4 ms·
Exactly. So every time I see news of twitter/fb 'fact-checking', it reeks to me with a far too familiar KGB / STASI odor. Going down this path will not end wel
by Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Exactly. So every time I see news of twitter/fb 'fact-checking', it reeks to me with a far too familiar KGB / STASI odor.
Going down this path will not end well.
- Animats 6y agoGood point. Although, arguably, "fact checking" is merely replying to what others are saying. It's a "the solution to free speech is more speech" approach.
- pdonis 6y ago> "fact checking" is merely replying to what others are saying. Not if "fact checking" actually means "taking down the post because we disagreed with it".
- Animats 6y agoRight. It should be attaching a fact-based reply. This is not too hard, because the number of different bogus memes seen in bulk is not that large.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoBut who will fact-check the fact-checkers? Also, who will ensure that fact-checking rules are consistently applied to everyone?
- giancarlostoro 6y agoAgreed. Who snopes the snopes? Did you know Snopes has been shown to be biased since it is ran by people who lean one direction, who stops them from misinforming the public. What about when politicians are exposed and the media shields them are we just going to blindly trust a biased media source? We need to allow the people to review all evidence and form conclusions from said evidence. I cant tell you how many times I have followed up on media articles only to find that the media just spat anything out for ads. Without all the facts it is bias and speculation.
- p1necone 6y agoObjective reality leans in one direction on America's political spectrum, objective fact checkers are going to lean closer to the left of America's overton window by default.
- fulafel 6y agoThe basic premise of Snopes is already political of course. Facts vs disinformation is a political question.
- Can_Not 6y ago> has been shown to be biased Well, go ahead and show us, don't just hand wave this one by.
- Riverheart 6y agoThe people they fact checked. As long as no one is censored dissenting opinions are free to dispute the facts presented.
- giancarlostoro 6y agoWhat if the fact checkers are the website itself? How do you even stand a chance then? The bias is then forced making it look more legitimate.
- sershe 6y agoWell, ultimately it's a question of authority. I cannot, or have no time to, validate even the simplest statements about something non-controversial, e.g. physics, but I choose to trust scientists and ignore some guy on Youtube who claims relativity is a hoax. Removing the video from youtube by the fact-checkers would be problematic anyway, however it would be fine if there was a disclaimer on it referring a specific authority in physics that has views that disagree with it.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThe key difference being that if an individual disagrees with Twitter or FB's fact-checking, they can respond by ceasing to feed the beast. Moving out of a controlling government is much harder than ceasing to go to facebook.com or twitter.com.