4 ms·
Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”. Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. I’d rather it be courts and some legal process, or even th
by fellellor 5y ago
Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”.
Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. I’d rather it be courts and some legal process, or even the government rather than some so called “prominent fact checking organisation”.
- wolverine876 5y ago> Neither are they “prominent”, nor do they “check facts”. What is that based on? > Someone has to be the arbiter of the truth. They do? That has never been the case, except in dictatorships where the ruler has claimed to be the arbiter, but few actually believe what they say is truth.
- fellellor 5y agoIt’s based on them neither being “prominent”, nor being “fact checkers”. Please produce sources to back your claims. Also cite, why there needn’t be any arbiters of truth in a democracy. Maybe you have fully embraced the post truth age.