despite a lot of reasonable people holding them. E.g. Things such as: Being against mass-migration from 3rd world countries to the west, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare, building a wall, racial profiling, there being no gender pay-gap, protesting spreads the virus, BLM are agitators, etc. All non-inherently "evil" ideas, but we've moved into a territory where they're seen as hateful and as such the mainstream is primed to attack them. That is now manifesting (or stared in?) the internet, and we're seeing the consequences everywhere as a result.

commandlinefan 6y ago
We actually seem to be creeping past "holding those viewpoints results in cancellation" into "not actively condemning those viewpoints results in cancellation".
- joexner 6y ago
  If presenting these viewpoints misrepresents the views of your employer, they're fully entitled to cancel you. Judy Woodruff couldn't drop the n-word in anger on national TV and expect to keep her job.
SalmoShalazar 6y ago
Sorry, what on Earth are you babbling about? I think the vast majority of decent people if challenged to think about things like "racial profiling, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare" would realize that those ARE inherently evil (and anti-human) ideas. Really disgusting post ringing of racial supremacy.
angst_ridden 6y ago
Wanting racially homegeneous societies is an "evil idea" because to create one, you have to remove groups of people from a society based on their race.
- 6y ago