> 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 th

> 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...