My bad, I didn't realize that Facebook's fact-checking worked that way, I thought this stuff was an in-house decision just using 3rd-party sources to help infor

My bad, I didn't realize that Facebook's fact-checking worked that way, I thought this stuff was an in-house decision just using 3rd-party sources to help inform it. Thanks for the correction. Given that information, I should revise: Section 230 will protect Facebook from liability for a 3rd-party-driven fact check, but even if it didn't this still doesn't look like it rises to the level of defamation for Facebook. So even if Section 230 was repealed, Facebook would still likely win this case (although Section 230 applicability will probably allow them to dismiss it faster). I don't want people to think that this is obviously defamation, but Section 230 happens to be blocking Facebook from consequences. This being 3rd-party content makes Facebook's position much stronger, but I still think they would most likely win this case even if Zuckerberg himself had labeled the article as misleading under the direction of Facebook's board.