3 ms·

> Have we really arrived at a point where fact-checking and providing context to a claim is considered censorship? Because it's censorship. You do realize that

by disown 6y ago

> Have we really arrived at a point where fact-checking and providing context to a claim is considered censorship? Because it's censorship. You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right? You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda. But on most controversial issues, it's very hard to "fact-check". Take abortion. It's clearly the killing of a human life, but it's not murder since the fetus isn't a person. There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change. Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda. People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw.

xg15 6y ago
> Because it's censorship. It's not censorship because nothing is being censored. You can read any trump tweet and watch any conspiracy video you like, no one is keeping you from it - not the platforms and not the state. The only thing that is being done is putting a notice beside the tweets and videos. > You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right? You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda. So you're saying there is no objective truth and every opinion has equal authority? If I say the moon is made out of cheese and you say, no it isn't, we have proof, can I accuse you of censorship? > There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change. This is extremely vague. Please give a concrete example. > Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda. So what should we do instead then? How should we then reach a conclusion on controversial issues if fact checking is not an option? > People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw. Which bias exactly?

by disown 6y ago

xg15 6y ago

> Because it's censorship. It's not censorship because nothing is being censored. You can read any trump tweet and watch any conspiracy video you like, no one is keeping you from it - not the platforms and not the state. The only thing that is being done is putting a notice beside the tweets and videos. > You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right? You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda. So you're saying there is no objective truth and every opinion has equal authority? If I say the moon is made out of cheese and you say, no it isn't, we have proof, can I accuse you of censorship? > There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change. This is extremely vague. Please give a concrete example. > Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda. So what should we do instead then? How should we then reach a conclusion on controversial issues if fact checking is not an option? > People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw. Which bias exactly?