3 ms·

> Stossel is getting press time by suing but he’s a public figure and suing Facebook because a fact checking service elicited an opinion/notation that didn’t ha

by shkkmo 5y ago

> Stossel is getting press time by suing but he’s a public figure and suing Facebook because a fact checking service elicited an opinion/notation that didn’t have the nuance he wanted is laughable. Really? From his filing it sounds like Stossel has explicit evidence that the fact checkers admitted that he didn't make any false claims and still refused to correct their speech. We'll see if that counts as "deliberate malice" or no, but it does seem to be a case with much stronger claims than Owens'

mcguire 5y ago
On the other hand, from the evidence presented in the filing I would guess Facebook didn't act with deliberate malice; some automated or sound-bite-level manual system caught a bit of the video that did make a false statement and hit the label button. (I haven't seen the original video, but from what I have read I don't think it could be done without a "some people believe X but they're wrong" style statement, X being the false statement.) So the question is, does Facebook's gross incompetence at fact-checking satisfy the negligence part of the malice definition?