4 ms·

I work there, not on anything remotely related to this. For me the "justification" is mainly three things. 1. What Facebook is doing is not morally wrong. 2.

I work there, not on anything remotely related to this. For me the "justification" is mainly three things. 1. What Facebook is doing is not morally wrong. 2. This is not a moral issue, it's a political one with powers much larger than Facebook duking it out on the fact-check surfaces. 3. IMO the fact checkers use marginal cases to reinforce a political agenda. Often "fact checks" will call exaggerations made by conservatives "false" while calling similar exaggerations made by others "partly false" or "mixed". I am absolutely not a conservative and generally despise the conservative publishers subject to fact-check drama, but it's also very clear to me that these appeals make treatment more fair.

ALittleLight 6y ago
Regarding point number three, didn't Facebook pick the fact checkers? I don't get how you can assemble a team of "third party" fact checkers and also pressure them to change their minds, and feel consistent or moral about that. If the fact checkers suck, that's on Facebook to get new fact checkers, not to put their thumbs on the scale. I don't think we really need Facebook employees to weigh in here. "Why do you keep your safe, cushy, lucrative job when though your company is doing something immoral?" Isn't exactly a brain teaser, and the answer isn't one, two, or three of what you've presented here.
- mgraczyk 6y ago
  My comment is a reply to "FB employees, how do you ...". So I do feel like my weighing in here is appropriate. > how you can assemble ... and also pressure them Because they make mistakes and/or are biased? It's not an exact science. If you hire a speechwriter you may still make edits and give notes. There's nothing immoral about that.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    It completely undermines the idea of independent arbiters if they actually are not independent but under direction. To represent that fact checkers are "independent" while you give them direction is immoral. This isn't comparable to a speechwriter, where there would be no pretense of impartiality, but more like you hired a referee for a contest and when you didn't like the outcome you told the referee to change it. Regarding your weighing in, I didn't mean to suggest that it was inappropriate or uncalled for, but simply not needed. Obviously the reason that Facebook employees would work for an organization that does immoral things is because they consider it, on net, to their benefit to do so and not because of some secret obscure reason where transparently immoral actions are somehow moral.
    - mgraczyk 6y ago
      It has nothing to do with benefit, if you look at my comment history you'll find I believed the same thing when the fact checking was introduced, years before working there. I've discussed this with probably dozens of people who feel the same, none of whom work at FB. Just because you believe something is "transparently immoral" doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

ALittleLight 6y ago

Regarding point number three, didn't Facebook pick the fact checkers? I don't get how you can assemble a team of "third party" fact checkers and also pressure them to change their minds, and feel consistent or moral about that. If the fact checkers suck, that's on Facebook to get new fact checkers, not to put their thumbs on the scale. I don't think we really need Facebook employees to weigh in here. "Why do you keep your safe, cushy, lucrative job when though your company is doing something immoral?" Isn't exactly a brain teaser, and the answer isn't one, two, or three of what you've presented here.

mgraczyk 6y ago
My comment is a reply to "FB employees, how do you ...". So I do feel like my weighing in here is appropriate. > how you can assemble ... and also pressure them Because they make mistakes and/or are biased? It's not an exact science. If you hire a speechwriter you may still make edits and give notes. There's nothing immoral about that.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  It completely undermines the idea of independent arbiters if they actually are not independent but under direction. To represent that fact checkers are "independent" while you give them direction is immoral. This isn't comparable to a speechwriter, where there would be no pretense of impartiality, but more like you hired a referee for a contest and when you didn't like the outcome you told the referee to change it. Regarding your weighing in, I didn't mean to suggest that it was inappropriate or uncalled for, but simply not needed. Obviously the reason that Facebook employees would work for an organization that does immoral things is because they consider it, on net, to their benefit to do so and not because of some secret obscure reason where transparently immoral actions are somehow moral.
  - mgraczyk 6y ago
    It has nothing to do with benefit, if you look at my comment history you'll find I believed the same thing when the fact checking was introduced, years before working there. I've discussed this with probably dozens of people who feel the same, none of whom work at FB. Just because you believe something is "transparently immoral" doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.