18 ms·

John Stossel sues Facebook for allegedly defaming him with fact-check

202 points by temp8964 5y ago

cwkoss 5y ago
Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court. Relevant quotes from article: "According to Stossel’s complaint (read here), he published on Facebook a video titled “Government Fueled Fires,” where he took on “sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse,’ and explored a scientific hypothesis … that while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.”" "[On facebook] Further information told readers: “Claim — ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.’ Verdict: misleading.”" If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation.
- lovich 5y ago
  I don’t see a material difference between claiming “not the primary cause” and “not caused by” when in a short summary
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    I don't think Facebook would have been credibly able to rate “not the primary cause” as false - that requires being able to quantify the individual contributions of each factor. To rate “not caused by” is false, they just need to argue it contributed to the slightest extent: it's a much lower bar.
  - christophilus 5y ago
    One is possibly true and one is probably false. They're very different statements, and they are about the same length, so there's no excuse to use a misleading phrase simply for the sake of brevity.
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  I have seen the video and it is pretty sensible and definitely helps the debate around the fire. Either ways what caused fires is far from settled, the fact that climate change has anything to do with it is also disputed "fact".
  - burkaman 5y ago
    I would recommend reading the fact check as well to get a full sense of what happened here. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores... https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
    - temp8964 5y ago
      The responses are laughably long. If John Stossel made false claims, a few paragraphs should be sufficient. If you need to write two full length articles to explain what happened, you don’t get to label other people as false/misleading.
      - d4mi3n 5y ago
        While I don’t disagree that the responses may be overlong, I think it harms your argument to criticize the format of the response rather than the content. If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with. EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page. Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
        temp8964 5y ago
- beebmam 5y ago
  >If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation. This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately. Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation: In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
  - xondono 5y ago
    > This is strictly, legally false in the US. GPs point is the only one that’s in question (covers your point 1), the rest should be straightforward to prove: 2- it appears on Facebook 3- they have appointed themselves as fact checkers and supposedly review the video. They have full access to it as does anyone. 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.
    - _jal 5y ago
      This seems to get awfully close to making disagreement actionable. If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        if HN placed a [liar] badge next to their username, would that be a cause for action?
- burkaman 5y ago
  Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpLIBY9nReU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpLIBY9nReU In includes phrases like: "If all you know is climate scientists then every weather event you blame on climate change. If not climate change, what is to blame? [...] Foolish policies." "You could have had this amount of warming and not had these fires." "Bad policies were the biggest cause of this year's fires, not the slightly warmer climate." "While climate change is a problem, Schellenberger's new book explains it's not an apocalypse: natural disasters aren't getting worse, in fact they're getting better. [...] A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." To summarize: the video heavily implies throughout that the fires are not caused by climate change, and literally says so a couple times. Facebook did not falsely attribute that claim. They didn't fully summarize the entire video, but I don't think the fact check is intended to - it just pulls out one particular claim it wants to address. Aside: this video wasn't that bad, and I don't know if it needed a fact check, but that's not what the lawsuit is about. It did acknowledge that climate change is real and happening. However, it exclusively talked about climate change as a warming phenomenon, which is not the main issue and is a misleading characterization of why climate change is bad. Warming causes many other issues which are much more harmful than just "a small change in temperature". The discussion about forest management was valid and important, it should just be happening at the same time as discussion about climate change. Edit: Here's the original Facebook post where you can see the fact check: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157121971976621&id=46675576620 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197.... I believe this is visible even if you don't have an account. Here's the fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores.... Here's the fact checkers response to the lawsuit: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o....
  - PKop 5y ago
    Sounds like the discussion is nuanced. But this nuance is lost by Facebook slapping a label on his content as "misleading", which for all intents and purposes means "wrong". Sounds like defamation to me. Why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  His shtick is to express a contrarian viewpoint on anything and everything. It was mostly harmless 40 years ago. Now it feeds into right wing trolldom and he's notably cozied up to his new core audience. I wouldn't value anything he does these days.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    Being contrarian on climate change is just as bad as being a denier, both result in inaction and increase the consequences.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- coding123 5y ago
  "Misleading" seems to be the current politically motivated way to handle the fact checker's tie to either liberal or democratic politics. A fact check should be either true or false.
- microtherion 5y ago
  > Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court. It's good for society that he's taking somebody to court with ample resources to defend themselves against this utterly frivolous lawsuit. "Disagreeing with an easily triggered blowhard" is not actionable under US law. And, much as you might think it should be in this particular case, I suspect you would find that libel laws more favorable to plaintiffs (as they exist, e.g. in the UK) would often be used against people with whose political views you are sympathetic.
  - dimgl 5y ago
    Stossel is far from an easily triggered blowhard.
- hackcasual 5y ago
  > If Stossel never said "Not by climate change" Masson v. New Yorker Magazine Libel in the US requires more than just inaccuracy, it looks at the substantial truth. So "not by climate change" vs "not only by climate change" is irrelevant for establishing libel
  - hartator 5y ago
    I think the big red "Misleading" is the libel.
    - hackcasual 5y ago
      Misleading is opinion though, which in the US can never be libel
      - grayhatter 5y ago
        never is a strong word but even so I could prove something is misleading making it an objective assessment which wouldn't be covered under opinion exclusive.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  That is simply not substantial enough to win a libel case. This is like someone saying "McDonald's hamburgers are the worst" and then someone else saying, "you said McDonald's hamburgers aren't good". You never said that -- in theory the worst burgers could still be good, but it's not an unreasonable take given no other additional context. The libel is simply not substantial enough.
lovich 5y ago
I can’t find the video to check myself. The articles description of stossel’s claims seem to be exactly what the fact check said was claimed. Is this article biased or is the suit that frivolous?
- perceptronas 5y ago
  I suspect its this video [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xvc2o4ezk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xvc2o4ezk
yalogin 5y ago
Is this different from someone calling Stossel a fraud in the comments? The platform just added a comment on his post. The more interesting thing for me is to see if this has other ramifications if decided in favor of Stossel.
- leereeves 5y ago
  It's different because Facebook are shielded from liability for other people's comments that they publish, but not for their own comments.
- jetrink 5y ago
  An internet commenter is less likely to be successfully sued than Facebook, because it is easier to argue that Stossel suffered reputational damage from an incorrect statement by Facebook, compared to an unspecific insult from a random individual.
perihelions 5y ago
Opinion based on disclosed facts is protected speech [0]. Hard to be defamatory when the facts under dispute (the text of Stossel's post) are public. [0] https://www.rcfp.org/two-courts-reaffirm-protections-opinions-based-disclosed-facts/ https://www.rcfp.org/two-courts-reaffirm-protections-opinion...
- xondono 5y ago
  To use that defense, Facebook would have to label their fact checks as opinions, something that AFAIK they do not.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > To use that defense, Facebook would have to label their fact checks as opinions, something that AFAIK they do not. Cause these "fact checks" ARE opinions and Facebook should start labelling their own "fact checks" as "Facebook opinion". The cowardice of that system as well... like Facebook can be an arbiter of truth at first place? They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by still profiting from content they deem "falsehoods" while trying to get off the hook regarding mass media critical of Facebook.
djoldman 5y ago
> Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession. [0] This is interesting as it seems that platforms like Twitter and Facebook have avoided liability through Section 230 for content posted on their websites as the platform did not create the content. However, now that they seem to be automatically "fact-checking" and/or otherwise creating content with people as subjects, the platforms may be opening the door to liability. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel
- wpasc 5y ago
  Wow, this is a great point that I hadn't previously considered. These platforms can even conceivably get away with content removal more easily as ToS violations without stepping over the line to become publishers. But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230. I imagine there's a great case to be made that fact checks are platform sponsored content (if a fact check is viewed as an analysis of the content along with verdict [ie. "Misleading"], easy to view that similarly to the plethora of analysis content [reviews, summaries, etc] populating all social media platforms). I'm fascinated to see how this will play out.
  - cronix 5y ago
    > But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230 I believe that is why they, and other platforms in a similar position, use 3rd party "fact checkers." To try to legally skirt that. "It's not our content/fact check, it's from this unbiased third party. Don't look at us." They seem to have borrowed "plausible deniability" from some 3 letter agencies since it legally works well for them. > To fight the spread of misinformation and provide people with more reliable information, Facebook partners with independent third-party fact-checkers that are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Since we do not believe that a private company like Facebook should be the arbiters of truth, we rely on fact-checkers to identify, review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Their work enables us to take action and reduce the spread of problematic content across our apps. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking/how-it-works https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-pa...
rdtsc 5y ago
It seems "Independent Fact Checkers" simply parrot whatever other mass media outlets say regardless of facts. Facebook gets to say "look, someone else verified it", knowing that "someone else" here thinks and acts accordingly. If they don't they probably get fired and replaced. Given that this about 2020 California fires, I suspect this had to do with Trump or someone from his administration blaming forest management. And then, naturally, most of the media made fun of that and quickly went to debunk it, including the aforementioned "Independent Fact Checkers". Had Stossel waited a year, and applied the article to the 2021 fires, the fact checkers might have given him a pass.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  "Independent Fact Checkers" is a rhetorical persuasion play. If you think about it, what does "Independent" actually mean? Does it really matter if a cohort of "fact checkers" aren't owned by the same conglomerate when they are cut from the same ideological cloth?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- grayhatter 5y ago
  > simply parrot whatever other mass media outlets say regardless of facts. bias aside, are you asserting that generally mass media news is more lies than truths?
pharmakom 5y ago
I was once a fan of Stossel as a more mainstream libertarian voice. However, the segment he did where he slept rough for one night to “prove” that homelessness wasn’t so bad after all was so deeply offensive to me that I haven’t viewed any of his content since.
- philovivero 5y ago
  I personally know a guy who was homeless for over 15 years. He would soundly agree with Stossel's take. His opinion is... if I can attempt to summarise in a few words, that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, and if you ever give them a 100% guaranteed way out of it, they will run the other direction as fast as they can. I suggest you re-think your opinion of Stossel based on that segment.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    A quick google suggests that his opinion is strictly incorrect and its a myth. The largest reason for homelessness is addiction.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > I personally know a guy who was homeless for over 15 years. He would soundly agree with Stossel's take. His opinion is... if I can attempt to summarise in a few words, that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, and if you ever give them a 100% guaranteed way out of it, they will run the other direction as fast as they can. I suggest you re-think your opinion of Stossel based on that segment. --- > that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, I'm sorry but I can't really let that slide. A lot of homeless people aren't homeless because they chose that lifestyle and your anecdote doesn't change that fact. A lot of homeless people (roughly half of them) have serious psychological issues that make them barely able to function normally in society, this is why a significant number of war veterans are homeless. Don't make me started on people of all sorts or people that are unable to have a home because of their history (former criminals, illegal aliens, ...). https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-illness-challenge-our-society https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-i... Few people would chose that lifestyle willingly, certainly not "universally". I slept rough 2 times in my life, in dangerous places, and it was already bad, I can't imagine having to do that for months or years.
burkaman 5y ago
Useful context for this story: The original Facebook post with the video and fact check, which you can see without logging in: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157121971976621&id=46675576620 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197... The fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores... The fact checkers response to Stossel's complaint: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
- ikeboy 5y ago
  The last link appears to have been published last year and has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    It addresses the same complaint that the lawsuit is based on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
therealbilly 5y ago
What could go wrong by having the Zuck and his minions fact check? Naturally it's going to lead to chaos. Tech Bros. have no business even going down this road. Stick to what you know and are good at.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Nothing - it isn't chaos, it is the long standing status quo of free speech. Even a complete idiot flat earther can "fact check" NASA and no parade of horribles has come to pass from this.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    Is it still free speech when the "fact checkers" effectively control the public square? When you have no recourse against your speech being hidden behind a "fact check" label? At what point does a private service become a utility? What if Comcast started "fact checking" web content with html injection? Would that still be "free speech"?
- ajkjk 5y ago
  'tech bro' is a pointless pejorative here. Misplaced, too, since it doesn't have anything to do with this.
varelse 5y ago
Before they were against an unregulated free market they were certainly for it...
xqcgrek2 5y ago
NYTimes versus Sullivan needs to be overturned. It was decided in an entirely different era where yellow journalism was an exception rather than the rule.
vmception 5y ago
Can he sue in the UK for a higher probability of success than the US
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
iszomer 5y ago
Aren't fact-checkers another semantic for censors?
- president 5y ago
  Fact check: While it's true that oftentimes fact-checkers use carefully crafted semantic arguments and an appeal to authority to validate or invalidate certain claims to sway opinion, they do not perform any censoring themselves. My favorite is this one, quoted directly from Snopes: > Hillary Clinton used a hammer to smash her mobile phone during an FBI investigation. > What's True: One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them. > What's False: Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer. Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phone-hammer/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon...
  - readams 5y ago
    This sort of thing is sadly very frequent. The thumb is definitely on the scales. Fact checkers show their bias not only in things like this where they bend over backwards to say something is false, but also in what they choose to fact check.
  - scohesc 5y ago
    Lying by omission is the nastiest, dirtiest, disgusting-est (lol) type of lying and misdirection. It's the worst because the people that do it know they're doing it and they know they're doing it to hide the truth in a weaselly-worded way.
- jandrese 5y ago
  In theory a fact checker is a censor that can only censor content found to be not true. A regular censor can remove content for any reason, most commonly because it violates community standards or is politically inconvenient for the people in power. This distinction is important so calling fact checkers a censor is potentially misleading.
frozenlettuce 5y ago
Opinions can't be fact-checked. You can only fact-check stuff that is objective (and the percentage of objective stuff in news is 0)
- kmonsen 5y ago
  In my opinion that is obviously false and extremely silly. So if a news channel says for example the 49ers lost and another won there is a fact there and it is in the news. Similar for budgets, elections etc. Most of news are facts. Plane went missing, new shooting etc.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Absolutely, but calling the man with the opinion a misleader is defamation.
bob229 5y ago
Facebook is trash. Delete it now
rasengan0 5y ago
"In other words, to the question of whether a user was defamed through the announcement that content failed a “fact-check,” this Delaware court didn’t see a problem." John Stossel, defamed? Who is that fool? What a fall from 20/20 TV entertainment days.
- mplewis 5y ago
  In his own words: "Give me a break!"
- nichos 5y ago
  I'm not sure 20/20 is the pinnacle of broadcasting. Either way, he's moved on to new media, like many others, including Larry King.
bobthechef 5y ago
I'm surprised FB, YT, Google, etc and these fact-checking websites don't get sued more often. Or maybe they are, and there's some loophole like "entertainment purposes only". It's horrifying how many people defer to these websites without hesitation, as if they somehow transcend bias, malice, and incompetence. It's the privatized version of the ministry of truth.
fuckchina 5y ago
Let's remind ourselves with something, Facebook is an ad platform, packaged and advertised as a social media platform, and they're making themselves authentic by acting nice doing some pretty much useless fact-check, excuse me? wtf? Are we really gonna let such platform determine what's true or false for people?

202 points by temp8964 5y ago

Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court. Relevant quotes from article: "According to Stossel’s complaint (read here), he published on Facebook a video titled “Government Fueled Fires,” where he took on “sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse,’ and explored a scientific hypothesis … that while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.”" "[On facebook] Further information told readers: “Claim — ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.’ Verdict: misleading.”" If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation.

lovich 5y ago
I don’t see a material difference between claiming “not the primary cause” and “not caused by” when in a short summary
- cwkoss 5y ago
  I don't think Facebook would have been credibly able to rate “not the primary cause” as false - that requires being able to quantify the individual contributions of each factor. To rate “not caused by” is false, they just need to argue it contributed to the slightest extent: it's a much lower bar.
- christophilus 5y ago
  One is possibly true and one is probably false. They're very different statements, and they are about the same length, so there's no excuse to use a misleading phrase simply for the sake of brevity.
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
I have seen the video and it is pretty sensible and definitely helps the debate around the fire. Either ways what caused fires is far from settled, the fact that climate change has anything to do with it is also disputed "fact".
- burkaman 5y ago
  I would recommend reading the fact check as well to get a full sense of what happened here. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores... https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
  - temp8964 5y ago
    The responses are laughably long. If John Stossel made false claims, a few paragraphs should be sufficient. If you need to write two full length articles to explain what happened, you don’t get to label other people as false/misleading.
    - d4mi3n 5y ago
      While I don’t disagree that the responses may be overlong, I think it harms your argument to criticize the format of the response rather than the content. If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with. EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page. Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
      - temp8964 5y ago
beebmam 5y ago
>If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation. This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately. Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation: In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
- xondono 5y ago
  > This is strictly, legally false in the US. GPs point is the only one that’s in question (covers your point 1), the rest should be straightforward to prove: 2- it appears on Facebook 3- they have appointed themselves as fact checkers and supposedly review the video. They have full access to it as does anyone. 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.
  - _jal 5y ago
    This seems to get awfully close to making disagreement actionable. If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      if HN placed a [liar] badge next to their username, would that be a cause for action?
burkaman 5y ago
Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpLIBY9nReU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpLIBY9nReU In includes phrases like: "If all you know is climate scientists then every weather event you blame on climate change. If not climate change, what is to blame? [...] Foolish policies." "You could have had this amount of warming and not had these fires." "Bad policies were the biggest cause of this year's fires, not the slightly warmer climate." "While climate change is a problem, Schellenberger's new book explains it's not an apocalypse: natural disasters aren't getting worse, in fact they're getting better. [...] A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." To summarize: the video heavily implies throughout that the fires are not caused by climate change, and literally says so a couple times. Facebook did not falsely attribute that claim. They didn't fully summarize the entire video, but I don't think the fact check is intended to - it just pulls out one particular claim it wants to address. Aside: this video wasn't that bad, and I don't know if it needed a fact check, but that's not what the lawsuit is about. It did acknowledge that climate change is real and happening. However, it exclusively talked about climate change as a warming phenomenon, which is not the main issue and is a misleading characterization of why climate change is bad. Warming causes many other issues which are much more harmful than just "a small change in temperature". The discussion about forest management was valid and important, it should just be happening at the same time as discussion about climate change. Edit: Here's the original Facebook post where you can see the fact check: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157121971976621&id=46675576620 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197.... I believe this is visible even if you don't have an account. Here's the fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores.... Here's the fact checkers response to the lawsuit: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o....
- PKop 5y ago
  Sounds like the discussion is nuanced. But this nuance is lost by Facebook slapping a label on his content as "misleading", which for all intents and purposes means "wrong". Sounds like defamation to me. Why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
His shtick is to express a contrarian viewpoint on anything and everything. It was mostly harmless 40 years ago. Now it feeds into right wing trolldom and he's notably cozied up to his new core audience. I wouldn't value anything he does these days.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  Being contrarian on climate change is just as bad as being a denier, both result in inaction and increase the consequences.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
coding123 5y ago
"Misleading" seems to be the current politically motivated way to handle the fact checker's tie to either liberal or democratic politics. A fact check should be either true or false.
microtherion 5y ago
> Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court. It's good for society that he's taking somebody to court with ample resources to defend themselves against this utterly frivolous lawsuit. "Disagreeing with an easily triggered blowhard" is not actionable under US law. And, much as you might think it should be in this particular case, I suspect you would find that libel laws more favorable to plaintiffs (as they exist, e.g. in the UK) would often be used against people with whose political views you are sympathetic.
- dimgl 5y ago
  Stossel is far from an easily triggered blowhard.
hackcasual 5y ago
> If Stossel never said "Not by climate change" Masson v. New Yorker Magazine Libel in the US requires more than just inaccuracy, it looks at the substantial truth. So "not by climate change" vs "not only by climate change" is irrelevant for establishing libel
- hartator 5y ago
  I think the big red "Misleading" is the libel.
  - hackcasual 5y ago
    Misleading is opinion though, which in the US can never be libel
    - grayhatter 5y ago
      never is a strong word but even so I could prove something is misleading making it an objective assessment which wouldn't be covered under opinion exclusive.
kenjackson 5y ago
That is simply not substantial enough to win a libel case. This is like someone saying "McDonald's hamburgers are the worst" and then someone else saying, "you said McDonald's hamburgers aren't good". You never said that -- in theory the worst burgers could still be good, but it's not an unreasonable take given no other additional context. The libel is simply not substantial enough.

lovich 5y ago

I can’t find the video to check myself. The articles description of stossel’s claims seem to be exactly what the fact check said was claimed. Is this article biased or is the suit that frivolous?

perceptronas 5y ago
I suspect its this video [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xvc2o4ezk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xvc2o4ezk

yalogin 5y ago

Is this different from someone calling Stossel a fraud in the comments? The platform just added a comment on his post. The more interesting thing for me is to see if this has other ramifications if decided in favor of Stossel.

leereeves 5y ago
It's different because Facebook are shielded from liability for other people's comments that they publish, but not for their own comments.
jetrink 5y ago
An internet commenter is less likely to be successfully sued than Facebook, because it is easier to argue that Stossel suffered reputational damage from an incorrect statement by Facebook, compared to an unspecific insult from a random individual.

perihelions 5y ago

Opinion based on disclosed facts is protected speech [0]. Hard to be defamatory when the facts under dispute (the text of Stossel's post) are public. [0] https://www.rcfp.org/two-courts-reaffirm-protections-opinions-based-disclosed-facts/ https://www.rcfp.org/two-courts-reaffirm-protections-opinion...

xondono 5y ago
To use that defense, Facebook would have to label their fact checks as opinions, something that AFAIK they do not.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > To use that defense, Facebook would have to label their fact checks as opinions, something that AFAIK they do not. Cause these "fact checks" ARE opinions and Facebook should start labelling their own "fact checks" as "Facebook opinion". The cowardice of that system as well... like Facebook can be an arbiter of truth at first place? They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by still profiting from content they deem "falsehoods" while trying to get off the hook regarding mass media critical of Facebook.

djoldman 5y ago

> Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession. [0] This is interesting as it seems that platforms like Twitter and Facebook have avoided liability through Section 230 for content posted on their websites as the platform did not create the content. However, now that they seem to be automatically "fact-checking" and/or otherwise creating content with people as subjects, the platforms may be opening the door to liability. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

wpasc 5y ago
Wow, this is a great point that I hadn't previously considered. These platforms can even conceivably get away with content removal more easily as ToS violations without stepping over the line to become publishers. But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230. I imagine there's a great case to be made that fact checks are platform sponsored content (if a fact check is viewed as an analysis of the content along with verdict [ie. "Misleading"], easy to view that similarly to the plethora of analysis content [reviews, summaries, etc] populating all social media platforms). I'm fascinated to see how this will play out.
- cronix 5y ago
  > But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230 I believe that is why they, and other platforms in a similar position, use 3rd party "fact checkers." To try to legally skirt that. "It's not our content/fact check, it's from this unbiased third party. Don't look at us." They seem to have borrowed "plausible deniability" from some 3 letter agencies since it legally works well for them. > To fight the spread of misinformation and provide people with more reliable information, Facebook partners with independent third-party fact-checkers that are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Since we do not believe that a private company like Facebook should be the arbiters of truth, we rely on fact-checkers to identify, review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Their work enables us to take action and reduce the spread of problematic content across our apps. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking/how-it-works https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-pa...

rdtsc 5y ago

It seems "Independent Fact Checkers" simply parrot whatever other mass media outlets say regardless of facts. Facebook gets to say "look, someone else verified it", knowing that "someone else" here thinks and acts accordingly. If they don't they probably get fired and replaced. Given that this about 2020 California fires, I suspect this had to do with Trump or someone from his administration blaming forest management. And then, naturally, most of the media made fun of that and quickly went to debunk it, including the aforementioned "Independent Fact Checkers". Had Stossel waited a year, and applied the article to the 2021 fires, the fact checkers might have given him a pass.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
"Independent Fact Checkers" is a rhetorical persuasion play. If you think about it, what does "Independent" actually mean? Does it really matter if a cohort of "fact checkers" aren't owned by the same conglomerate when they are cut from the same ideological cloth?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
grayhatter 5y ago
> simply parrot whatever other mass media outlets say regardless of facts. bias aside, are you asserting that generally mass media news is more lies than truths?

pharmakom 5y ago

I was once a fan of Stossel as a more mainstream libertarian voice. However, the segment he did where he slept rough for one night to “prove” that homelessness wasn’t so bad after all was so deeply offensive to me that I haven’t viewed any of his content since.

philovivero 5y ago
I personally know a guy who was homeless for over 15 years. He would soundly agree with Stossel's take. His opinion is... if I can attempt to summarise in a few words, that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, and if you ever give them a 100% guaranteed way out of it, they will run the other direction as fast as they can. I suggest you re-think your opinion of Stossel based on that segment.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  A quick google suggests that his opinion is strictly incorrect and its a myth. The largest reason for homelessness is addiction.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > I personally know a guy who was homeless for over 15 years. He would soundly agree with Stossel's take. His opinion is... if I can attempt to summarise in a few words, that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, and if you ever give them a 100% guaranteed way out of it, they will run the other direction as fast as they can. I suggest you re-think your opinion of Stossel based on that segment. --- > that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, I'm sorry but I can't really let that slide. A lot of homeless people aren't homeless because they chose that lifestyle and your anecdote doesn't change that fact. A lot of homeless people (roughly half of them) have serious psychological issues that make them barely able to function normally in society, this is why a significant number of war veterans are homeless. Don't make me started on people of all sorts or people that are unable to have a home because of their history (former criminals, illegal aliens, ...). https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-illness-challenge-our-society https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-i... Few people would chose that lifestyle willingly, certainly not "universally". I slept rough 2 times in my life, in dangerous places, and it was already bad, I can't imagine having to do that for months or years.

burkaman 5y ago

Useful context for this story: The original Facebook post with the video and fact check, which you can see without logging in: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157121971976621&id=46675576620 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197... The fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores... The fact checkers response to Stossel's complaint: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/ https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...

ikeboy 5y ago
The last link appears to have been published last year and has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
- burkaman 5y ago
  It addresses the same complaint that the lawsuit is based on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

therealbilly 5y ago

What could go wrong by having the Zuck and his minions fact check? Naturally it's going to lead to chaos. Tech Bros. have no business even going down this road. Stick to what you know and are good at.

Nasrudith 5y ago
Nothing - it isn't chaos, it is the long standing status quo of free speech. Even a complete idiot flat earther can "fact check" NASA and no parade of horribles has come to pass from this.
- twofornone 5y ago
  Is it still free speech when the "fact checkers" effectively control the public square? When you have no recourse against your speech being hidden behind a "fact check" label? At what point does a private service become a utility? What if Comcast started "fact checking" web content with html injection? Would that still be "free speech"?
ajkjk 5y ago
'tech bro' is a pointless pejorative here. Misplaced, too, since it doesn't have anything to do with this.

varelse 5y ago

Before they were against an unregulated free market they were certainly for it...

xqcgrek2 5y ago

NYTimes versus Sullivan needs to be overturned. It was decided in an entirely different era where yellow journalism was an exception rather than the rule.

vmception 5y ago

Can he sue in the UK for a higher probability of success than the US

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

iszomer 5y ago

Aren't fact-checkers another semantic for censors?

president 5y ago
Fact check: While it's true that oftentimes fact-checkers use carefully crafted semantic arguments and an appeal to authority to validate or invalidate certain claims to sway opinion, they do not perform any censoring themselves. My favorite is this one, quoted directly from Snopes: > Hillary Clinton used a hammer to smash her mobile phone during an FBI investigation. > What's True: One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them. > What's False: Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer. Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phone-hammer/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon...
- readams 5y ago
  This sort of thing is sadly very frequent. The thumb is definitely on the scales. Fact checkers show their bias not only in things like this where they bend over backwards to say something is false, but also in what they choose to fact check.
- scohesc 5y ago
  Lying by omission is the nastiest, dirtiest, disgusting-est (lol) type of lying and misdirection. It's the worst because the people that do it know they're doing it and they know they're doing it to hide the truth in a weaselly-worded way.
jandrese 5y ago
In theory a fact checker is a censor that can only censor content found to be not true. A regular censor can remove content for any reason, most commonly because it violates community standards or is politically inconvenient for the people in power. This distinction is important so calling fact checkers a censor is potentially misleading.

frozenlettuce 5y ago

Opinions can't be fact-checked. You can only fact-check stuff that is objective (and the percentage of objective stuff in news is 0)

kmonsen 5y ago
In my opinion that is obviously false and extremely silly. So if a news channel says for example the 49ers lost and another won there is a fact there and it is in the news. Similar for budgets, elections etc. Most of news are facts. Plane went missing, new shooting etc.
iammisc 5y ago
Absolutely, but calling the man with the opinion a misleader is defamation.

bob229 5y ago

Facebook is trash. Delete it now

rasengan0 5y ago

"In other words, to the question of whether a user was defamed through the announcement that content failed a “fact-check,” this Delaware court didn’t see a problem." John Stossel, defamed? Who is that fool? What a fall from 20/20 TV entertainment days.

mplewis 5y ago
In his own words: "Give me a break!"
nichos 5y ago
I'm not sure 20/20 is the pinnacle of broadcasting. Either way, he's moved on to new media, like many others, including Larry King.

bobthechef 5y ago

I'm surprised FB, YT, Google, etc and these fact-checking websites don't get sued more often. Or maybe they are, and there's some loophole like "entertainment purposes only". It's horrifying how many people defer to these websites without hesitation, as if they somehow transcend bias, malice, and incompetence. It's the privatized version of the ministry of truth.

fuckchina 5y ago

Let's remind ourselves with something, Facebook is an ad platform, packaged and advertised as a social media platform, and they're making themselves authentic by acting nice doing some pretty much useless fact-check, excuse me? wtf? Are we really gonna let such platform determine what's true or false for people?