Perhaps even including from the point of view of people who notice that what the fact checkers declare to be true depends on which partisan side it supports. Fo

Perhaps even including from the point of view of people who notice that what the fact checkers declare to be true depends on which partisan side it supports. For example, it's amazing how fast the official unemployment figure switched from being the One True Measure of unemployment and any claim that differed from it a lie when Trump was running against a Democrat incumbent, to suddenly not being so once Trump was the incumbent. There also seems to be a noticable bias in the overall rating given on a lot of sites, with conservative claims shifted a step or two towards "false" compared to liberal or left-wing claims with an equivalent level of actual accuracy as described in the text. The thing is, on some level I think a lot of the cheerleaders of fact checking as a weapon against right-wing information must know this and want it. There's been quite a bit of outrage over organisations fact-checking left-wing claims as false, especially when it's a fact checker affiliated with a decidedly non-left wing and non-Democrat supporting site that does it, including claims that it's destroying democracy, dubious arguments about false equivalence, and using the possibility of Facebook penalties to imply it's suppressing left-wing speech. (There was also a really revealing incident where, after a state Democrat party got caught really blatently violating Facebook's rules against voter suppression ads in a tight election, nearly all publications just didn't cover it despite thorougly covering the announcement of those rules. I don't think they got penalized beyond having the offending ads pulled, so the victim narrative would probably have been hard to pull off.)