3 ms·
As long as fact-checkers can be sued for incorrect and malicious fact checking and fact-checking isn't grounds for censorship and information suppression, I wou
by lenkite 5y ago
As long as fact-checkers can be sued for incorrect and malicious fact checking and fact-checking isn't grounds for censorship and information suppression, I would be on-board with you.
The most that fact-checkers do when they are egregiously and utterly incorrect is a correction to an eye-rolling "needs context" label.
The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously slanted. One set of strict standards for my opposition, another set of lax, wink-wink standards for myself - modern day "fact-checking". Any criticism of the same that becomes popular results in being banned.
- CharlesW 5y ago> The standards of objectivity of fact-checkers (who are all left-leaning partisans) are ridiculously slanted. To anyone for whom facts that don't agree with their worldview are signs of a conspiracy, fact checking is pointless anyway. All fact checks that show they're wrong are just "proof" of the conspiracy.
- concordDance 5y agoDo you disagree that the vast majority of famous fact checkers lean left, are partisan or have slanted coverage? There's little need for a conspiracy here, just the Red Tribe distrust of institutions making them less likely to support fact checkers. And fact checkers get their money either from donations or from ads/clicks, so the incentive structure will push them left as that's the only way to survive in a competitive environment.
- was8309 5y agoPlease provide an example of where Brooke Binkowski is egregiously and utterly incorrect. She's a hero to me and I'm leery of having hero's.
- colordrops 5y agoThe comment you are responding to has nothing to do with whomever this person is. It's about fact checking as a general endeavor.